Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 2 July 4 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of screamo groups

List of screamo groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Superseded by Category:Screamo musical groups. The list's definition of screamo is narrowly defined OR suggesting bias against many groups that are commonly termed screamo. Chubbles 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete as redundant to the category. Personally, I would categorize screamo as a whole under [[Category:Musical genres that suck pond scum]], but that's just me... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Genre categorization of artists is extremely dependent on POV and this article just reflects the creators' POV Corpx 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all lists of bands by genre as OR. Punkmorten 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 14:11, 7 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 The result was keep all. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closing)

[edit] World Indoor Football League (2007) and teams

Non-notable football league, I only got about 900 direct google hits. I been prodding several of these semi-pro leagues, but unlike them, all the articles on the teams has been created as well. The other pages listed on this AFD is Augusta Spartans, Columbus Lions, Daytona Beach Thunder, Osceola Ghostriders, Carolina Bombers, Charleston Sandsharks, Rome Renegades, and World Indoor Bowl. Delete all Jaranda wat's sup 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Bigtop 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia has lots of articles about professional sports ventures, minor baseball leagues, defunct hockey leagues, etc., and, believe it or not, there is an entire subculture of "sports historians" who keep track of this stuff. Probably the articles about the various teams can safely be deleted, but even this venture is notable enough to be kept. The Javan Camon incident, where the player died on the field, was national news. This is an existing organization, which makes this a strong keep. If it were defunct, it would probably still need to be kept. Mandsford 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a semi-pro arena football league though, even less than a minor league, the defuct hockey leagues article were minor league hockey leagues, not semi-pro ones. Several semi-pro leagues has been deleted before I remember, the league is only known for the death of the player (about half of the google hits were on his death), and the league reliable sources only come from his death and from the team site so finding Reliable sources for the league is a issue. It's not a completely professional league, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid keep agruement. Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I looked through their site and found that player salaries are "$250. Per game plus $50. Win bonus". I think this tells a lot about the notability of the league. Corpx 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry not convinced, half of them are from the 1988 league that never played, and should be deleted as well. The rest involves the death of that football player, and one sentence headlines on the local newspaper. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. For sources, go to this page on OurSportsCentral.com [1] It has plenty of sources for the World Indoor Football League. And Jaranda still hasn't answered my question about deleting the other indoor football leagues. Tom Danson 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, per the article this is about four teams that began play in 2007. Not sure if WP:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles applies but it's close. Jeepday (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I don't see any reason whatsoever to delete any of the minor league sports material on Wikipedia, and the arguments above don't sway me. The entries are useful for research into the hobby. I'd further suggest that, if anything, World Indoor Football League should redirect to the 2007 league, since the 1988 proposed league never even played. HipsterDad 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't minor leagues though, it's semi-pro, it's much different Jaranda wat's sup 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That's just about the finest example of hair-splitting I've ever seen.HipsterDad 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The players of course are not notable, but that does not mean the teams are non notable. There are tens of thousands of such instances: a company is notable, but not all the executives; a school, but not the students. This is on the same level as much similar recreational material. DGG 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Even semi-pro leagues can be notable, such as the Empire Football League; if this one were defunct, I could understand, but there's no indication that it's insolvent. Sports, as with television, recorded music and other entertainment, has a lower threshhold of notability or encyclopedic content than other subjects in Wikipedia. Mandsford 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If you're going to delete this, then why not delete Continental Indoor Football League or American Indoor Football Association? While you're at it, how about Intense Football League? (The WIFL is as notable as all these other leagues). Better yet, why not the National Indoor Football League or the Eastern Indoor Football League (The WIFL is much more professional than these two.) This AfD is pure nonsense. Tom Danson 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The league exists, played all of its scheduled games in 2007, as well as its playoff & championship games. I don't understand why it is even being considered for deletion. The fact that it is a legitimate entity should be enough to warrant its place here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs1964 (talk • contribs) — Dubs1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ,
  • Strong Keep This league actually has slightly higher pay than every league that is considered lower than the AFL, including af2, so you can throw out that issue. Also, 3529 people showed up at the championship game. You don't see that many people attending semi-pro football games. You have a different view of semi-pro than a majority of minor league sports fans, who consider pay-to-play leagues semi-pro. I think that should be taken into context, as most of your argument consists of saying that the article should be deleted because the league is semi-pro by your definition. TNT44 5 July 2007
  • Keep League and teams have satisfied notability requirements. Alansohn 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Among indoor leagues, this is one of the more well-run ones. Although they started with 4 teams, this league will likely have more teams next year. One final suggestion is when checking for information on sports leagues is to look at individual teams. Many times the teams will get coverage in local newspapers or local news and rarely will the league they play in be mentioned. Below the major league level, you will find teams are generally independent of their league and switch leagues. I can tell by your deletion request you haven't attempted this. I did a google search for one team (Columbus Lions) and got more responses that don't mention this league (I only checked 2 pages though).Mateinsixtynine 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: In addition, of the 6 team pages in the articles for deletion, 5 were teams that played in other leagues. This should prevent those from being deleted and suggests also the person nominating didn't research the AfD very well. As for the article on the World Indoor Bowl, I think this could be deleted as it offers nothing special that can't be contained in the main WIFL article.Mateinsixtynine 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I suspect that many of those in the "Delete" camp are misinformed regarding the sport of indoor football, and its business model; allowing prejudices about what constitutes "real" football to cloud judgement. Do some research first, please. monkeythong 5 July 2007
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The sport is legitimate and is notable. Dagomar 04:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It is an upstart organization with history. The number of Google hits should not justify deletion. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 12:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I have read the league's website. It is a viable league that completed all of its games. Unfortunately a player died on field during the season and they got some publicity from that. However, seeing as it is a currently functioning league, albeit a 'minor' league, there is no reason to delete it. Defunct leagues still have pages on Wikipedia, and there are those of us who have an interest in minor league sports that appreciate having this as a resource to find information that would not be easily found elsewhere. Also, there are players in these 'minor' football leagues who move up the ranks to the Arena Football League, or even the NFL. Definitely keep this article. Steve C
  • Keep all. The teams are notable, doubly since some of them came over from other leagues. Could the league's article do with improvement? Likely, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As far as it being minor/semi-pro, the standard for notability in the English soccer system went further down the line than this league did. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I cover one of the teams in this league for the local paper. These teams are not "semi-pro", they are professional in every sense -- they are paid to play football. The WIFL was a 4-team league in 2007 only out of business necessity, it will be expanding to at least 6 teams in 2008. The Osceola Ghostriders averaged over 1,000 fans a game, which was probably the lowest of the 4 teams. As a member of the National Indoor Football League (now THERE's a league begging for deletion) they had an owner who didn't pay the players for all their games in 2005 and had a league commissioner essentially throw them out of the playoffs in 2006 when Osceola's ownership called bull$@#% on the NIFL. There were no stories of that in the WIFL, which will build on its impressive first-year endeavor. The WIFL is more legitimate than leagues that have pages that you overlook for deletion. Jaxen 9-9-07
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Mathew Smith

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

Football player with no club, has never played a pro game Simpo 23:24, 3 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of eruvin

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

Listcruft. In fact would qualify for speedy deletion as being nothing but linkspam. (M0RD00R, please put this on your own web site. A link to it from the eruv article will almost certainly be accepted.) -- RHaworth 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nominator. Wikipedia is not a guidebook Corpx 01:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep . Eruv is a religious structure of significant importance to the Jewish community, therefore the list is certainly encyclopedic. This list is also very educational, because quite often this structure is not plainly seen and many non-Jewish people live inside eruv not knowing about it. Linkspam concern can be was addressed by reformatting. Cheers. M0RD00R 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If we have List of cities with defensive walls and many other "List of cities with..." then I don't see why this article shouldn't be here. Number 57 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an informative list, but further information should be added about the entries--possibly sponsorship and a better indication of the area covered--then it might be more clearly encyclopedic. DGG 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This article definitely can be expanded. While sponsorship is of secondary importance, detailed information about covered area would make article much better. Information about organizations running maintenance of eruv, establishment dates also should be added.M0RD00R 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - encyclopedic and educational. Stylistic issues can be addressed, but I see no reason to delete. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mentioning some prominent or unusual examples in eruv, sure, but having an exhaustive list would be the job of guidebook, which Wikipedia isn't. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another example of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The linkspam claim is utterly irrelevant, as these are links to the organizations that have maintain and monitor these eruvin. The article is encyclopedic, categorized by continent/county/state or province/location and provides over 70 sources for the eruvs listed. Given the importance of an eruv in each of the communities that have them, and the opposition that some have faced as a part of their construction, this list serves a rather constructive purpose. Notability for the list has been demonstrated. Alansohn 01:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This was originally a part of the eruv article, but frankly it was getting unwieldy so this was split off. Frankly it's better here as it's own article. --Bachrach44 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep With any discussion of eruvim (installation can sometime be contraversail both within the Jewish community and with the community at large) president of previous eruvim is an important factor. The list would be must more valueable it it listed (or perhaps was ordered by) year of construction. There are also historical Eruvim in some cities in Europe. Jon513 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Since I myself am from a community that doesn't have an eruv, I can tell you that such a thing indeed is a distinctive and noteworthy feature of a city. I see the external links as inline citations, though non-primary sources would be better. A better introduction with a clearer statement of the inclusion criteria and more wikification is needed to fully conform with WP:LISTS, but it still definitely passes WP:SAL#Appropriate topics for lists. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep important and needs improvement. --Shuki 17:46, 5 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 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Tucker

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

Article about a non-notable porn star. Prod removed by anon. Reason given on discussion page (by the article's author is The person in question exists and the links to imdb and afdb can be followed to check its authenticity. Ispy1981 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:PORNBIO.--Ispy1981 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. I thought for sure "Black Street Hooker Cream Pies #5" would be a surprise write-in candidate for the best picture Oscar, but it just didn't happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It was a reasonably good film, but lacked the emotional depth and complexity of the original Black Street Hooker Cream Pies. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I was concerned the series would have nowhere to go after the third chapter, since the author of the original novels had conceived them as a trilogy. The fifth was a triumphal return to form, although it's unfortunate that Sir Ian McKellan declined to reprise his role as Horny Pizza Delivery Guy #3. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 5 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 00:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Viaje De Citrino

El Viaje De Citrino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A prod template which I put on this article was removed by the author. This article is about a non-notable book, and was created by the author of the book in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. It will be especially difficult to maintain this article without any independent, reliable sources, because its only active editor will likely be one with such a conflict of interest. BassoProfundo 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - ZERO results for that title on google! Corpx 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Ditto of nom and Corpx Jeepday (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Corpx. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:22, 5 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 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Carpenter Quiner

Joseph Carpenter Quiner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Maternal grandfather of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clarityfiend 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless death at Battle of Shiloh was notable. WP:NOT a family tree of Laura Ingalls Wilder past main characters in her popular book/TV series. Also, unreliable sources. Canuckle 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability does not extend to one's uncle! Corpx 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete Jeepday (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would support as a keep if a major character in the series. But as he wasn't...Balloonman 03:44, 4 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 Already redirected by User:Red Director (lol on the username). NawlinWiki 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landsford and Laura Ingalls

Landsford and Laura Ingalls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Paternal grandparents of guess who. Clarityfiend 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seem to be minor characters. Were they portrayed by notable actors? Canuckle 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, these are actual people, but their only claims to notability are being the grandparents of LIW (Notability is not inherited) and inspiring novel characters (not a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself, and your argument applies when we're talking about an article about the characters. Morgan Wick 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I know who they are but believe that inspiring novel characters (particularly ones that have the same name in a semi-fictional novel) can be a sufficient claim of notability. Canuckle 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete Jeepday (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and not an active part of the TV series.Balloonman 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 7 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almanzo Wilder

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

Husband of Laura Ingalls Wilder Clarityfiend 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination. Didn't account for the books. Clarityfiend 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Main character subject of historical-fiction biography Farmer Boy, characters based on real-person appeared in other books/TV, and is focus of non-profit, historical society. Canuckle 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This also talks about a real, non-notable person. You really want a refocus. See my response in the AfD above. Morgan Wick 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. No I don't want a refocus. Thanks very much for the offer. See my response above. If you have a link to a WP guideline/policy that says inspiring a character in a semi-fictional novel and being portrayed by notable actors and having a historical society dedicated to you isn't notable, that I could use. Canuckle 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important person. Subject of at least one book.--Jdavid2008 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | Update: There is also a French article on him, it seems they also thought he was important enough.
  • Keep Major character in the TV series---other major characters of significant TV series have their own pages, and I believe this is appropriate. Although, I'll be honest, my vote would be stronger if this was more about the character than the real person!Balloonman 03:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You do realize we're discussing real people who were portrayed in a TV series many decades after the books about them were standard fare? Just checking. The TV series doesn't seem like it should be the metric here to me. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I do, thus the comment that this is a rare case that I think more content on the character---I don't think the Almanzo was notable enough on his own right, but a reoccuring role in a long lasting TV series earns the entry a keep---just as it does Starbuck, Margaret Houlihan, and a number of other TV characters that was notable.Balloonman 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Balloonman, the article serves as both a bio of the real-life person and an article about the character. So if you want it to be "more about the character than the real person" just add content! Canuckle 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Not a subject I'm interested enough in on researching...Balloonman 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This one of the Wilders is certainly relevant--co-main character of the entire series in the fiction. DGG 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although we really should have a List of characters article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable enough, and I must admit I'm baffled as to how this got an AfD to begin with. -WarthogDemon 04:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not my fault! That mean old Nellie Oleson made me do it.Clarityfiend 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not intending to start an arguement; purely mentioning this for the response: Nellie may have actually been nice. :P -WarthogDemon 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whether she's naughty or nice, Nellie Oleson's bio needs help...although I do wish more users were bold enough to lead off a bio with "manipulative, witty, sharp-tongued..." Canuckle 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The historical/novel/TV thing complicates discussion, but he was the main character of one book and an important character in half the rest of the series. --Zeborah 10:01, 4 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. NawlinWiki 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grace Ingalls

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

Sister of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clarityfiend 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not the Ingals' family tree! Corpx 02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete Jeepday (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major character in the TV series---other major characters of significant TV series have their own pages, and I believe this is appropriate. Although, I'll be honest, my vote would be stronger if this was more about the character than the real person!Balloonman 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Being related to a notable person is not in itself a claim to notability. GassyGuy 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The historical/novel/TV thing complicates discussion, but she was an important character in the book series. --Zeborah 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with above. PMA 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Important character in book series Pittising 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:51, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Ingalls

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

Sister of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clarityfiend 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete Jeepday (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major character in the TV series---other major characters of significant TV series have their own pages, and I believe this is appropriate. Although, I'll be honest, my vote would be stronger if this was more about the character than the real person!Balloonman 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The historical/novel/TV thing complicates discussion, but she was an important character in the book series. --Zeborah 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with above. PMA 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Important character in the book Pittising 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep this important person, important to the books and in her own right! -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.91.253 (talk • contribs).

  • Keep "Sister of Laura Ingalls Wilder" doesn't really sound like a reason to delete this article; in fact, it helps make the article notable. I say a firm keep.. P.B. Pilhet 03:28, 8 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Ingalls

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

Sister of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clarityfiend 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination. What can I say, I overlooked the books. Clarityfiend 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not just sister of author. Was basis of character in her sister's book and portrayed in the TV series. Note that the first claim to fame for actress Melissa Sue Anderson was portraying Mary. Canuckle 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete. Note the Bibliography Laura - The Life of Laura Ingalls WIlder. Donald Zochert, Avon Books, 1976 Jeepday (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major character in the TV series---other major characters of significant TV series have their own pages, and I believe this is appropriate. Although, I'll be honest, my vote would be stronger if this was more about the character than the real person!Balloonman 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The historical/novel/TV thing complicates discussion, but she was an important character in the book series. --Zeborah 10:03, 4 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 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freddy Ingalls

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

Brother of Laura Ingalls Wilder, nothing more. Clarityfiend 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I would say that any notability derives from sister. --Stormbay 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems to have the least claim to notability. His info could be captured on other articles about the series or family. Canuckle 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not the Ingals' family tree! Corpx 02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete
  • Delete a baby during the TV series...Balloonman 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't appear in the books, apparently only a baby in the TV series, and achieved little of note in his ten months of life.... --Zeborah 10:04, 4 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Ingalls

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

Only notable for being the mother of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clarityfiend 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Upon further consideration, I wish to withdraw the nomination, not because she is the inspiration for a TV character (since it's not about the character) or may have been the first non-native (unsourced), but because she was a major part of a notable book series. Clarityfiend 06:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. "She may have been the first non-Native child born in what is now the Greater Milwaukee area." plus was portrayed in famous book and TV series. Canuckle 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major character in the TV series---other major characters of significant TV series have their own pages, and I believe this is appropriate. Although, I'll be honest, my vote would be stronger if this was more about the character than the real person!Balloonman 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or Delete Jeepday (talk) 03:50, 4 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Ingalls

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

Notable only for being the father of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clarityfiend 22:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I withdraw the nomination (same reason as given for Caroline Ingalls above). Clarityfiend 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Portrayed a number of times by notable actors. Arguably the most well-known settler to the general public due to success of daughter's book. Canuckle 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major character in the TV series---other major characters of significant TV series have their own pages, and I believe this is appropriate. Although, I'll be honest, my vote would be stronger if this was more about the character than the real person!Balloonman 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder or to Little House on the Prairie or Delete. Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work.. While not a fictional character, the television program is a work of fiction. Jeepday (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't forget the second half of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) : If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article. The question then becomes who are the major characters. That combined with the real life individuals piece IMHO warrants articles for the more major characters.Balloonman 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct Balloonman, 'If an encyclopedic treatment of a character, etc In this case it does not. The current article has about 1 paragraph worth of "treatment" on the character separate from what should be covered in the main article. Jeepday (talk) 13:38, 5 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexyss K. Tylor

Alexyss K. Tylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tenuous WP:BIO claims of authoring a non-notable book and a "short lived cable access series". The claims are supported only by two YouTube links, a blog interview, and news story from Associated Content (one step above a blog). I will admit that the remix of a Tylor show is NSFW hi-larious. — Scientizzle 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment zero news hits. Tons of blog hits. Not sure what that means. But, by the letter of notability guidelines, no news hits means not notable. Capmango 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. She seems to have become the subject of a low-grade internet meme that ridicules her show & "Vagina Power" mantra. I think there could be some WP:BLP concerns to consider as well... — Scientizzle 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of independent mentions anywhere Corpx 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There are independent mentions all over the place. What there aren't are reliable mentions. Capmango 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources and nothing else to denote notability, unless someone wants to take up the argument that dlisted.com's "Hot Slut of the Week" and "Hot Slut of the Month" are notable honors.--Ispy1981 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:54, 7 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. Jinian 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Royal

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

Non-notable football player who plays for the minor leagues of Arena Football of all places, the odds of making it big is very low, fails WP:BIO, prod removed, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Not sure if there is a wikiproject for American Football similar to WP:BASEBALL, but in the absence of sport-specific guidelines, the WP:N criteria for notability for athletes is that they play in a fully-professional league. AF2 appears to be a fully professional league, so appears to me to meet guidelines. Capmango 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The Af2 is the minor leagues of Arena Football, do we keep articles on minor league players, most of the time no. Fully professional is the Arena Football League not AF2 Jaranda wat's sup 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I searched to see if he was nominated for any kind of award in his collegic days, but the closest I could find was a Defensive POY in the MAC conference Corpx 02:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Player will play in the WP:AFL at the very least next season. This has been confirmed. His agent is working setting up tryouts with NFL teams. He is the best player in the AF2 right now, and while some would not consider this to be a major accomplishment, being the best of the players that some would consider to be mediocre, is still an accomplishment greater than I'll ever be able to claim. His stats posted on this wikipedia listing are legitimate and can be researched at www.af2.com. As someone stated below, the AF2 is a fully professional league and there are good players and future stars currently playing in the league. Chris only ended up in the AF2 because his college coach screwed him over, not because he's not a great player. How can the best player in the history of any league not deserve a page on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.247.186 (talk • contribs) — 144.232.247.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sorry that type of info needs to be sourced with multiple, non-trivial newspaper coverage, not by the agent himself, until then he is just another non-notable minor league football player that fails WP:BIO. Jaranda wat's sup 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per WP:N, without specific, multiple, independent sources, the person does not meet notability standards. Also, per WP:CBALL, subjects cannot assume notability on what "might" happen in the future. The user is encouraged to re-add the content if and when such notability is sourced and verifiable. ++Arx Fortis 02:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There's no doubt that one could easily come up with multiple independent sources for this person, as with anyone else who plays sports at even a semi-pro level (notwithstanding that this particular article doesn't list any). That's why the notability guidelines for athletes are stricter. Capmango 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I've had no luck finding enough information to make the subject pass WP:N. He's got to have some type of non-trivial coverage before I would be willing to reconsider. Trusilver 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health care '08

Health care '08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

original research that is not encyclopedic, simply an indiscriminate collection of information on candidates' views. Was originally proded (with myself providing a {{prod2}}), but creator removed. --YbborTalk 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per concerns regarding original research. Addhoc 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced this is an indiscriminate collection of information, but WP:NOT a voter's guide. eaolson 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Information comes from the candidates web sites, so does not constitute OR. It's not an indiscriminate collection, either. The second section, on $contributions from healthcare sources, may be considered OR. Capmango 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Candidates Web sites would be considered primary sources, and hence not allowed. --YbborTalk 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per concerns regarding orginal research, particularly with unsourced contributions. As for "according to campaign websites", WP:NOT a voter's guide. However, an article Health care in the 2008 US elections could be kept if sourced appropriately. Canuckle 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete At present, content can be placed in respective candidates' pages, or the presidential election page Recurring dreams 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Kripto 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Health care in the 2008 US Presidential Election. This actually is encyclopedic - it just has the misfortune of being created by a user not familiar with policies. Most of the information is sourced, and whatever isn't can be removed. The Evil Spartan 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is potential here, but there is not current article worth keeping. It can be brought back when someone with the expertise is willing to put considerable effort into the task. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Saucer Restaurant

Flying Saucer Restaurant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This restaurant fails WP:CORP. First section of the article is an ad for the restaurant, but without any verifiable claim towards notability. An open point is the claim about the TVO flying saucer contest: That might count towards notability, depending on details, but I didn't find any sources. The last section, added later by a different author, is not an ad but rather criticism, but it is unsourced and not suited for an encyclopedia. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete NN, per nom. MKoltnow 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom . Canuckle 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could be delete but someone in Niagara Falls should look up if the place is a designated landmark or if it was designed by some well known local architect. I think an article on Shell gas stations that looks like a shell or the original McDonald's design is notable and is an article. Fineday 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP as per nom.
  • Keep, scrolling through google seems to indicate the restaurant is very well known in its local vicinity, and now the owner seems to be part of a scheme to offer $1,000,000 to the first person to photograph a real UFO, [2][3], which in my wikipinion would make it notable. Design could also be of notability if someone could find a source Guycalledryan 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hm. Being known in the vicinity would to be a reason for inclusion, in my point of view - that would apply to millions of restaurants. About the $1 million price - it all seems a bit dubious to me. Only the first source seems reliable, and that one is not independent, being from the show that actually offers the prize. Does someone know more about "TalkStar Radio", the station which hosts that show (apparently filling their night slots)? --B. Wolterding 17:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment despite the rather baffling and unexplained reference to the 'notorious' 99-cent special, and we could really cut pretty much all of the commercial description, I'd rather not see this article deleted because it sounds like a fantastic example of Googie architecture. Can anyone get a picture? --Mcginnly | Natter 08:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing really here to make it notable. No sources, the sources I've been able to locate don't make it appear to be anything more than a place of local repute. Plus I don't feel that the million dollar publicity stunt really makes it notable. Now, if they DID pay someone a million for a UFO photo, we might be in business. Trusilver 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is really not notable, the only reason for inclusion ould be if they actually paid someone $1,000,000 for taking a picture of a UFO. However, since that is probably not likely any time in the future, I would vote for deletion. Neranei 20:49, 11 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 00:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headington Sharks FC

Headington Sharks FC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable youth football club. Number 57 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete with probably a small mention in the city's/region's article.--JForget 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Canuckle 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not mention in the article on Headington - the area probably has dozens of youth sports clubs/organisations, there is nothing especially notable about this one.... ChrisTheDude 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable youth team. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable youth team. Robotforaday 17:01, 5 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, to be cleaned up, redirectified or merged as consensus decides. Daniel Case 06:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mice in fiction

Mice in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Clarityfiend 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep the article needs significant clean up, but it is already tagged as having too much trivia, etc. This is a perfectly reasonable subject for a wikipedia article. Capmango 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Campango. From Burns and Kafka to Mickey and Ralph (from Beverly Cleary's TM&TM) to modern day, mice as portrayed in fiction are vastly different from the unsanitary pests that can get one in trouble with the Health Department. Needs to be fixed, but encylopedic enough for World Book.
  • Keep. From Mickey Mouse to Ratatouille (film) -oh another editor beat me to it- this could be a legit article, if cleaned-up. Canuckle 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge with List of fictional mice. Large body of significant works with mice as pivotal characters in them. Chubbles 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as redundant to List of fictional mice, which is itself a bit of a shite heap, but will ultimately be better than this compilation of "oh look, a mouse" tripe. Whatever happens, that "mice don't really like cheese" intro must go. Otto4711 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Those two articles should be merged. Chubbles 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    If we merge, we should merge into Mice in fiction. There should be more information than just a raw list; a general discussion of how mice appear in fiction (and starting when and why etc), is good encyclopaedia information. I agree that "real mice are not like fictional mice" is probably too obvious to need stating. Capmango 01:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge/redirect to List of fictional mice or vice versa... Ranma9617 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia shouldnt be catalog everytime any fictional piece mentions an animal! Corpx 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per consensus of majority keeps above and also because there are a good deal of mice in fiction to make such a list convenient and relevant. --164.107.222.23 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can find "a good deal" of any animal in fiction, but that doesnt mean we should catalog every use Corpx 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup and possible merger per above. Can avoid being listcruft by citing RS that talk about this as a topic (i.e., writing the list is therefore not OR-by-synthesis). See for example [6] DMacks 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with possible merger per DMacks. Carlossuarez46 16:14, 5 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 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guildford FC 2000

Guildford FC 2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable U-14 football club. Number 57 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete completely non-notable club no different to literally hundreds of others up and down the UK ChrisTheDude 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per ChrisTheDude, non notable.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Youth team -- BanRay 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable club. Robotforaday 17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moby-Dick in popular culture

Moby-Dick in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is just a list of loosely related terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Everyone knows that Moby Dick is famous and constantly referenced. We don't need an article about it. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The cultural influence of Moby Dick should be covered by a short section in the main article that places selected examples in context. Piccadilly 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Given what has been happening with these types of articles (Dr. Strangelove, Ride of the Valkyries, etc), I don't hold out much hope that my voice is going to be heard here, but I find these lists insightful and informative. I think wikipedia is going to be diminished when they are all gone, but the consensus seems to be building that this site is classier without them. Capmango 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break, Wick. I have weighed in with delete on tons of stuff that I personally find interesting, and plenty of stuff that I personally like, and that's clearly not what I'm saying here. Wikipedia has included lists of trivial (but often intriguing) information for years, and now we're on a big purge, and I'm not convinced that Wikipedia will be better off when we're done. We all decide here what does and does not belong in this encyclopedia. Somehow we have decided that if something qualifies as "trivia" then no serious person wants to find out about it. But knowing the trivia about a subject aids in a holistic understanding of the subject, and we are diminishing the value of this encyclopedia by purging it all. Capmango 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should have a centralized discussion page on the "in popular culture" issue and related ones, because right now it's really cluttering AfD. Morgan Wick 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add an addendum too. If Wikipedia were a place for every single thing a "serious person" wants to find out about, it would basically be the entire World Wide Web. (I should make an essay, Wikipedia is not the entire World Wide Web.) You say that "we are diminishing the value of this encyclopedia by purging it all" but we're not necessarily purging it. {{Trivia}} says that "content should be integrated into the main content of the article or deleted" (paraphrasing, and emphasis added). That's really the best solution on trivia info. To your larger point, hanging in the background. First of all, consensus can change. But you seem to think the changes aren't good, not that they shouldn't exist at all. What's more, you seem to be basing your opinion in your own sentimental attachment to "in popular culture" articles. WP:NOT#IINFO is policy, and the fact that articles are being nominated for deletion under that policy this late doesn't mean that they aren't warranted. Just because the community has let these pages/sections lie for so long does not, in itself, mean they're acceptable (see WP:EFFORT). Personally, I think this sort of stuff could go into a separate web site, probably even a wiki. And I don't think we should get rid of "in popular culture" sections entirely, but impose a statute of limitations on them. Morgan Wick 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If I have given the impression that my motivation for keeping these articles is sentiment, then I really have not been communicating clearly.Capmango 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you haven't, at least not on this AfD, where your arguments have come down to "I find these lists insightful and informative" (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL), "I think wikipedia is going to be diminished when they are all gone" (subjective opinion, and also comes down to ILIKEIT), "Wikipedia has included lists of trivial (but often intriguing) information for years, and now we're on a big purge, and I'm not convinced that Wikipedia will be better off when we're done" (again, subjective opinion, "we've always had these articles so we shouldn't delete them" - a case of circular logic), and finally, something that at least sounds convincing: "Somehow we have decided that if something qualifies as "trivia" then no serious person wants to find out about it. But knowing the trivia about a subject aids in a holistic understanding of the subject, and we are diminishing the value of this encyclopedia by purging it all." But this also doesn't address the concerns that lists of trivia are, under the status quo, indiscriminate collections of information. And in fact it was these two sentences that was part of the reason why I thought you were !voting on sentimental grounds (though nowhere near as big as your vouching for it on the grounds that "we've always had it"), with your romantic portrayal of trivia - which doesn't really explain how it "aids in a holistic understanding of the subject". You don't think having a list of every single time someone has made a reference to Moby-Dick is repetitive and unnecessary? You really think whatever-barely-notable thing making a passing quote from the book "aids in a holistic understanding of" it, so much that you will fight to the death for it, even though it may have been done a gazillion times before? Do you think Wikipedia needs to have every scrap of information on anything within its pages, no matter how obscure or ridiculously minutious? (Whew, I think I need to calm down. Don't take this the wrong way, 'kay?) Morgan Wick 07:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, time for me to give up. What you are hearing is so far off from what I'm trying to say that I don't think trying to rephrase it any more is going to help. If I had any reason to suspect nefarious motives on your part, I would think you were trying to twist my words around on purpose, but since you would have no motivation for that, I'll again assume I just can't communicate clearly. Moby Dick is certainly not that important to me; I don't even like the book.Capmango 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nom First vote says "everyone knows about it..." That goes for a lot of things that are legit articles on WP. On these AfDs, I say clean up the minor influences and keep the major Orson Welles adaptations and the like. If it's then too brief to keep as a standalone, merge back into main Moby Dick article. Canuckle 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • How does that deal with the issue that the article is an indiscriminate collection of loosely associated terms. Becoming shorter and merging it doesn't solve that problem. I don't have a problem with a section on the main article detailing the influence of the work, but there's nothing in this article that will help there because this is just a list. Jay32183 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge direct adaptations of the novel to Moby-Dick and redirect. The only notable information on the page are the adaptations. If merging that information would make the main article too long, then edit everything but the adaptations out of this article and rename to Adaptations of Moby-Dick. Similar to what was done with Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. The adaptations of the work are notable. The "oh look, a white whale" spot-every-reference remainder of the article is not. Otto4711 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect per Otto. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, because it concerns a culturally significant book and so can be only improved and will remain relevant. --164.107.222.23 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia, which these lists and groupings often are, don't generally add any real understanding or meaning to articles. If anything really is significant to the understanding of Moby Dick it can be made part of the main article.--Crossmr 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the (admittedly few) values of trivia lists is that they can introduce cross-references between seemingly unconnected topics. I agree that Wikipedia should not become a mere list of trivia, and am strongly in favor of keeping trivia lists separate from main articles. However, the almost serendipitous addition of a reverse link from target entries (through "What links here") would appears to add some value to those other entries. For example, the meaningful reference to Pequod in Just Cause (video game) does not appear in that article (yet) -- it only becomes apparent via "What links here" because of the Moby Dick trivia entry. I suggest that this sort of thing subtly improves the encyclopedic nature of WP. JXM 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You just gave the very definition of indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics as your reason to keep. That contradicts WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The adaptations should unquestionably be kept, as even some hard-line deletionists above recognise; those coming out with stuff like "indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics" have presumably not looked at the article. Johnbod 01:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, while its nice to assume that people will assume that Moby Dick is well referenced it is better to have a list that provides specific examples. It would be flawed to chose a few "significant" examples and integrate them into the main article, given the relatively large size of the article (and subsequent difficulty in chosing examples) and the simple fact that the list is not around to add meaning to the Moby Dick article, instead it exists to demonstrate the places where Moby Dick has been mentioned. This article is essential to providing the whole facts about Mody Dick and its influence on society, and it is a fallacy to delete it under the false presumption it is WP:Trivia Guycalledryan 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason I raised for deletion wasn't trivia, it was that the article is a directory of loosely associated terms, which is is and Wikipedia is not. Jay32183 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Johnbod. AW 03:35, 9 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 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magnus Baardstad

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

A google search on ""Magnus Baardstad" internatet" or the alternative spelling Bårdstad, indicate that the person is not even close to notability as defined by wikipedia. EverGreg 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. The IMDB entry for Internatet (really a miniseries) lists him as "Participant".--Ispy1981 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing notable here. Punkmorten 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete neither his participation in the reality series nor his basketball career is of of any note. --Eivindt@c 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:01, 7 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. NawlinWiki 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency 1350

Frequency 1350 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, previously deleted. article on non-notable and probably neglected student radio station broadcasting with a 5 mile radius on a low-powered AM license. Little known outside the university. Scores 82 unique Ghits Ohconfucius 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Quoting from the article: "Frequency 1350 is quite possibly the only radio station (ever) that has no website." Don't worry, college radio nerds: Wikipedia can be our "website"! Um, yeah... Shalom Hello 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The AfD link from the article was done incorrectly, so, in the interest of allowing more time for relevant contributors to weigh in:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Apparently an unlicensed low power hobby station of little notability. The fact that they go off the air at holidays is consistent with this view. Given that, their claimed 5 mile radius may be optimistic. Edison 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge boil it down to a paragraph and merge into University of Central Lancashire. Capmango 22:54, 3 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, no salt. The article will be created eventally, and any recreations with only speculation can be G4'd. Sr13 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Age: A New Beginning

Ice Age: A New Beginning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and composed entirely of speculation. That the film was mentioned in another film's commentary and rumors are circling the internet is not proof of its existence; there have been no announcements regarding its being made and no reliable sources for its production are available. Article can be created anew when sources are available. María (críticame) 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt; another version was deleted recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Age 3: A New Beginning, so salt this title and salt Ice Age 3: A New Beginning, until official announcement is made about the release. Masaruemoto 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and add salt to taste; it's probably going to continue to get re-added as the rumours rumble around, but should be left alone until there's firm sources. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete until more official information is avilable, however; mention it on Ice Age: The Meltdown. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL as mentionned by nom.--JForget 22:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as crystal ballery at its finest. Someguy1221 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt per Masaruemoto. When the film is officially announced, it can be unsalted and turned into a redirect to the official movie title. -- Kesh 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE AfD notice was removed; I only discovered this discussion when I attempted to nominate it for deletion myself. I guess that counts as a Delete. There is ZERO official information about this movie. Powers T 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely missed that, even though I had the damn page watched; tons of editing warring, sheesh. Thanks for re-adding it. María (críticame) 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And you know, despite all that edit warring, it was an (apparently) uninvolved IP user who removed the notice (because "sources were added" or something like that). Powers T 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up Ice Age III is offcial. It has information at Box Office Mojo. [www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=iceage3.htm] Some user is just making up new unoffcial cast and keeps changing the release date to July 9 when it actually is July 1 2009.--User:Karl-a-mon
    • I cannot find any official announcement on the film. All I've seen is speculation claiming that it's "official". Your Box Office Mojo doesn't actually tell us anything, and doesn't seem any more reliable than IMDB. -- Kesh 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A speculative title and a speculative release date don't really count as "information". Powers T 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:02, 7 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, no redirect. Unlikely that anyone would type List of references to Lost in popular culture. Sr13 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of references to Lost in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of references to Lost in popular culture Articles for deletion/List of references to Lost in popular culture (2nd nomination)
List of references to Lost in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is not notable and I cannot see how this page is useful. In a nutshell, it says that Lost is referenced many times in pop culture, but that is already well summarized in Lost (TV series)#Fandom and popular culture. Delete (and redirect to Lost (TV series)#Fandom and popular culture). --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is just a bunch of trivia about trivia. Lost IS popular culture. --Charlene 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Indiscriminate list of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Out of retirement to speak on this topic (again). Those who cite WP:NOT, sometimes seem to miss the first paragraph, meta:Wikipedia is not paper, whose meta-article points out: "The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page (long articles require many sub-headings anyway)... As a more general example: Acme, an overview; Physical description of acme; Relationship with zeta; Acme in popular culture. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long.." There is an entire category of In popular culture articles. This particular article's contents are, for the most part, notable and cited. So long as it is kept pruned to verifiable material, it is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia standards. --LeflymanTalk 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey, Leflyman's back! --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:PAPER is not freedom to do whatever you want. This article does exactly what WP:NOT#DIR says not to do. No matter what is done to the article it does not meet Wikipedia standards. If you keep reading from where you quoted, "On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information". Jay32183 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, "in popular culture" sections are okay if they contain a few notable, representative examples. Include every example of something being mentioned in pop culture, and it crosses the line from not being paper to being an ICoI. Morgan Wick 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • See extensive discussion at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles --LeflymanTalk 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft trivia with if necessary some merge to main article.--JForget 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All "in popular culture" articles are research notes with a tendency (unlike other types of article) to get worse over time. All that is needed is a short well written section in the main article. Piccadilly 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I like 'In popular culture' articles, and I like Lost. I have weighed in with keep on a lot of these, but Lost is too new for this to be useful information. Everything on TV gets parodied or mentioned on the news or whatever. Capmango 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per argument just above. I'm willing to keep articles about "notable" portrayals/impacts in/on popular culture but this looks too new and the references too minor. Can someone come up with a guideline, specific to this 'genre'? Canuckle 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete every 108 minutes - another "ooh, look, the numbers!" compilation of trivial references. The items from which the references are drawn have no relationship to one another beyond the fleeting reference to Lost. This tells us nothing about Lost, the fiction from which the references are drawn, or the real world. The sole item that's worth a mention is the lottery item, and that can be housed quite comfortably in the main article or in the article for the episode in which the numbers first appear. Otto4711 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This encylopedia is not the place to categorize every time somebody mentions something on TV. If it is, somebody should watch all the late night talk shows and catalog every time they mention a show / person / animal Corpx 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, because passed a previous discussion, concerns an incredibly popular and noteworthy show, culture is definitely relevant to encyclopedias, etc., etc. --164.107.222.23 02:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If people want to make trivia lists, maybe they should start a fan site? This leads to no greater understanding of Lost.--Crossmr 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete. Clear case of WP:TRIV; since there's no sections to integrate into, it's just a collection of junk facts. Anything relevant will already be in the appropriate articles. DanielC/T+ 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: What the hell, it is a cool and informative page. You guys are boring. -- SilvaStorm
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the usual arguments, especially considering that Lost is still an ongoing show, and its so-called impact on popular culture is unlikely to be determined at this point. This is just a list of loosely associated entries that are not made famous as a result of referring to Lost. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It's a nice long list, but most of the information is pretty trivial and unuseful. •97198 talk 14:13, 7 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. As a comment was requested, I'll leave one. There seemed to be sufficient coverage by reliable sources in Denmark: FHM, and MTV. COI isn't a reason for deleting a notable subject. We have to avoid systematic bias. Sancho 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Lindfjeld

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

Non-notable, autobiography This is a poorly written autobiography, with lots of red links. It is just vanity. The author has a similar name. I don't see how it can be improved much. It does not appear to be a notable subject. Bearian 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The author is User:Lindfjeld. Bearian 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Poor English, vanity article, little known Danish TV personality... --David Andréas 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • tag article with notability and verify, and give the author a chance to show that the subject is notable. Capmango 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral comment I have cleaned up some of the spelling and grammar.--Flamgirlant 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:COI Special:Contributions/Lindfjeld Jeepday (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but has potential If the administrator making the decision could comment, this would be good. This article is poorly written. It's possible that, if better written and includes facts that aren't included now (don't know the celebrity so I can't add facts), that this might be a notable article. As far as being a little known Danish TV personality, such statement is potentially biased IF the person is somewhat known in Denmark. (There are a lot of notable articles of people I haven't heard of, such as famous mathematicians, actors, and others that, upon second thought, I should know). Fineday 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a huge difference between mathematicians and European MTV models. Just because people may see her on TV by flipping through the channels in Denmark, or perhaps in a little known music video or magazine spread, doesn't place her on par with famous mathematicians and actors. Given that this article is written for English speaking audiences, who probably will never find her notable unless she storms British or American pop culture, there is no real claim to notabilty. --David Andréas 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree except I disagree with the idea of the article having only a English speaking audience so article should be geared to that audience. Some foreign language wikipedia articles have horrible summaries and lack of detail for well known Americans. We should not reciprocate. Fineday 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepSomeone said she is the HOST of a Danish MTV. If true, keep. Fineday 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I don't care for COI editing, but if this person hosts an MTV show in Denmark (and she does), she's notable. See also da:Anne Lindfjeld. Finally, I note her name appears in another article, Hatesphere; I'm not sure that band is notable however the article has been around for 2 years and been edited by many different editors, so perhaps it is. --A. B. (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable (if marginally) as host of Danish MTV show. NawlinWiki 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is generally worthless as it stands now, but that's a reason to fix it, not to delete it. I feel that being a host on Denmark's MTV sufficiently covers WP:N. Trusilver 18:25, 11 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Boyd Barrett

Richard Boyd Barrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent Irish election who doesn't meet WP:notability. Page appears to have been created on the grounds that he might be elected. He wasn't and so it should be deleted. Valenciano 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. True, RBB was not elected. However, he is a prominent figure in the Irish left-wing scene, playing a leading role in the Irish Anti-War Movement, the Socialist Workers Party as well as the People Before Profit Alliance. RBB is a regular feature in the Irish media, and has appeared on radio, television, and recently wrote an opinion piece for the Irish Times.--Damac 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, he seems to have some claim to notability as an activist[7], and there are numerous Google News Archive results preceding the campaign. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article Dhartung provided above is written by the socialist party that he is in. The things he is an activist for are also rather common, anti-Bush rallies and anti-privatisation. He is a rather trivial politician. --David Andréas 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep - after Dhartung's comment below I believe relative notability is established (although I can find news articles from Google News on little known city councilmen in my area), but 160 articles is significant... but I would like to see the article expanded and improved ... if anyone knows more about him. --David Andréas 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The content of the article suggests that Barrett has claims to notability beyond his political campaign. I did not make the assumption that because the Socialist Party wrote about one of its candidates, notability is established. The man has 160 Google News Archive results, as I indicated, many of which are reliable sources that back up the claims in the press release that I linked to. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The Google results, which should be added as appropriate to the article, include articles with him being a focus from at least a dozen Irish newspapers, & significant mentions in major international news sources--CBS, the Observer, The Mirror, ... Unless one believes that no socialist politician can ever be important, then he's important, quite independently of the election.DGG 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think its a matter of whether he is socialist or not, but rather that he has notable impact and publicity, which I think Dhartung has somewhat established. Anyhow, growing up in the U.S.S.R, socialist politicians came a dime a dozen. I think I've come to believe, dependent on what the political majority is in a country, that writing a bio on every political activist is rather counterproductive. But, if he is important in Ireland then so be it. --David Andréas 18:33, 5 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, alredy merged, unlikely search term. Sr13 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Hakim Said

Death of Hakim Said (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a pointless split off from another article, Hakim Said, which contains exactly the same information. Clarityfiend 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Xiaphias 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no reason this article should be separate from the one about Hakim Said. If there is any extra information here, merge it with the original article and delete this one. Lorangriel 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Number 57 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Hakim Mohammed Said--JForget 22:34, 3 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. Sancho 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kut-kut

Kut-kut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources can be found. Banana 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Xiaphias 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral I suspect that it's notable, but there appears to be only one person online (Fred De'Asis) that is championing its cause. This may be one of those situations where the internet hasn't caught up to an older art form yet. I added the only unique reference I could find (to a touring art exhibit). There are a lot of copies of that same press release floating around when you do a Google Search. - Richfife 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I'm switching to delete. I'm getting that itchy bullshit feeling that comes over me so much on AFD debates. - Richfife 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is pretty much the kind of obscure subject that wikipedia *should* cover. The article needs some serious expansion and some good sources, but otherwise I see no problem with its actual subject matter. Lorangriel 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - a single commercial source is insufficient verification. I also suspect promo going on: the link for "kut-kut" from the fdeasis.com description comes to the Wikipedia article. Check out edits from 69.47.178.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) too: remarkable, for such an obscure subject, that an anon IP from Illinois should know that an Oxford minister owns a kut-kut work called Carpe Diem. Gordonofcartoon 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Conjecture I wonder if there's a tagalog (Filipino) version of this article? If there isn't, I'm thinking there shouldn't be an English one. Does anyone know how to check? - Richfife 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The Tagalog Wikipedia is at tl.wikipedia.org. I don't know if the translation is literal, but try this. Edit: That doesn't work. Hard to google. Morgan Wick 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I wonder if there's a tagalog (Filipino) version - yeah. I also tried Googling alternate spellings and sites relating to the region mentioned. No luck. I have a strong feeling that somebody involved created the article. If so, they ought to be able to provide - via the Talk page per WP:COI - some kind of documentation of this craft. They appear to know a lot about its history: "Peaked in mid 1800s" etc. Otherwise - Delete-delete. Gordonofcartoon 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment How about ukit? This is the next Tagalog word that I can think of. (Btw, I live in the Philippines) --- Tito Pao 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment enwiki has about three hundred times as many articles as tlwiki; the argument "If there's no Tagalog version, then delete the English version" would lead to deleting most of Category:Philippines. I'm guessing this is a common art form that one artist is promoting under a variant name for some reason; should probably be merged (with consideration given to WP:WEIGHT) if we can figure out what, exactly. cab 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Touché - Richfife 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As it stands now, this is at least partly OR and we can't find any information that would back up the claims to notability in the one cited source. I would find it hard to believe that this would be promoted under a variant name; Occam's Razor would tend to favor, at least based on [8], the theory that this has largely been passed down by oral tradition (or made up whole cloth by DeAsis) and would quite possibly, due to its nature, have no reliable sources beyond that spinning from DeAsis. There are claims in the article that suggest otherwise, and an image with a citation that backs up my thinking that this is not a unique term, but there needs to be more sources, especially for the assertions, by the end of this AfD or this page is going bye-bye. Hint: I would suggest keepers make a trek to the local library for a print source, because I have a feeling a search for web sources will likely turn fruitless. Morgan Wick 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. cab 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - fact and historical, that makes it significant. Part of art history. Encyclopedic preservation of facts such as this article should be considered. Dragonbite 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We can't be sure of how factual it is when it is insufficiently sourced. Morgan Wick 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote pending until verification by at least one Wikipedian who lives in the Visayas regions (although I'm inclined to vote for a keepdelete, unless more references are produced). Just because researchers from Manila hasn't published much about an infrequently-heard art form from a different region in the Philippines doesn't mean that this one was made up. --- Tito Pao 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a request to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Gordonofcartoon 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still trying to look this up in every reference available to me. So far, one Wikipedian who hails from the Visayas region (Pinay06) told me through IM that she hasn't heard of this. --- Tito Pao 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without exception, the information that can be found about this on the Internet can be traced back to a single source, Mr. Fred DeAsis, the Filipino artist reviving this "lost art form".[9] That shows there is not only an issue of verifiablility (no reliable independent sources), but also of notability. It looks like a mystification by the artist. If real, an art form like this would have been well studied and documented by cultural anthropologists, and there should be no problem at all in finding independent sources.  --LambiamTalk 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum. Evidence that something is amiss here: the photograph in the article is said to be courtesy of rare art collector Dr. Robert Martin of Baguio City. The same user who uploaded the image – a single-purpose account that created the article Kut-kut – also uploaded the identical photograph, one day earlier and in a larger size, as Image:Samplekut-kut.jpg. Only this time the source is gived as art collector Dr. Rick Martin of Samar Island.  --LambiamTalk 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well spotted. Of course, it'd be helpful if the uploader, Mark10now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who clearly has insider knowledge to have access to the image, would show up to clarify things. No response so far to a Talk page request to do so. Gordonofcartoon 15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I want to presume good faith here in that seeing the references, it seems that they are independent and come from 3rd party sources. But... it's only Fred De Asis who is frequently mentioned as the only one reviving the art form, and Kut-Kut being a "lost" art (if it really is) of the Philippines, makes it obscure and hard to verify even by us Filipinos. >_< Berserkerz Crit 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    Can you give an example of an independent third-party source that does not take its information on kut-kut from Mr. DeAsis?  --LambiamTalk 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found, which I rather doubt. Johnbod 01:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Suggestion: Keep contents, perhaps. Instead of deleting the whole information about "kut-kut", merge with article about "encaustic" art or the like? Dragonbite 20:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gordon,

I have no time to edit or argue with some pariahs of wikipedia.

I attended the the first Chicago area cultural exhibit/lecture of the lost art and it was astounding. Old artifacts, tools and art panels were presented. Art photos of the father and grandfather of the artist were shown.

Kut-kut aka kutkut, meaning to scratch is listed on Austranesian Basic Vocabulary database. You will get more response on google when searching kutkut without the dash.

The cultural art exhibit has been traveling around US cities for almost a year now.

Well, kut-kut is NOT a traditional artform (this is what you thought) in the Philippines. The technique is from certain indigenous tribe from one of the 7000 islands in the Philippines. I was told that each island has its own dialect! The Philippine itself has problems with its political/governmental history because of the colonizations. Do you expect reference on this artform from historians?

The artist's contention is to revive the form and technique which are based on research and what he learned from the father/grandfather and the remaining artworks in possession.

The art has been burried for so long and being revived via public exhibition.

It is such a shame when self proclaimed " wikipedia art experts" decides on artworks they have none seen!

The decision of few wikipedia "delete police" to delete will be a lost to millions who check on wikipedia but do not participate or edit contents.

If you want to post this, feel free to do so.

Mark User:Mark10now

Gordonofcartoon 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • still delete Insult Wikipedia editors, imply Wikipedia not worthy of covering pet topic, provide no sources to back up claims, say you're above such base things as evidence and verifiability. I've seen this WAY too many times. p.s. "KutKut" doesn't yield any more matches of interest. - Richfife 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - if there is an actual traveling art show, it would seem worth keeping. Obscurity makes the article very difficult to write, which may lead to a short article, but worthy of coverage. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Doesn't it bother you that the claims in the article are completely unverifiable? How do you know the "old artifacts, tools and art panels" in the show, supposedly from Samar Island, were not actually fabricated in Spring 2006 in Arlington Heights, Illinois?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Muncy

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

I don't see any real claim of notability for this professor, and there are no sources listed. Clarityfiend 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Conditional Keep, it's pretty borderline, but I support keeping it if a reference or two is added to verify his accomplishments (particularly the 'teacher of the year' award). --Xiaphias 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, "teacher of the year" (unless it's some national award) is not a claim to notability any more than "employee of the month" is. Possibly meets WP:N for his writing but we would want to see independent sources for the claims such as "widely distributed among peers". --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like unsourced spam to me. Canuckle 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Teacher of the year at a college is of course worthless for notability--it could be documented probably from their press releases--normally we accept the cv for that. It's a state college, not a university, but the articles in professional journals deserve a look, because if real they might establish notability. Rather than guess from the vague description in the paper, I found them on the web site and checked them in the citation indexes: of the 20 peer reviewed papers, the two most cited have 46 and 15 references respectively. People in this subject publish many minor papers, but I don't think this is really enough. The other possible factor is managing the Association for Consumer Research, claimed to be "the largest consumer research association in the world"--and might be --1700 academic members. (that's consumer research in the academic sense, not the Consumer Reports sense) It is a substantial organisation, and might well be worth a WP article. The major officers are reasonably distinguished academics at more important universities. He is the past Executive Secretary for 5 years, --the guy doing the work, but not the distinguished leader. This might just be enough. I've rewritten the article slightly to show what I've found and remove the spam. DGG 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete teacher of the year ≠ notable; being the executive director of a (at best) marginally notable group of academics doesn't make you notable - there are literally thousands of these groups - and if 1800 members is a magical number presumably all of whom have real, full-time jobs at real institutions rather than in the group does that mean that anyone who is the head of a group of a group of 1800 part-timers with off-and-on again affiliation is notable? How many hours per year do these folks spend on this, 10? 40? 100? is 18,000 person-hours, 180,000 person-hours a measure of notability? The heads of county political committees, groups of candy-stripers at a large hospital, boy scout councils, pastors of large parishes, will likely be heads of organizations that exceed 1800 part time members, and gosh union stewards or managers at large comanies with full-time groups of less should also be notable on the person-hours measurement basis - say 1800 hours a year per full-time person, why 10 or 100 gets you to the magic 18k or 180k person-hours to be notable, maybe every class room teacher could reach that level of notability. C'mon, face it, this guy is nn. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 5 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William H. Lacy

William H. Lacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Lacking of "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Gruber76 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, Forbes isn't reliable? --Xiaphias 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I contend (see talk page) that the Forbes "article" is a tertiary source. It's not from their magazine, it's from their database which is a rehash of information from SEC filings and company press releases. You'd find one on any executive mentioned in an SEC filing. Gruber76 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete There are secondary sources, but who this guy is and why he matters is shaky. The article needs to establish his notability, more than just the fact that he's lead a few different organizations. --David Andréas 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article does not have sufficient content but does have secondary sources. An editor willing to spend some time on it may be all that it takes. CuriousGiselle 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep: if the article can be expanded to provide sufficient information and establish notability for what currently seems to be just a moderately accomplished retired executive. Otherwise, Delete. Lorangriel 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources here are not secondary reliable sources. They're basically regurgitated press releases. Unless other sources can be found, I don't see the notability here. -Chunky Rice 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The Forbes database is certainly acceptable for the facts--for notability it's relevant only as him meeting their standards for inclusion, and I do not know what they are--but I doubt very much they are indiscriminate. But he's the former President and CEO of MGIC, and MGIC is Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, and it is in fact the largest private mortgage lender. CEOs of major firms are notable, & the leading firm in the mortgage business is a major firm. That he was the CEO is verified by the Forbes database, which I consider unquestionably reliable for such purposes. . What more could possibly be wanted? I sometimes think that WP is not always quite as hospitable as it might be to academics, but we seem to do even worse with business executives. DGG 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Adequate sources have been added to demonstrate notability, not that the Forbes sources was insufficient. Notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn 03:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't want to withhold information, so I'm going to start by presenting evidence I've collected that leans away from delete, but in the end I am unswayed. I just spent an hour in the CU research library to see if I could establish his notability. I found that there appear to be many many articles mentioning William H. Lacy in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a newspaper with a circulation of 400,000, but as far as I can tell the only university that finds it worthwhile to subscribe is in Montana. Additionally, CuriousGiselle found (but has not yet updated the article with) an [article] from the Pacific Business News (whose circulation I am unable to find) relating that Mr. Lacy spoke before a U.S. House committee.
    • Comment - Huh? Check your sources; a quick check of WorldCat shows that, in addition to various Wisconsin libraries, there are 24 Illinois libraries, 10 in Minnesota, 3 in Ohio, 2 each in Missouri and Michigan, and 1 library each in Iowa, Texas and Arizona that subscribe to the Journal Sentinel. --Orange Mike 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
These are, however, in my opinion the only "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that have been presented (or that I've found.) The NNDB, Forbes, SEC filings, and certainly the alumni newsletter article do not count as such. Added together the Pacific Business News article and the multiple hometown newspaper stories make Mr. Lacy's notability something that can be argued, but in my view do not put him over the threshold of notability as set forth.
And to the argument that he was the CEO of a notable company that does important things and is sizable, etc, I respond simply that notability is not subjective. The fact that there has not been "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is not modified by this argument.
All that said (And I do apologize for going on) I will certainly not be upset if the consensus is that either Mr. Lacy does meet the notability guidelines or that an exception is appropriate. I am glad that this process has served to bring out references and citations that will improve the quality of the article if we decide to keep it. Gruber76 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on grounds of non-notability. Being a director of a public listed company makes him important, but the trivial coverage of this article falls far short of the WP:Notability (people) criteria. --Gavin Collins 14:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep . All the sources in the article are secondory ones. There is no tertiary source. The google search result for William H. Lacy shows enough notability at least much more notable than William Lacy. Miaers 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate, the standard here is "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The references you indicate are an alumni newsletter (not reliable and of questionable independence) and a press release from a company Mr. Lacy controls in part (not independent) respectively.
So, can Google alone provide notability? Theoretically a company could issues 1000 press releases that get carried in each of five press-release services. As a backup to reliable and independent secondary sources, Google carries weight. By itself, I argue, it does not. Gruber76 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, so you think first hand source is not reliable, because the two sources you just mentioned are first hand source actually. Miaers 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per Gavin Collins. The references provided are trivial, and no notability beyond being an officer of a corporation is provided. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not just an officer of a company but the No 1 figure of the largest private mortgage lender in the US. Miaers 03:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if that somehow automatically makes someone notable by WP standards, that was 8 years ago... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So what. Things happened in the past are not notable? The company is still the largest private mortgage lender in the US though. Miaers 03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, MGIC is not a mortgage lender, but a provider of mortgage insurance. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that all you seem to have established is that he was the head of a large lender 8 years ago. How does that fulfill WP:Notability (people)? (these aren't new questions - others above stated the same). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Forbes, NNDB etc are all reliable first or secondary sources for notability. Miaers 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the notes above - various editors disagree with your assessment of these "sources". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Forbes is a first/second hand source. How can it be unreliable? Miaers 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Forbes' magazine would be a reliable, independent, secondary source--no question. This link, however, is to Forbes' website/database. Just as a journalist's blog at a major newspaper would need to be handled differently from an official article in the newspaper, this database is different from Forbes' magazine. I believe that is also why the Forbes' link is in "External links" rather than being used as a reference. And to clarify: I am not questioning the Forbes database entry's reliability, I am asserting that it is a tertiary source and does not indicate notability of the person/article. Gruber76 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The database should be a secondary source. Otherwise, it isn't worth of entry. Miaers 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to refresh my memory, I re-read the wikipedia entry wikipedia official policy that defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as we are discussing them. It still appears to me that this Forbes database falls squarely under "publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other secondary sources." Is there something specific that leads you to think it is not tertiary? The "tertiary" brand on the Forbes link is only my opinion, and is certainly up for discussion. Gruber76 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's arbitrary. Encyclopedias can also use first hand source. Besides those policy also says that even tertiary source encyclopedia can be used as a reliable source. Miaers 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We can use primary sources for information, but not to establish notability. -Chunky Rice 18:30, 9 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 (consensus argument was that the subject fails WP:WEB). Sancho 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soc.history.what-if

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Soc.history.what-if Articles for deletion/Soc.history.what-if (2nd nomination)
Soc.history.what-if (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article lacks any external coverage of this Usenet newsgroup. 2005's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soc.history.what-if ended as a keep due to a flood of "it's useful", "other Usenet newsgroups have articles", and the lack of notability policy. What is here, however, is purely unsourced original research with a fat linkfarm to alternate history sites and groups. WP:V & WP:WEB are clearly not met... — Scientizzle 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, the article basically says "this is how things work on our usenet group" but doesn't say why anyone should care. Article needs to at least claim notability (unless there isn't any to claim, of course) and the claims must be verified by reliable sources. Recury 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorely tempted to roll it right back two years to the version which was kept last time; it got infested by a crank at some point and has been a mess since. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That version is better (though the difference is largely the elimination of the pile of external links and the swap of "counterfactual" history for "virtual" history). Still, two years ago there was just as much notability info as there is now, which is to say: almost nothing. — Scientizzle 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What if we merge this back into alternate history, counterfactual history or uchronia, since that's where somebody would likely learn about the what-if website Mandsford 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If the merge doesn't happen, does the immediately above comment count as counterfactual history? Rpresser 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, no special reason. Rpresser 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you're aware that AfD is not a vote...would you care to elaborate? — Scientizzle 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, The group should be put on warning that unless they get agreement it will be merged in alternate history. Much of the stuff is people giving themselves airs and false pride BernardZ 02:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I am confused about your comment...Are you suggesting that the actual Usenet group should be notified of this discussion? If so, please don't violate WP:CANVASS. Can you explain why you think the article should be kept? — Scientizzle 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As a group it is just as important in the field of alternate history as many authors that have pages here in the wiki producing on any one topic up to several hundred members discussion so in this small field it is notable. BernardZ 23:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps, but this article is lacking any information on such notability. Can you provide any evidence that this group has received outside attention? — Scientizzle 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • BernardZ didn't notice the group about the Deletion debate - but he has frequently edited the entry himself, and his recent entries caused controversy on the group. I'm actually a bit surprised about the time we have this renewed deletion proposal - in the controversy mentioned above, several regular posters have stated that they would prefer deletion to having BernardZ's entry stay as the final entry. So that your deletion proposal came up right NOW - can't be a purely accidential? — Good Habit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • I'm not sure what you may be implying, but I can assure you that I've had no interaction with this group, BernardZ, or the topic of alternate history in general. I found the article using good ol' Special:Random and noticed that it was, IMO, unecyclopedic. — Scientizzle 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not implying anthying - I was just surprised that the deletion debate started right now. I agree that it's encyclopedic notability might at best be a borderline case. I'm a regular reader and sometimes contributor to said group (under the same handle )I used here now - but have only edited very few (may be five) articles on Wikipedia as of today (only under my IP). --Good Habit 21:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, BernardZ has an interesting history here - he came along, altering the article to remove reference to people he dislikes and to explain how wonderful he was; on being challenged, he denied this was him until it was pointed out the IPs matched. He then registered an account and, er, kept going. The old talkpage is rather indicative; I had to briefly lock the page to stop him tearing chunks out and inserting rambling incoherencies... No doubt he means well, in his way, but the article doesn't seem to be better for it. Shimgray | talk | 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - while generally well-written, the group seems to have no particular encyclopedic merit, and the vast majority of content of the article belongs elsewhere - perhaps on a S.H.W-I FAQ site, or textfiles.org --Action Jackson IV 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Four points. One, shw-i is one of the older surviving Usenet newsgroups, and has a small but dedicated group of followers. Two, almost a hundred other NGs have pages. Yes, I know that "there are other pages on X" is not the strongest argument, but it's not irrelevant either. It's rather hard to see why SHWI should be deleted when rec.woodworking, alt.zines, and alt.binaries.slack are going strong. Three, SHWI is regularly referenced by other alternate history sites -- click on some of the links and you'll find that most of them cite back to SHWI. (Many of them have been started by SHWI alumni.) True, it's something of a tight little self-referencing community, but that's neither here nor there -- it does satisfy the notability requirement. Finally, try dropping "soc.history.what-if" into google. It gets about 43,000 hits. Many of these are to articles on the NG, but a large minority are not. Click through for minute and you'll see dozens of cites to SHWI. I'm new here, but it seems to me that this satisfies the notability requirement, separately and as well.Vormuir 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There still have to be reliable, third-party sources on a subject. WP:V says: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." For what consitutes "reliable", see WP:RS. Recury 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I see two separate issues here: noteworthiness and sourcing. Can we agree that SHWI is noteworthy? If it's not, there's no point in debating sourcing. If it is, we can then move on to discuss whether the article is properly sourced, and if not, how to fix it.Vormuir 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes there are two issues, but they are related. A subject that is notable would have plenty of good sources on it. Recury 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, not necessarily -- if you have something that's of intense interest to a small group, there may not be a lot of sources. That said, I'll note that all major alternate history sites on the web cite SHWI, including alternatehistory.com, anthonymayer.net, and uchronia. I'd provide hyperlinks, but I'm still figuring out how to comment -- give me a day or two.Vormuir 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
          • As long as I'm confessing my painful n00b ignorance... is there a way to comment here without going to edit mode? Talk pages have a little "+" at the top, but this page doesn't seem to. Am I missing something?Vormuir 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The [+] is just a hack to add a new section heading to the page without doing it manually. It's all still editing... wikis really don't recognise any other interface! (Also: hi!) Shimgray | talk | 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Hi Shimgray! Long time no "see".Vormuir 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In other news, I see that someone has just taken down the deletion notice, apparently under the impression that it's the old nomination from 2005. Perhaps someone could correct this? (I'd do it, but I don't yet know how.)
  • Meanwhile, I notice that the low-grade edit war continues unabated. Could some person of competence maybe lock the page for a while? Perhaps after reverting to an earlier, pre-troll version? Thanks in advance -- Vormuir 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable, poor article, lack of sources. Richard Gadsden 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (and yes, I am the original proponent of the newsgroup from 1995. So?
  • KEEP after revision and repair of the article. I am appalled at the anti-USENET bias shown by a vocal faction of Wikipedia editors. Anything mentioning the newsgroups I've had personal contact with seem to come up for deletion eventually as not noteworthy, to the point that I wonder why there's a Wikipedia at all. If Wikipedia does not cover the "oddball" subjects that crop up on the Internet, then how is it any more useful to Internet users than Britannica Online or MSN? Wikipedia editors have to decide what they're trying to accomplish here, because the current course is to turn this incredibly valuable resource on popular culture into an amateur rehash of dead-tree volumes. Indeed the article does need repair after an ill-executed major edit, but to delete it in its entirety is too drastic. Anton P. Nym 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Forgive my overwhelmingly obvious anti-Usenet bias, but you've done nothing in your screed here to indicate why this article should be covered. Care to? — Scientizzle 00:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is one of older but still functioning newsgroups (that counts like a miracle) and notable in AH circles. As a newsgroup you won't get much of printed coverage but this doesn't mean it is nonexistent or irrelevant. The current text should be pruned down, instead of dozens links to stories (everyone can google them) it should contain condensed history of the newsgroup. If the article doesn't improve within, say, half an year, it may be merged into the overview AH article. The [10] revision may be good start, actually. Pavel Vozenilek 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juniper Shuey

Juniper Shuey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Zoe Scofield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These two people are nonnotable, or noted only within a very limited artistic field. The critical acclaim cited in the article is not properly referenced, and is promotional in tone. This nomination is a follow-up on a WP:COIN report regarding Easywayout (talk · contribs). Shalom Hello 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Conflict of interest Noticeboard Case

  • Delete. Very limited notability. Certainly not enough for Wikipedia. Lorangriel 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The nomination admits the notability within their field--exact sources were questioned; I quickly found two including the one that really matters, from the main publication in the field. -- And the world is contemporary modern dance choreography! Since when is this a negligible artistic field? As for COI. it doesnt matter who wrote the article, if the subject is in fact notable and if it's demonstrated by good sources. DGG 05:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -- I hate COI editing, but I believe these two people are (weakly) notable:
Juniper Shuey: Seattle Weekly[11], The Seattle Times[12], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[13].
Zoe Scofield: Seattle Weekly[14], The Seattle Times[15], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[16]--A. B. (talk) 21:06, 7 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. NawlinWiki 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherry stoner

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

Recreation of deleted PROD - procedural nom. After Midnight 0001 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Xiaphias 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not anything that has any place in wikipedia. One may make an argument for wikitionary but even that is weak. It's true place is in an urban dictionary. Lorangriel 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This term is still used, hence the PageRank. I know of at least three people who use it, and at least one person who cultivates it. 82.163.145.49 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Indeed, there is plenty of information about this on Google. Not quite sure why it's up for deletion, perhaps it's a localized topic. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search for 'cherry stoner' produces a list of instruments used to remove the pits of cherries. Even UrbanDictionary doesn't have an entry on 'cherry stoner'. Surely non-notable. Ratiocinate 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article does need massive improvement, but I have heard the word used and it is present within the English lexicon. It is as notable as, say, skunk_weed which has it's own article. Only difference being that Cherry Cannabis is not as widely available as far as I know. 82.163.191.197 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Could be good with some effort, no reason to del. Above IP user has a point. Veryvulgar 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
— Veryvulgar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, no evidence that this term is widely used. SparsityProblem 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I say it stays, at the very least we turn it into an article on Rosaecidae as opposed to just cherry stoners.82.163.35.144 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Why is this up for deletion? Perhaps someone is anti-drugs. LEROYBOSEEVUS 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
— LEROYBOSEEVUS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment: Please limit the discussion to content, not people. SparsityProblem 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Three of the KEEP votes are all from the same IP range, presumably the same person. SparsityProblem 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. In addition, Spunko2010 has falsified a signature timestamp (since reverted), similar to the IP user's action of editing signatures so as to appear from different IP ranges.Ratiocinate 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Oh, how astute of you. 82.163.37.107 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Also, LEROYBOSEEVUS's only user-space contributions are to comment on this AfD. SparsityProblem 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, else delete - I am unconvinced that the topic is notable or even wide enough to be covered in an article on its own. I might, however, support the merging of its content into some related article, if it were done carefully with discussion on the talk page of to wherever it would then be moved. Content merging is often preferable when applicable. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 03:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable term, no google of this. All hits seem to point to a kitchen tool as previously noted. Appears to be a joke not a legitimate attempt at article.Horrorshowj 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Now that IP users are allowed to have their say(!), I must say I think this article has potential. In its current state, you're right, it's terrible and lacking in sources, citations and the like. However, I have managed to find several forums on the 'net detailing Roasaecidae and "cherry stoning" - notability right there. 213.218.224.238 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Right where? All you did for the first is misspell the name of the Rose Family. Rosaceae Nothing under your spelling anywhere. The second still yields nothing pertinent. Horrorshowj 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Net forums are not considered reliable sources and should not be used. Ratiocinate 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete stupid neologism. SalaSkan 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete "Cherry Cannabis" gets two Google hits. "cherry stoning" cannabis gets zero. Roasaecidae isn't even a word (did you mean Rosaceae, the plants commonly known as roses?). The one "source" in the article is a link to a forum posting asking "Are cherry flavored papers any good?" This is a neologism or possibly a hoax. — Scientizzle 15:39, 11 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 - despite earlier warnings that I shouldn't explain my evaluation of the consensus, here it seems pretty clear. One unexplained comment to delete, and although it's suggested categories are better than lists, the general feeling seems to be that lists are useful in their own right. Redirection is mentioned, and can always be discussed as an editorial decision, but doesn't seem to have much support. Cheers, WilyD 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Singapore companies

List of Singapore companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is nothing but a duplication of material supposedly listed in the article SGX, so it is a duplicate of part of an existing article. This article also violates NOT a list of links (because that's really all it is) and also NOT a list of indiscriminate information, as there is no criteria set forth for inclusion or noninclusion of a company on the list. MSJapan 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Do you have any plans to nominate all articles in Category:Lists of companies by country for deletion? I would think the reasons you list are equally applicable in many of those articles. Meanwhile, kindly check if this article is a complete dublication of Singapore Exchange.--Huaiwei 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Actually, due to some disambig shuffling, it's actually a less-comprehensive copy of Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange in a different format (although the article claims the list resides at SGX). Moreover, the deletion is because both the category and the other article exist, both covering the same information. Lastly, I didn't know this list type was an overall phenomenon, so I just might go ahead and nominate them all. I'll need to look into it. MSJapan 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Huaiwei 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral With the category system covering the same ground (and doing it better), we don't need this - but it does no harm to keep it IMO. Shalom Hello 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and nominate others. Horvat Den 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Granted, the world economy is not as fascinating to some as Wayne's World or As the World Turns, but there is a valid reason for us to be aware of manufacturers (and large employers) in Singapore, and any other foreign country. For all you know, one of their products is hanging in your closet right now. Corporate information is often neglected in paper encylopedias, and all of the "List of (blank) companies" compilations should stay. These need to be expanded, however, so that we know what the blue-links are about without having to click." Mandsford 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange and leave the category on the redirect page. I agree that a list needs to be available for the category. Since a more complete, albeit restricted list, exists why not use that one? How many notable companies are not listed on the SGX? Vegaswikian 08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I suppose PSA International, the world's second largest port operator, is not notable enough in Vegaswikian's books?--Huaiwei 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the exact same discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies (which nominates every list in Category:Lists of companies by country. John Vandenberg 13:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominating the same article for deletion twice at the same time is rather odd. Rebecca 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per my comments on the other articles in this category at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies - Can someone please check out the multiple AfD's? Paxse 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did this first, and then the others (per above), and I thought I had left this one off the other list. MSJapan 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You did too - sorry, my mistake. I've just checked. Cheers, Paxse 15:39, 9 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 (CSD A7), deleted by FisherQueen. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enigmar Entertainment

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

NN label, advert/spam. No notable sources and links to it's own store. Lugnuts 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. non notable advertisement with no links and no significance as far as I can see. Lorangriel 19:42, 3 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 The result of the debate was keep. Article is now located at Chadsey Lake. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

[edit] Lost Lake (Abbotsford)

Lost Lake (Abbotsford) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page should be deleted because the lake in question is owned privately, and it is inpolite to post it on the interent with directions and all to private property. Sp4rk3d 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment there is a previous AfD for this article here. Note also that this article was vandalized by User:207.216.215.187 before the same user nominated it for deletion. I assume that Sp4rk3d is the same as this IP, since Sp4rk3d completed the nom initiated by the IP and has raised similar objections to the article in the past (see the previous AfD discussion and the article history). This AfD is somewhat suspect as a result. Deor 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep' per Deor's comment & because (as far as I know) there's no Wikipedia policy that mandates 'politeness' with regard to article content. --Xiaphias 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WeakStrong Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Sp4rk3d, I'm sorry if the existance of this article has caused you some kind of difficulty. However, the fact that something is private property does not show a clear reason for deleting it. While I would prefer to see it cited, I did some research and see that there are sources that at least collaborate the existance and location of this lake - that is enough for me to support it's inclusion. Trusilver 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Chadsey Lake, apparently the more common name. Unless I'm mistaken it's here, and sources such as here and here and not least here discuss it as a recreational destination within the park, so I can't confirm the claim that the lake is otherwise private. The directions from Batt Road may well cross private property, so we should be sure to use an official set of directions (if we have any) rather than original research. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. I concur. The documentation seems to suggest that yes, Chadsey Lake is the actual name. And with this citation, any thoughts about deletion are gone as far as I'm concerned. Trusilver 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not aware that there is any Wikipedia guideline that says the ownership of a geographical feature has any bearing on its encyclopedic value, also not good practice to nominate an article a second time without serious reasons. PatGallacher 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In fairness, the closing admin last time (June 23) invited a renomination due to unclear intent of the first AFD, especially after the move. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • comment BLP for lakes? DGG 05:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Dhartung to Chadsey Lake. I'm not an expert but the BC Geographical Naming database does not list a "Lost Lake" that matches the Abbotsford coordinates: see here and Chadsey here. Canuckle 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've relocated the page to it's official name (Chadsey Lake). This is not a resolution, just a step in the right direction. However, I don't have an opinion in regards to it's notability, since I'm unfamiliar with the location. +mt 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's part of a regional park; see Fraser Valley Regional District Parks: Sumas Mountain. According to the site, the park includes a hiking trail that leads to Chadsey Lake. From that, it appears there's public access to the lake. Therefore, I'm recommending a keep for this article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand how a geographical feature is suddenly non-notable due to ownership status. Anyway, per Elkman, it's part of a regional park. --Oakshade 14:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: after reviewing the information provided from the links posted here, it seems worthy of keeping (particularly since it is part of a regional park, and will probably not disappear). It actually looks like a nice place; check it out in Google Earth from a perspective view, if you can (it's nested on the North side of Sumas Mountain). +mt 04:48, 8 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 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The American Nation

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

I'm not sure if a school textbook is notable in it's own right, there isn't much to say about the subject, and there is thousands of textbook out there without an article, and I don't see anything special about this textbook from the rest. Written by a banned user doesn't help nither. Non-notable in my opinion, so Delete Jaranda wat's sup 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete But for a moment I imagined kids flooding to add their textbooks to Wikipedia and actually reading them and obsessing over them like Pokemon species and episodes of Grey's Anatomy ... After coming out of my reverie I couldn't think of any textbook that would be notable unless it was the object of major litigation or contained a significant error and becomes news. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not that textbooks are unimportant, since they can reflect the biases of the authors (liberal or conservative) and of the school boards that buy their works. But this article has nothing to say. I like Acro's daydream... but this would open the doors for anyone to put a textbook on Wikipedia, and anyone who does that needs to get out more often. Mandsford 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete no content--SefringleTalk 05:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:24, 7 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 JodyB talk 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pacific Centennial Group

Pacific Centennial Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) No sources, been put up for speedy deletion twice, but I restored it after I got a message that made me think that maybe it's notable enough. Community consensus is better in this case. Evilclown93(talk) 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete While the speedy tags were clearly put up by a disgruntled customer, I think the article falls under speedy deletion. I fail to see any notability; it reads like an ad. I wonder what message you got that made you think it's notable? Could you post it? --Edokter (Talk) 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no outside verification of positive or negative claims. All the Google hits point to company pages, company officers' pages, or Wikipedia, which not only erodes RS, but also leads me to question notability, because there's not even a third-party product or company review. MSJapan 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As a staff of this company, I understand there might be some conflict of interests of stating points. I understand where I stands hence if the community of Wikipedia feels that the article should be taken down, it should be taken down. Period. As of response to Edokter, the company received an email from National Library Board (Singapore) for nominating the company website to be archived. In the email, it states "NLB has deemed your website (URL: http://www.virtualoffice.com.sg/) to be an important part of Singapore's documentary heritage and would like it to remain available to researchers and generations of Singaporeans in the future. Hence NLB will be taking snapshots of your website under the appended terms." However, I will see to it that the article will be cleanup to fit Wikipedia's standard. As of response to MSJapan, there are no credible sources of third-party in our niche industry and as a private company, there are limitation to disclosure as there is difficulties for verification. All-in-all, there is a fine difference between fair opinion and outright vandalism. To me, a fair opinion must contain verifiable evidences or sources and not a blatant statement. In short, I understand and totally agree that we must preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and do allow me about a week to cleanup the article to make sure it's of quality & unbiased reference to the general public. Sg wiki editor 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Check out traffic ranking Alexa for proof of such blatent activites of "fugged traffic" against competitor companies. Starting June 2006 there was fugged traffic and you can see a sharp increase in traffic from no where with then entrace of new competitor, http://www.smartvirtualoffice.com.sg, (compare us with them over a 3 year period and you will see the trend ) suggesting the use of "methods" to quickly gain higher position to ranking which may not be a true representation of data, and now this to try this way to get further ranking, while we would also like ourselves to be in WIKI, but we know exactly what wiki is NOT for and never fanthom the idea that we would be on WIKI. We have also conducted a search in the National Library Board website at NLB Search Sitefor this article and found nothing, search terms include fredom group, pacific, centennial, virtual office. Also to consider, if the library already archived this info, why the need to be here. I will be making a phone verification tomorrow to confirm this. Yes I am his competitor but I do think that WIKI has better purpose than this, If they are the Development Bank of Singapore, that is different, 1000s of employees with practically the whole of Singapore in it, they have a place in WIKI to inform people should they come to singapore and need a bank account. To MGJapan, I am truely sorry for having labelled his site with additional information, but we feel that it was fitting that all info regarding the company be presented. If you need proof of such history, we have verifiable sources showing his history. I use WIKI since my days during my U to hunt down words required in entomology, to find difficult to find recipies of curry i miss from home while i was in Boston studying for my degree, to get drug names found pharmaceutical companies, to learn about new discovery, and now to teach children i work with about research. I really do not want to see a great system be misused for such devious purposes. We are strictly not using this for a grudge match. We came into the picture because he decided to add our names and attacked similar competitors like ourselves. We have always though WIKI was a civilized place, dun you think so.--Smartvirtualoffice
  • Keep - Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP as a point of reference, I believe that Pacific Centennial Group could be notable for two reasons - 1) It has won an award from an independent organisation and of which was received from President of Singapore, and the source is credible; and 2) It has received an email from National Library Board of Singapore, noting that their corporate website will be archived as part of Singapore's online heritage. However for the 2nd reason, the source is an email and verification could only be made via forwarding of email to qualified administrator to prevent abuse. Being small isn't a problem. What's important is that the article must be independent, accurate and is notable enough. And while Wikipedia is not a business directory, commercial organisations do play a part in people's life and wikipedia users should be able to use the articles to take a neutral reference of the organization. The article must not influence the reader, positively or negatively, or directly used for advertising purpose. A proper article must be factual and provide academic insight about the subject, without distortion towards commercial agendas. I believe that the newly revised article of Pacific Centennial Group should be able to fulfills the basic expectation of an academic researcher. Lastly, based on the history of this article, it has been aggressively vandalized from open IP addresses and the edits were generalized into two classes - external link pointing to www.smartvirtualoffice.com.sg and uncivilized spams. DO NOTE THAT I'm the primary editor of this article and I'm also a staff of the company mentioned in the article. Sg wiki editor 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting this I will remember this, Evilclown93,

  • Strong Delete The use of a public community service as your personal campaign signboard is a big NO NO. While your self rightousness of not allowing self selling on certain forums, I have a strong agenda here at WIKI. I love WIKI and use it everyday. WIKI is definately the place for you to put this. You are far better at twisting words around to make you look right. I just state facts.

No your note about awards, for all concern, there are so many awardees each year, so should all of them come to WIKI to have a piece of the pie. What sort of ideology are you representing, Democracy? WIKI is not about democracy either. Please take your agendas else where to advertise.
2. Being featured in the National Library Board, we have been featured and invited on multiple occasions by our PM for closed door discussions lately, to help resturcture some of the Entrepreneural guidelines, do I also qualify to be put here. DO NOT throw name like the president of Singapore here and the National Library board here and expect that you will be elevated to some new level of being. WIKI is not about making you a hero, if we condone this, then everyone who shook the hand of the president of the united states with a photo will need a spot here on WIKI including my father and my mom, who incidentally did just that! You want to advertise your site, take it else where. To Evil Clown, if you have noticed, he has taken the opportunity to put links of ALL HIS related site on the page, and made attempts to quickly index that information on GOOGLE, further proving that this is strictly for SEO. I recommend the action of SPEEDY DELETION.
3. We made several calls to NLB to enquire about this heritage thing, no one knows..... if this is meant for our heritage, it should be known to as many people as possible, and I was passed around all morning from one department to the next and they no clue what this is about.

  • Let me put things in perspective. I'm here to present cases of notability and its up for users to present their feedback. I would be happy if you could also present constructive feedback, but time after time, I see that you posted your opinion right on the article, of which can be clearly seen for vandalizing purpose. The links of all of our sites are to facilitate the user to quickly find the right website for reference purpose. However, you have yet again accuse us of leveraging Wikipedia for commercial purposes. Where's the proof? As for the email from National Library Board, I will present the evidence to a credible third-party for their review if necessary. Currently, I'm just presenting my case to the administrators just like a defendant. I believe I have the right to provide necessary information so that to convince the community that the article stays, but I also believe that if the community of wiki admins still feel uncomfortable and taken the article off, I will not challenge.

Based on your statement, you claimed that we abuse Wikipedia for our own commercial gains. You also claimed that we made attempts to quickly index the information on Google. On other articles, you also claimed of traffic spikes on Alexa. Seriously, Wikipedia did send people to our site. But which article don't? Also, on what evidence you have to show that we index the information on Google? As for Alexa, that's just our estimated traffic pattern. End of the day, it is well-known that Google has its own algorithm for indexing and that Alexa lacks of accuracy due to browser dependence. It seems that you just taking pot-shots to keep us busy in giving our evidence and presenting our case. However, the ball is back in your court now - What's evidence do you have for whatever you had claimed? For example, you claimed that certain staffs of NLB don't know about the archiving of websites. While there may be possibility that I lied, there is possibility that the archiving is known to just a department which they didn't know was handling the project. It is of no surprise in large organisations where disparate departments don't really know who does what. Still, I have the email for this and as mentioned, I will present it as an evidence to wiki admins if necessary.

While you claimed to be helping Wikipedia, your actions do not seems to be so. And while you claimed that it is because you want people to know the truth, the previous edits were in the largely in nature of malicious purposes. The difference between "THIS PROVIDER HAS MOVED 3 TIMES!" and "Previous Locations of Pacific Centennial Group" is that the former is for spiteful purpose and the latter is for users to understand more and draw their own conclusion. I deleted your opinions on the article because it was not factual and doesn't have reasonable evidence. And if you claimed that you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart, you should help to cleanup the article or recommend for speedy deletion, and not taking law in your own hands. If you believe that we moved 3 times (we actually moved twice) or increased our prices, then do add them appropriately like "Previous Location" or "Previous Packages & Pricing".

I seen how MSJapan, Evilclown and several other administrators work and their explanation were largely inline with the policies of Wikipedia. Evilclown made the decision that the article may be notable but because I'm a direct staff of the company, I maybe in conflict of interest. I could have lied on that so save that article, but I believe that honesty is far more important. If Wikipedia don't accept the article now and delete off, I will put it more effort to make it more notable and hopefully in the future, someone else would recognized us and put us up again.Sg wiki editor 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here are an article which could resolve this situation - Resolving Dispute. I seek your co-operation in abiding to this official policy during your replies. Should you feel that the articles lack of certain information, I will be pleased to amend and include them with either citation or references from RS.

BTW also, we may still proceed to file a report to the police or engage a lawyer for those edits that was vandalized for malicious purpose. Since you claimed that it was not from you and was from your customers, I seek your co-operation to inform that customers of our course of action. However, if it was really from you, I hope that you could stop these nonsense. Seriously, a man must have courage to admit their wrongdoing. If wrong, then just apologize. Likewise, if after the police investigation has completed and the vandalism was not from you, I will issue an official apology with a reasonable compensation.

In short, I hope to settle this amicably, sincerely and honestly. Sg wiki editor 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I was thinking about notability. Being notable also depends on the targeted audience. Taken for example - a famous jazz bar at Orchard Road. For a person who want to research about Singapore, this article is not notable. For a person who want to know about Orchard Road, it may be notable. For a person who want to know what famous places of entertainment at Orchard Road, Singapore, this article is highly relevant. I think the best question to ask is - "Why Bother?" Why should users bother about Pacific Centennial Group and what it does? Seriously, if I am just a typical user, I would probably think of that "Why Should I Bother About This Company?. There's tons of article. Is it worthy enough? From this point, another way to establish its notability is industry recognition. Let's just say that in 100 years time, if someone want to do a research on virtual office industry in 21st century, will the article provide any critical information? Is the company recognized within the industry? If the article is removed, will it impact the general view of the industry? Fundamentally, all these still depends on the user. Sg wiki editor 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • After some thoughts, I think the article should be deleted. Here's my explanation:

- First of all, I had reasoned that being notable is about being recognized by the industry. While it maybe true that Pacific Centennial Group is recognized, by itself may not be sufficient to be listed. I came to this conclusion after reading a magazine and was looking through the advertisements. Each of the company has its importance in the industry they are in. However, it would be nuts if I say all of these companies will be recognized within in their own industry. For example, if we think about burgers - we think about McDonalds, Burger King or even White Castle. That is what most people will know about burgers. Would people care if there is a guy who is famous for grilling delicious burger? Will people have a difference opinion about burgers if this guy is gone?

- Second, I was thinking through the comments of some users. Would its article add value to the user? Did Pacific Centennial Group founded something? Invented something? Created something unique? Vastly improved the industry? Yes, it did win awards and maybe recognized by the National Library Board. But will that be relevant to someone who want to research about the virtual office industry of Singapore?

- Third, I'm a staff of Pacific Centennial Group. While my reasoning may have its merit, it is simply not wise (recommended) that I should edit this article. Even if I want to achieve neutrality, readers may be skeptic about the accuracy of the article and that defeat the entire purpose. Likewise I know that the article is created by the staffs of that company, I would certainly have some doubt about the accuracy and NPOV.

Eventually after these thoughts, if unless someone could prove otherwise (I would be glad though), I hope that the article to be removed within these few days. Also, while I might not really like the tone of this smartvirtualoffice user, I think some of his comments have certain merits and has successfully challenged my thoughts. But still, I do not condone his methods of vandalizing the article. Sg wiki editor 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I dun think I need to say that much. Peter Tan Jun Long, you are not any where near as noble as you present yourself to be.
1. In Wiki, when we added our links as alternative, you could not stand that could you. 2. We feel you have vandalized WIKI, and would consider putting that up in a police report as well..
3. We feel you are a man with many double standards, especially when it comes to treatment. You think you run the Virtual Office Scene, think again. Regus and Servcorp with many offices worldwide does not have to win awards to be placed here. Signature space with more offices around does not have a 4. ALL ADMINSTRATORS now want your site deleted, do you agree it needs to be?
That's why it should be deleted. Check out WP:COI. Evilclown93(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC). You keep stressing how great the company is, we are arguing on very different terms. 2 ADMINISTRATORS have made their case to have your site deleted. This time, it is not ME who says delete and you still do not want to, that says a lot about you. While you took pot shots at us way back in 2006, no one agreed or disagreed with you, this time ADMINSTRATORS are telling you to delete. I may be adding fuel to the fire, but fact stands that you need to be deleted. I am sure you will want the last words on this and you will go into lengthy explaination as to why you are the best and need to be here because you won an award that was voted and INTERVIEWED by students who are naive and took a medal with SR Nathan, so what....

  • Please include your name when adding comments. By the way, my name is not Peter Tan Jun Long.

1) You add a link which doesn't relate to the article but just for the purpose of luring readers to your site. Anyway, you mentioned before that the links were from your customers and not from you. Now you said that it was you who added the links. Contradicting.

2) Feel free to put up a police report if you think it's necessary or valid.

3) When you mentioned double standard, in which circumstance did I show that I have such a behavior? Did I mentioned that my article should be placed up and other people's articles shouldn't be place? It seems that to you, deleting away your biased opinion is double-standard. I deleted because it is not factual. That's all. Also, I have never once in Wikipedia dispute your claims on your company, whether your parents shake hands with US President, or whatever.

4) Yes, most administrators feel that the article should be taken off. I never claimed that the company is great. I only present evidences that I believe the article has certain notable values and hopefully that the administrators could evaluate. Also, I never hide behind any other usernames or IP addresses to disguise my relationship with the company. As for Spirit of Enterprise, I think you have no clue on how it works. Companies are nominated for SOE award and are interviewed by tertiary students. SOE has a Board of Governors who determine whether if the company should win the award, and these Board of Governors includes experienced businessmen or professionals. Award winners are also co-determined by public voting too. And whether if we receive an award from Mr. SR Nathan, President of Singapore, it is just a factual statement (just like stating that our office is located in Robinson Road). We didn't spin any stories but I guess that my previous statement of "one of the leading..." may not be proper and feels a little advertorial. That is why I clean-up the article to be more factual and removed statements that I have no concrete evidences.

I'm not here to claim how noble I am. I'm not. All I trying to do is to place an article and present the evidences to show its notability. Throughout these times, I begin to read up on Wikipedia policies and try to figure whether if the article has complied with the given guidelines. The more I read the more it becomes clear that the article has both its merits and demerits. While I still believe that the article is notable and neutral (merits), after careful thoughts I feel that there were two critical issues - I'm the staff of the article's mentioned company (COI) and that the company may yet to become a valuable study in the field of virtual office industry (demerits). That's why even I think the article should be deleted, but in a more civil and analytical way.

Anyway, don't be that spiteful. If you really care for Wikipedia and wish to police around, do use the time to help clear up the loadful of articles that wait to be clean-up. Don't forget to add you name. Sg wiki editor 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets start with yours... --202.55.71.12 17:34, 5 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 WP:POINT nomination.Circeus 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If I Never Get Back

If I Never Get Back (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Novel.. Should all novels have an article on them? Callelinea 17:56, 3 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 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Godzilla Film (2007/2008)

Untitled Godzilla Film (2007/2008) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Complete and total crystal balling. From the article: "No title is given at the end of the trailer, leaving the audience to guess what the actual film depicts." How is anyone to know this is a Godzilla movie then? Wildthing61476 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Wildthing61476 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • D-LEET -- Keep all info on this movie at the Cloverfield entry until a title is given -- 69.177.230.230 05:53, 6 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 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay of StarCraft

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft (2nd nomination)
Gameplay of StarCraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Straight-up game guide information, written in an entirely in-universe perspective. It also lacks third-party, reliable sources that have commented on StarCraft's gameplay. We are not GameFAQs. There is nothing in this article that can't already be covered by a short section in a StarCraft game article. THe text of this article is so thoroughly in-universe that it can't be salvagable. hbdragon88 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. this article needs some significant rewrites and a lot of wikifying, but I think the subject matter has a place in Wikipedia. We should work hard to change the article before giving up and deleting it. Lorangriel 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been well over a year since the last AFD. hbdragon88 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      •    Please read WP:NOEFFORT. Morgan Wick 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • That is a legitimate argument, but by that same token isn't it time to get rid of an article that has been around for a year and a half and still hasn't been sourced? Trusilver 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, definite game-guide and WP:NOT material. Arkyan • (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, the same "We can clean this up" argument was made last year when the first AfD was done, and it hasn't been. Secondly, is this Wikipedia or GameFAQs? The article reads as a manual/strategy guide, both which do not belong here. Wildthing61476 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has a lot of accurate and useful information, even if it's difficult to get a reliable 3rd-party-source. Most of it's contents aren't the boring details of a manual. It just goes over basic areas of Starcraft that aren't obvious to beginners, and alot of this info isn't even in strategy guides. If the article was just lists of unit stats or walkthroughs for single player then i would agree. Lx Rogue 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    •    Not all "USEFUL" things belong in an encyclopedia. WP:RS and WP:NOT#HOWTO are policy. I would point you to our cousin project Wikia. Morgan Wick 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Useful or not, the article is very different from how everyone is describing it. It's not just a manual or FAQ; it has relevant information about gameplay and mechanics. Do the articles on basketball or poker describe basic methods of play outside of the rules? I'm sure they do and this is the same thing here.Lx Rogue 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if we were to grant that point, it still needs to be sourced. Morgan Wick 08:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree, but lack of sources alone isn't a good reason for deletion. Lx Rogue 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • You have five days. If you can't find reliable sources in five days, then yes, it is a good reason for deletion (see WP:DP). Without sources, the page simply seems to be original research which is a BIG no-no. Morgan Wick 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • An article that is unable to find sources after a year? That is an excellent reason for deletion. Trusilver 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Well there are sources out there; will people be willing to keep this if it gets sourced? The argument that it's a game guide could apply to hundreds of articles out there. I was under the impression the purpose of the policy is to stop generic walkthroughs and tables of statistics.
              • That's acceptable. My biggest objection to this article concerns a WP:OR issue, If the article was properly sourced, I would change my position to a weak keep, because while I still have notability concerns, they aren't bad enough to push deletion. Trusilver 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I appreciate the hard work that the authors have obviously made to create this article, it fails WP:N. As has been mentioned above, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs and should not be treated as such. The article is unsourced and has remained that way for quite a long time and as such makes me suspect original research. Trusilver 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsalvageably game guide, violates WP:VG/GL. Andre (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for game guides. It's useful is not a valid reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki-no quick solution.Kfc1864 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure, 100% game guide. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a game guide. Aaronk24 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into StarCraft. This isn't just a game guide, as it includes more than just specific strategies. It illustrates some core principles of the game (StarCraft is well-known as an extraordinarily balanced game, and this article explains why). Moreover, it gives details about the game itself rather than teaching readers how to play well. If people are keen on removing this page, I suggesting paring it down and merging it into StarCraft. Ratiocinate 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    If there is sourced information that can be added to the StarCraft article, do it. 24.180.145.210 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As per above. --SkyWalker 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:26, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

[edit] Carlos Prio-Touzet

Carlos Prio-Touzet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Cuban architect Callelinea 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I resind my nomination. Callelinea 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. There are no independent references at all. Shalom Hello 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost looks like advertising for him and his company. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, award willing architect and has 12 sources. Callelinea 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: can you dig out details on the award(s) won by Carlos? What award(s)? Given by who? When? For what?? That'll go a long way towards establishing notability. Tabercil 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I did so. In article. 2005 and 2006 given by local AIA and state AIA. Callelinea 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced, clearly (to me) notable. Plus, being the son of a President tends to also confer notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn individual related to notable persons. Bigdaddy1981 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems to be notable enough - son of a former President. Seems pretty well sourced. takethemud 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, especially notable for the child of a president, what have Chelsea Clinton or Brahim Deby or any of the myriad Kennedys they keep pumping out really done on this level? Sounds like a success on his own terms. Chris 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-I do find it weird that the primary author of the article was the one that put it up for AfD, what's the logic there? Chris 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Umm actually folks, Carlos being the son of a former President of Cuba does not by itself create notability; the problem with that argument is that notability is not inheritable. Tabercil 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If notability is not inherited, why do all First Ladies get an article in Wikipedia? As an example Jane Appleton Pierce, what did she do in her life that made her notable? I would like to say that maybe notability is not technically inhertable but it gives one a big push in that direction. Mr. Prio-Touzet, has a father that is notable, and he is an award-winning architect that has built buildings around the world, I think that more then makes him notable, plus the article has references and I the nominator of this article for AfD have resinded my nomination. Callelinea 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment as nominator has withdrawn the nomination could someone please close this AFD. Davewild 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The awards would make him notable if they were national rather than local. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the awards is from the State AIA, so he is more then just local, in addition he has designed buildings world-wide. Callelinea 12:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I happen to disagree with Wikipedia policy in the respect of "notability is not inheritable." I happen to feel that in many respects, notability most certainly is inheritable. Chelsea Clinton, for one, is an entirely unremarkable person were she not the daughter of a former U.S. president. However, I don't set Wikipedia policy, I only interpret if for what it is. According to WP:NOTINHERITED, the subject is not notable. And without his heritage, he is just like any other architect in the world holding a non-notable local award. Trusilver 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The AIA Florida organization is not a local group nor does it give out little non-notable awards. It is one of the largest AIA organizations in the country. I may also like to question that Miami and the AIA Miami organization is extremly prominant in the world of archutecure. Additionally, this architect is unlike any other run of the mill architect he has recieved contracts and commissions to design large multi-million dollar buildings. So to say that he got this article because of his family connection is really a travisty. Only the last line in his article mentions his father, the rest of the article and his references have to do with what he has done to make him notable. Callelinea 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is true, then put it in the article. If the subject has really designed theses "large multi-million dollar buildings", then expand on it and put these structures in the article. If that information were available, that would be enough for me to change to a "keep" position. Trusilver 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its in the references and I did not want to make a large article but if that is what it will take to change your mind I wil expand the article. His awards were for one of those multi-million dollar building. Callelinea 17:36, 9 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 01:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Hero of Time

The Legend of Zelda: Hero of Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page appears to be little more than an advertisement. It is an independent movie not endorsed by Nintendo, and it lacks Notability. HeroicJay 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Shalom Hello 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Per the article, this is a fan film, not an official art of the Zelda canon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails notability. Andre (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and welcome back when the project is so far that the mainstream game press takes notice. Few fan productions are notable before the release... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:03, 5 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 to Urethral sounding. Mangojuicetalk 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urethral Play

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

Deprodded. Article is in its entirety unsourced original research. That someone somewhere does this is irrelevant - unless we can adduce multiple non-trivial reliable published sources about Urethral Play - and I doubt we can - this should go. -- Y not? 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a slight merge per Tevildo is a good idea -- Y not? 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (eta) Merge to Urethral sounding per Tevildo, after deleting original research, such as improbable claim "Known cases of tubing over one inch in diameter and/or over six feet long has been successfully inserted and removed from filled bladders." and original research about prostate stimulation via the urethra. The reference in the article to "GoAskAlice" is the health center at Columbia University, which seems a pretty reliable source. Google search only shows a couple of hundred references, all to blogs and porn sites. Edison 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as wierd as it sounds, I have heard of this type of play, particularly while listening to the radio show Loveline with Dr.Drew Pinsky. He is a board certified doctor and his discussion of this practice leads me to believe it is at least notable to a small demographic of BDSM people. Plm209(talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As you may note, I concede that it's a real practice. Starblind thinks the same below. -- Y not? 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no doubt that this is "real" in the sense that some people surely actually do it, but I'm not of the opinion that everything that gets someone off should necessarily have an article. At best this would be a sentence or two in the urethra article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep if OR can be removed without completely eradicating the article. --Xiaphias 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any recoverable content into Urethral sounding. I don't think we need two separate articles to cover both the medical and recreational areas of the subject. Tevildo 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The medical and recreational sides of this subject are completely disparate, and the sexual kink doesn't belong in the medical article. However, on the subject of the kink aspect, the recent AfD debate (which I missed, due to an unscheduled wikibreak) on the Urethral sounding article may provide some useful precedent, as the notability and sourceability of the kink aspect was part of the reason it was kept. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree that it's (snicker) original research... now if I can get that particular image out of my head. Mandsford 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A Foley catheter seems big, especially when shoved up one's wee wee, but way smaller than the claimed 1 inch garden hose shoved 6 feet up the ureter into the bladder. Agreed that there is no denying what bizarreness people may indulge in to get off, but it does not all deserve an encyclopedia article unless secondary sources have talked about it. Edison 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, with sources and removing OR. One article should easily cover both medical and sexual uses. Aleta 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I strongly oppose merging with Urethral sounding. I originally split the articles, as the urethral play aspects did NOT belong in the medical article, but then I never got back to cleaning it up. I believe that there are sources to be found for the practice of urethral play, but am a little at a loss as to where to look, since I don't have any personal experience with urethral play or the BDSM community. However, I think this article needs cleanup, not deletion. With the help of editors experienced in this area, this could be a well-sourced informative article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and it should be moved to Urethral play, to conform to capitalization policies. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As someone who _does_ have some (limited) personal experience with the community in question, I can confirm that this practice is referred to as "sounding", whether or not it's done for medical reasons. Urethral sounding (or just sounding, which already has the appropriate link) is the first place anyone interested in the sexual aspects of the subject would look. Tevildo 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you help out with some sources, then? My stance is still that people looking for the sexual aspect of sounding will easily find the appropriate Urethral play article via the wikilinks in the Urethral sounding article, but that urethral play encompasses more than just using sounds for sexual pleasure (e.g. erotic electrostimulation, rubber toys, and flexible tubing or catheters), and that the whole subject would overbalance the Urethral sounding article in a non-medical direction. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Quite tricky to find anything that'll pass WP:RS, but I'll see what I can do. This AfD probably isn't the ideal place to discuss the finer points of the subject, but I would say that it's wrong to conflate the three practices - urethral stimulation itself ("sounding", even if it doesn't use a medical sound), erotic catheterization (not only for direct stimulation, but as part of a medical fetish or urolagnia), and use of the urethra for electrostimulation, where it's often just a question of obtaining access to certain parts of the body. Tevildo 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't be opposed to creating separate articles for all three practices—I'm just not sure why someone opposed to "conflating" them is advocating for a "merge" to an article that's not even sexually related.  :) ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
            • No, that's not my point - we don't have an article on "Mouth play", we have separate articles on Kissing, Oral sex, and Voreaphilia. Urethral sounding can cover the stimulation aspects of this fetish, the other aspects can go into their appropriate articles. Tevildo 11:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merging would be a good idea if there was any "recoverable content" but alas, there isn't. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge salvageable content to a subsection of the sounding article. And, for the record, "ouch". · jersyko talk 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge anything of importance to Urethral sounding, per Tevildo and Y Giggy UCP 04:29, 12 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. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest issues, the article is not supported by reliable independent sources. The only sources cited are the company's own website and a site that merely lists downloadable software programs. NawlinWiki 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GigaTribe

GigaTribe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Related template: Template:Latest preview release/GigaTribe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

delete all – This is an unremarkable product of an unremarkable company (CSD A7). The article was previously deleted as CSD G11. The editor's only contributions are to this article and linking to it from various articles, which is consistent with conflict of interest. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete The company seems to be spamming many, many websites with such adverts for this program. It is also non-notable.CommunistHamster 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - 79,800 gHits would suggest some notability, and their claim of almost half a million users should be taken into account (with a grain of salt, naturally). I don't think the fact the company engages in spam is relevant, and the article itself is far from insalvageable. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep- Hexagon1 is right; 79800 google hits should not be completely discounted, also, www.technorati.com has "everything in the known universe" about GigaTribe, and there is quite a bit. So, I think it should be kept but needs major revamping. I also think that the spamming is irrelevant, unless the article is spammy, which it is not in particular. Neranei T/C 23:18, 11 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. FisherQueen (Talk) 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Trip

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

Apparent COI autobiography; fails WP:MUSIC. Shalom Hello 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Article about a musician that does not assert the notability of its subject (WP:CSD#A7). BassoProfundo 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete textbook example of an A7/nn-bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 3 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 g11 -- Y not? 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vlad Muzhesky

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

Unreferenced autobiography of a nonnotable artist. I am also nominating the userpage of the author, which is identical word for word to the article:

User:M01agency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shalom Hello 16:45, 3 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 as page creation vandalism.--Isotope23 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel (dog)

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

Subject clearly fails to meet WP:Notability, as no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources is provided (this article was the subject of a PROD, and no third-party sources were provided at that opportunity either). This is especially non-notable considering the contest which the dog won, The "Best Dog" award of the Worldwide Association of the Best Dog in the World, is nn as well. Additionally, the article is poorly written and provides little valuable encyclopedic information beyond the fact that the dog won the contest. It seems to be being used as a publicity site for the dog's "accomplishment". VanTucky 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the admission of the article's creator here, this article is a hoax. The contest does not exist. VanTucky 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete NN dog. The only "notability" is made up, per above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 3 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 closed as keep and withdrawn per result at CfD. Non-admin closure. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable table tennis players

Notable table tennis players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed with comment:

There are many red links meaning no page exists for players. Many player names are unlinked. I think all of them dont have seperate page, so category wont work i think. Also there are very few pages related to TT players in wikipedia including this and List of World Table Tennis Champions. So removed prod.

—User:Lara bran

However, as I stated in the prod, a category would be able to do just as well here. Also, if the page is deleted, please do not merge back into the main article, they split it off from there because of size, and I don't blame them. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I agree with the deprodder. A category cannot include people who don't have articles. As long as it can be shown that the redlinked/unlinked entries are, in fact, notable, a list is appropriate. It should probably be moved to "List of notable table tennis players," though.-Chunky Rice 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Categorize and delete I was going to say weak keep, because many of the names do seem to qualify as "notable" based on their descriptions, although the page could definitely be organized (and defined) much better. But List of World Table Tennis Champions does exist already, and it seems like the subject would be better addressed by charts of the winners by year for each of these events, instead of just listing a bunch of people who have repeatedly won one or more of the events. This list is just too messy for me to support keeping it. Propaniac 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is precisely what categories are for. And anyway, if there aren't articles on many of these players, how can we know if they're notable? I daresay it would be rather pointless to establish notability for a lot of players on a page like this without giving them their own articles — not to mention the fact that it would result in a really long page. Nyttend 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think that anybody who wins an Olympic medal is notable in that sport. But that's not enough information to build an article out of. I really see no reason why there should be a burden to create articles to prove notability. -Chunky Rice 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Notable is not subjective, its Hall of fame list maintained by ITTF. Should we move? Again there are Grand Slam winners(see article), Hall of fame, World champions etc. But this article includes all those and generalised. I vote keep. Lara bran 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per the reply about a category can't show red links. Lugnuts 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Comment "Notable" is subjective without hard criteria. Ideally, if they're notable, they should have articles on them. We prove notability to keep articles, not create articles to prove notability; there's really no point in trying to show notability for someone who doesn't have an article, unless you're just about to create one. The idea that getting an Olympic medal is, in and of itself, not enough info for an article, doesn't fly, because there's nothing wrong with stubs. If there was a table tennis WikiProject, I would prefer moving it there. Morgan Wick 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • After doing a little bit of snooping, I propose moving to List of ITTF Hall of Fame members, which I suspect better favors a list. Morgan Wick 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are not just red links, many player names are not internal linked by [[ ]]. That means red link players + not not linked player makes for many players who dont have articles. Category wont work as more than half players dont have page. This list is according hall of fame of ITTF, given pdf ref there. If wikipedia doesnt have page on these players that does not mean they are not notable, very obviously, as wikipedia takes long time. We should go by players achivements. Also there are very few pages in wikipedia about TT players, this will help create pages in player's names. Another article List of World Table Tennis Champions is insufficient list because there are 3 seperate tournaments namely Olympic Games gold medal, world championship title, and World Cup of Table Tennis gold medal. Lara bran 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the deletors' points are that if Wikipedia does not have pages on these players, and they are notable, what's stopping you from creating articles on them? Even if they're doomed to be only stubs? There's nothing wrong with stubs. To which you'll probably say "this will help create pages in player's names." So move it to userspace or a WikiProject. Morgan Wick 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and recommend a speedy close. This is a redundant AFD because the category is up for deletion currently (since before this AFD), and is leaning towards listify. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 3#Category:Notable table tennis players - Neier 09:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:36, 7 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 01:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings and structures in Basse-Normandie

List of tallest buildings and structures in Basse-Normandie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

subject not notable enough for wikipedia Lorangriel 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. List is a little narrow in scope (tall structures in a largely agricultural area) and likely to be populated by non-notable structures such as transmission towers. I don't read French but it appears half of them are, anyway. Hard to imagine anything ever becoming of this. Arkyan • (talk) 16:34, 3 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 (see comment below). Shalom Hello 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driftwood Village

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

Article seems to be about a property development site and doesn't give any indication of notability. Hux 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This article got speedily deleted by FisherQueen before you posted the AFD. I think WP:TW got confused and recreated the article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:47, 3 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 under G11 for blatant advertising. — brighterorange (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston analytics

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

Blatant advertising. Evil1987 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam/advertising. Wildthing61476 14:09, 3 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. Added Greek interwiki link to Ugly Betty. NawlinWiki 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Μαρία η άσχημη

Μαρία η άσχημη (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These two sentence halves don't need their own article. Maybe integrate into Ugly Betty, otherwise delete. -- Prince Kassad 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge the sentence per nom. Delete based partly on WP:WINAD. Shalom Hello 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Bucketsofg 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (and it's already there at the Ugly Betty article). Gordonofcartoon 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if this is already at Ugly Betty, without prejudice to re-creation under an English language and English alphabet title like Ugly Betty (Greek). The Greek language TV series is notable, likely worthy of an English language article, but few users of the English language Wikipedia are able to type "Μαρία η άσχημη" into a search window. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. JJL 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:38, 7 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 02:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ninda Randhawa

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

Nonnotable biography. Her representative has emailed the oversight list to state that she doesn't want the article and I cannot see any reason to refuse the request to delete. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No sources. Not a good thing for a BLP. Not notable as written and unlikely will be able to be an encyclopedic and well balanced Wikipedia article. So yes, delete ASAP. FloNight 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable as written, per Flo. Bucketsofg 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination and WP:BIO. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources, no particular claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Both Ms Randhawa and I agree about the 'not notable enough' policy. As Ms Randhawa's representative here, I would also like to point out she would prefer it to be removed asap. She did not give permission for this data to be made publicly available. Thanks everyone. Lesley b linux 09:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; most google results are wikipedia or mirrors[17]. John Vandenberg 13:44, 7 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 into 1632 series. Daniel Case 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1632 universe background history

1632 universe background history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article contains in-depth, essay-like (mainly original research) reflections on 1632 (novel). It's been tagged for cleanup since December 2006, but no one seems to have made serious efforts to salvage it. Although its content could conceivably be merged with that article, most of it is either redundant to content which is already there, or simply unnecessary. Waltontalk 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to 1632 (novel) per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Jeepday (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim and merge. Each book in the series does not warrant its own article. Should be significantly trimmed and main points merged into 1632 series.
  • Merge per jeep. Bucketsofg 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per above. I'm an enormous fan of the series (and coincidentally, am just about to head out to the bookstore to get the most recent hardcover!) but there's wide scope for trimming. For one thing, a recap of real world history or bios of historical figures are scarcely necessary, since they already exist in various pertinent articles. For another, this article is written in a heavily biased style, following the POV of the series. For a third, especially with the much better written 1632 series article and individual articles on each of the books, this fork is entirely superfluous.  RGTraynor  16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into 1632 series 132.205.44.5 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to all the above, I still think a merge is inappropriate (otherwise I'd have just merged it rather than lifting at AfD). Looking at it, there's simply too much irrelevant or totally in-universe content here to be mergeable. That might be easier to someone more familiar than I am with the series, however, so I'll withdraw the nom if someone does a decent merge and redirect. Waltontalk 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Since the material is interesting and well-written, it is hard to vote for Delete, even though WP:OR raises its ugly head. I hope the other commenters know that AfD closers who see 'Merge' are just going to dump everything into the target article and leave it to the regular editors to sort out. So anyone who likes this material could begin now to try to integrate it into the target 1632 (novel). EdJohnston 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Sr13 02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture

Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Ethnic stereotypes in American media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - added by Shalom Hello

Although the title of this article may initially give off an air of notability, the content is completely worthless and highly original research. Take for example, the List of significant stereotypical characters in film which is just a random collection of what some people consider "stereotypical" characters without any text to support it. Further, we already have the article Ethnic stereotypes in American media which works much better. Bulldog123 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom Bulldog123 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Upon first reading the article, it seems as though it is legit but when looking at it from the point of view of WP:OR it is definately more of an essay as outlined in #3 under WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Plm209(talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both - hopeless original research, unresolvable POV problems. Shalom Hello 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both per everyone. Some of the examples given aren't even stereotypes! --Charlene 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Plm209. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both per all.--JayJasper 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Alrigh, Delete the first one and Keep the second one. I agree with Bulldog that the American media article is far better. It's not really fair to lump a decent article in to your nomination on a crummy one, especially since they were started by different authors, and the second one appears to be an imitation of the first. We wouldn't have this "keep both", "delete both", "delete one, but not both" crap if this was confined to one article. I hope the administrators can see that piggybacking is inappropriate in this instance. Mandsford 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is just no way to make the list WP:NPOV; what are the criteria to get on the list? Article does not really provide insight on stereotyping anyhow. Capmango 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom & most of above. Carlossuarez46 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all obvious POV fork, but also delete all ethnic stereotypes articles.--SefringleTalk 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm curious about the proposal to delete all ethnic stereotypes articles. Stereotyping isn't something to be encouraged, but one can't pretend that it doesn't exist or that it never has. Even supporters of politically correct policies need to be aware of what to avoid. Mandsford 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless inline citations used.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:41, 7 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 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going up Scalp

Going up Scalp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and No original research. Thus, it is non notable but it seems as though the prod failed (from the history) so I will list it here for AfD. See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Plm209(talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 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 02:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josephine Anstey

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

Assistant professor at the University at Buffalo and experimental narrative video maker, appears to fail WP:BIO Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 3 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. Neil ╦ 11:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnraisers

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

Delete # No assertion of passing any notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC, one source, meaning they fail the mutltiple media mentions stipulated by WP:MUSIC, lack of sources means a verification issue with any claim to notability that could be made. Band seemingly fails all notability criteria laid out by WP:MUSIC. DarkSaber2k 12:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • continuing a discussion from Talk:Barnraisers... DarkSaber, please understand the difference between notability and an assertion of notability. If there really is only one non-trivial 3rd party source out there whose subject is this band, then the band fails Wikipedia:Notability. However, the fact that the article already cites one such source is at least an assertion of notability because more sources might be out there.

    Because the article asserts notability, it's up to you (and me, and any editor who encounters this article) to do a little research to try to see if there are other sources out there. The time for AfD is after you've done the research and found no other sources. Pan Dan 12:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since your such a big fan of quoting sentences, here's one for you from WP:V#Burden of evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Meaning the burden of providing sources is on the people who say there are sources, not those who say there aren't any. DarkSaber2k 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue here isn't verifiability of content, it's deletion of an article, since we find ourselves, after all, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You're proposing to delete an article because its subject does not pass a notability guideline, but you haven't done any actual research to see if it actually fails that guideline. Pan Dan 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by "research" I mean "Google." Doesn't take that long. Pan Dan 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the article fails to assert notability. Wikipedia readers should not be expected to go trawling the net to find out if an article should be here or not. If the article fails to assert notability, or provide reliable sources for verification then it has a high chance of something like this happening. All the notability in the world means squat if the article fails to make even a mention of it. As I said before, the burden of proof is not on me to prove the are non-notable, the burden is on the people claiming it is notable to prove that. DarkSaber2k 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I already explained why the article asserts notability. If notability means "multiple non-trivial 3rd party sources" and the article cites one such source, that's an assertion of notability. But I guess we're going in circles now. Pan Dan 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A Google search[18] suggests that this band is not (yet) the subject of multiple non-trivial 3rd party sources. (I also checked Lexis-Nexis, where the Wilmington Star article already cited in the Wikipedia article is the only result.) Therefore it's impossible at this time to write a neutral verifiable encyclopedia article about them. The article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. Pan Dan 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am currently searching and adding as I find more references from 3rd party sources. A google search of just the 'barnraisers' alone does not result in all articles regarding the band. One article in particular appears to have an invalid link at the moment.Dajbow 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see anything here, or in a bit of searching, that meets WP:BAND. Nothing like a national tour, a radio hit, multiple albums on a major label. Looks like a good solid regional band, but not notable by wikipedia guidelines. Capmango 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing to pass WP:BAND here, just a single review, and trivial mentions in show listings --Steve (Stephen) talk 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BAND requirements. Wiki is not a platform to promote an upcoming band either. --Madchester

As noted before I'm not affliated with the band and this article does not in anyway promote the band. This article gives a clear account of the band's history and their notability in a new generation of bluegrass music. The article also references several 3rd party sources including reviews and a radio interview. I would argue that this band does meet the requirements of WP:BAND, notably categories 1 and 7.Dajbow 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:BAND the entry must meet "any one" of the criteria. The entry clearly meets criteria 1 and 7. And with all due respect, the hostility toward this article seems to suggest a bias toward the genre of Bluegrass which by its nature relies not on massive tours and album sells, but on live performances and grassroots support. I assume that is why the policy makers of Wikipedia wrote the requirements as they did; to prevent narrow or tenditious judgment of content. Emerson1975 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Changing my recommendation to keep the article based on the Wilmington Star article and the Encore magazine article reprinted on the band's website (but why can't I find it in the Encore archives?). Emerson, for the second time, please assume that other editors are acting in good faith. Pan Dan 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's not in the Encore archives. I think it was up there as I get a broken link to the article in a google search of 'Barnraisers and Encore magazine'.Dajbow 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The limits of the written word; I was not trying to imply malice, just suggesting that from the tone of the comments there may have been an unconscious tendency to judge apples by oranges' criteria. No insult intended. I will try to address the problem with the Encore archives. Emerson1975 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to October 2006's Encore magazine article now includes direct link to Encore Magazine's archives and not the reprint on the band's own website.Dajbow 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Most of the references are trivial mentions or from questionable publications. Doesn't appear to be enough to warrant an article. 17Drew 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am completely baffled by the reactions to this article. The article states referenced facts about the band, their repertoire, their influences and their connection to a specific musical genre. The references are legitimate, not questionable, publications. And though I have no affiliation with those publications or the radio station on which one of the interviews appears, I find it condescending and insulting that they are referred to as trivial or questionable simply because they are small, independent or local publications. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with far less significance and fewer references (in some cases no references) that are not challenged or tagged for deletion. And I find it a bit hypocritical that the article is being challenged for its notability by an editor whose major contributions to Wikipedia are lightly referenced articles about individual No Doubt songs and the band King Changó whose entire article consists of two sentences and a single reference, which is the band's own website. Emerson1975 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:BAND per all above me Giggy UCP 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete they don't seem to have released any album or single whatsoever. SalaSkan 09:18, 12 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 all. Sr13 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Fuck With My Shit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Don't Fuck With My Shit
Don't Fuck With My Shit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, has no pages in the mainspace that link to it. The artist seems unnotable too. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 12:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I am also nominating the following related pages because it appears to be the NN artist of the song and fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.

Erik Rug (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)Plm209(talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There doesn't even seem to be a page on the artist, so why on this? Recurring dreams 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The album image does not appear to be related to the article. Artist doesn't have a page. Does not appear to meet guidelines for notability. ++Arx Fortis 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Does not provide WP:RS or assert notability. I'm not even sure it's not a WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JJL 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable recording by a non-notable artist. Acalamari 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Capmango 01:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The artist page is just a list of band names. Pointless. Precious Roy 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:53, 7 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 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papa Louie: When Pizzas Attack!

Papa Louie: When Pizzas Attack! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable sources for verification. Only sources are official sites and a couple of download link content descriptions. Prod was challenged by article creator. DarkSaber2k 11:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete free online flash game, nn. SalaSkan 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Cute, yes. Fun, probably. Encyclopedically notable, no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Rackabello 00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete in the absence of sources to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for having no reliable sources, fails notability. Both external sources in article are just 'heads-up' blog posts and I had a good look for reviews yesterday and came up with nothing, unfortunately.QuagmireDog 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This article's content and references are no different than other games (Chuzzle,Peggle,Super_Princess_Peach,Picross_Ds), if this page is unacceptable then I don't see why all other games' pages are not removed as well. Neutrals4u 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)— Neutrals4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald J. Clarke

Ronald J. Clarke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently notable in his own right to deserve a bio page. It's enough that he is noted as the discoverer in the Little Foot article. Hux 10:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My goodness! what do you have against south african scientists? first me then Ron Clarke? I think you may be a bit biased! I could certainly add enough info. on this page to show that he is notable, but I am afraid it might appear as self promotion!Profberger 11:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Profberger: Please remain civil. Wikipedia is an inherently interconnected resource - I found this page via your autobiographical article. I assure you that I hold no bias here. I'm simply a disinterested party doing some housecleaning. Also, if you were to add info about Mr. Clarke to the page then it would not constitute self-promotion since you'd be writing about someone else. If the consensus is to keep the article then your input would certainly be worthwhile, provided it is encyclopedic in nature. -- Hux 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is notable primarily for his discovery, but that is no reason to delete the page. Recurring dreams 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable paleoanthropologist credited with a significant discovery. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. There does not appear to be enough information publically available to write a proper biographical article about him. That alone makes this deletable. -- Kesh
  • Keep and expand Very notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added a key accessible reference on his most important discovery. He is also responsible for another major discovery as reported in the article, and participated in yet a third, which I have just added. Scientists are notable for their work. DGG 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have attached a list of references to articles etc. by independant sources on work by Ron Clarke other than for Little Foot to establish notability. Disclosure: As may be noted in the content of the Clarke page _ I am accussed of "firing" Prof. Clarke (not technically correct - he was retrenched - nevertheless this may be semantics). It is therefore innapropriate that I edit his page as there could be a percieved conflict of interest so I'll attach these references for others to use if Keep is decided upon:

Profberger 08:03, 5 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 by means of unanimous vote; also note that nom has withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee R. Berger

Lee R. Berger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability. Also self-promotion: almost every edit has been performed by the users "Profberger" and "Gladysvale" (the latter of which appears to be a sock puppet). Hux 10:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hux: My name is Prof. Lee Berger (profberger) and yes I have added recent edits as a matter of factual correction to the site above. I have also, during the course of adding sites that we have original data on to wikipedia - see my recent additions such as Gladysvale, Motsetse, Coopers cave, taung, plovers lake and others that fall under our institute. To correct you in your accusation of self-promotion, my assistant originally set up the site without my knowledge using data from my cv. Wikipedia then asked me to verify a release of copyright which I did. I had not used wikipedia until that time but became fascintated with the concept as I see it as an excellent way of sharing quality information and images which we hold copyright to. You may look at the sites listed above that I have done in the past couple of days and see what I was trying to do. In editing my own profile, I was trying to improve the quality of content (italics, spelling, incorrect dates etc.). Yes, my assistant did ask me to upload some images as references which I did as she was worried about the referencing policy. I apologize if this is seen as self-promotion rather than quality control, but this was not the intent. I think if you look at the sites and content that I am busy putting on, I am simply trying to put the history of South African paleoanthropology into Wikipedia and add valuable, clean verifiable content.

Regards,

Prof. Lee R. Berger

Profberger 10:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep However the article needs to be radically pruned to remove the unencyclopaediac, vanity content. But the nominator should also remember to assume good faith, and that while creating one's own page is not encouraged, it is not banned either. Recurring dreams 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability seems to be given, Google turns up newspaper articles about Berger's work and even his own TV series. Though I agree with Recurring dreams' comments about pruning it. --Huon 12:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Desperately needs a trim (a scan of a Boy Scout certificate?! What the hell?) But subject is notable and passes WP:BIO easily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, I withdraw the nomination - I was mistaken about the notability issue. (I'm still a little concerned about the self-promotion issue in general though, given the quality of most of the edits from those two user accounts.) -- Hux 13:19, 3 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Schiemann

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

Self-promotion: user "Sitepen", the article creator, appears to be the subject of the article. Hux 09:34, 3 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 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 cent trek

10 cent trek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Looks made up. One would think something as allegedly popular would have at least one hit on Google (checked with several variations and spellings). In its current form, it fails verifiability. Pekaje 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as unsourced, unverifiable. --Huon 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT-type article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sounds made up - 10 pence trek - the term that purports to describe the practice's UK analogue - is certainly utter bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources to verify the subject, which is most likely made up. Acalamari 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No Google hits. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete from here and add to Urban Dictionary, but WP:ILIKEIT and I'm going to go do a ten cent trek right now. Capmango 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • DONT Delete sources are coming!!!!, --User:G se7en 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — G se7en (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just to let you know, this is the sort of item that would only be kept if you can provide multiple independent reliable sources, which generally would mean a news or magazine article specifically about this phenomenon (not just mentioning it in passing). Local newsletters, blogs, etc. would not count. Given the complete lack of web hits or news hits, it seems unlikely to me that such sources exist. If this is a brand new idea that is just starting to catch on, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Capmango 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., and prior comments. If multiple reliable sources can be provided, the article should be reinstated. Per Capmango's comments, however, this seems highly doubtful.--JayJasper 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Being Australian, i've never heard of this before, and the lack of WP:RS to support it suggests it's in the WP:CB category. Thewinchester (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:MADEUP. Euryalus 21:24, 7 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, doesn't assert notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left Wing Fascists

Left Wing Fascists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band (see WP:MUSIC). Precious Roy 07:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete- Per Nom. Should have been speedied. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it certainly qualifies for speedying under A7. So tagged. TheLetterM 14:22, 3 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 (CSD A7/G11). —Xezbeth 18:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wpcebu

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

Non-notable, plus self-promotion: the editor who created the article is also called "Wpcebu". Hux 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - A7, no assertion of notability (in any revision). --Pekaje 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as above, with helpings of WP:COI & WP:WEB thrown in. Eusebeus 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete the above: self-promotion page. Acalamari 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, for now. Until more information can be added to the article. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rear End

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

All the information here is already in the Mercedes (rapper) article. Hux 07:26, 3 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 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elementary (video game)

Elementary (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I have doubts about its Notabilty and Crystalball. I googled the video game and Marcus Ltd. but did not get any substantial results. Everything in the infobox is filled with TBA and the article does not site any specific information about the game except that the game revolves around a school. Also, the creator seems to focus his/her edits on this single article which I find strange. Lenticel (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I doubt even if it is released it would be notable. The website is being hosted on webs.com as a subdomain, no real release would do that. I suspect it's a home grown game being made by someone on their own at best, a hoax at worst. Ben W Bell talk 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is, at best, Crystal Ball; at worst, as above. Eusebeus 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Update Check out this deletion log. Perhaps its the same article--Lenticel (talk) 09:39, 6 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. NawlinWiki 21:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Witness (Album)

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

Non-notable album by non-notable band Precious Roy 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Band aspires to a Myspace page [19] and not much more. Eusebeus 08:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - until it's decided if Under The Flood (Band) is passes WP:BIO (at the moment, it's got a big copyvio notice plopped on the page). The Evil Spartan 17:17, 9 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AbsoluteTelnet

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

There is no clear evidence of notability for this produce; creator removed tag but was unable to offer independent sources. FisherQueen (Talk) 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The article doesn't contain information that wouldn't fit in a table such as on Comparison of SSH clients or yet-nonexistant Comparison of telnet clients. The author does have a point that Comparison of SSH clients shouldn't have dead links, but that means the latter page should be de-wikified rather than that all dead links should be created as new articles. With evidence of notability, it would be weak keep. Han-Kwang 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of Google hits, but most of them are auto-generated download pages. Searching for 'absolutetelnet ssh viewtopic' will give only 74 web forum pages where the program is discussed, while the same query for PuTTY or OpenSSH wil give over 20,000 hits. Han-Kwang 17:54, 3 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 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trick Son & Lloyd

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Trick Son & Lloyd
Trick Son & Lloyd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a local (and defunct) real-estate and travel agency, farced out with historical information that has no specific relevance to this firm. Fails WP:N, in my opinion. Deor 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting article, but this business doesn't seem to meet our notability guidelines. If it's been written about in local histories or business histories or something, then I might be convinced that it's notable, but based on what I see right now, delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The creator of the article seems to have been personally involved in the company. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit is incomplete so deletion will prevent additional information for it to fulfill Wikipedia guidelines.

The business was connected with and instrumental with the content and is therefore valid.

As the person who holds the historical information for this company and the history of much more in that locality it is natural that I may be associated with it.

The business is recorded in local archives.

This tag would seem to be personal - See talk for more.

I am more than happy to step down as a contributing editor if this is how Wikipedia works. Martynwg 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Regarding the malformed "talk" link in Martynwg's comment above, the supposed evidence for the personal nature of my nom can be found at User talk:Martynwg, though you'll have to work through the edit history, since Martynwg has deleted every one of my messages immediately after reading it. Deor 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Martynwg, in order for the article to stay, you'll need to provide references from reliable sources to prove that the firm is notable, according to the guidelines. Tevildo 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems to be an essay of sorts that is drawing on personal (and hence likely unverifiable) information. Regardless, this defunct company clearly fails WP:CORP and doesn't merit its own article. Eusebeus 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. From a local social history standpoint I can see this business illustrating a number of things about the place, but it isn't an important or notable business in any way. Martynwg, simply understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or webspace provider for you to write whatever you personally deem worthwhile. Articles that are in Wikipedia must have some encyclopedic importance. --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced, probably unverifiable. Everything Google found were Wikipedia mirrors. --Huon 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some reliable sources show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if the information can be sourced. I am not certain the modern part is notable but the historical part certainly is. The information must come from somewhere--probably a company history., DGG 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:00, 7 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 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cypriot footballers

List of Cypriot footballers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has many fewer entries than the category that shares the same name, Category:Cypriot footballers. Appears unnecessary as it is just a simple list of articles with no new information compared to the category list. Also see similar AfD here. Jogurney 03:51, 3 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 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Bulgarian footballers

List of Bulgarian footballers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has many fewer entries than the category that shares the same name, Category:Bulgarian footballers. Appears unnecessary as it is just a simple list of articles with no new information compared to the category list. Also see similar AfD here. Jogurney 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel_Terrazas

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Miguel Terrazas
Miguel_Terrazas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Miguel Terrazas, a marine that died prior to the Haditha Massacre, is not in of himself notable. The only thing notable about him is his death and that is already mentioned in the Haditha Massacre article. Anything of value from the article already exists in the Haditha article, so I don't see why Wikipedia ought to preserve this article. From the articles that I've read, he is only mentioned in passing and nothing more. Jayran 03:13, 3 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 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Huff

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

This looks more like a resumé than an encyclopedic article. While I wish Mr. Huff all the best in his career, the fact is that unless one can provide reliable and significant third-party coverage (and no, IMDb does not count as significant), I'm afraid there's no point in keeping the article. I'd like to add that the creator's only two edits are the creation of this page and the addition of Mr Huff's name to a list of scientology celebrities so there are also very strong concerns of conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I saw this article on Recentchanges and would have nominated it for AFD but I was busy. The article's claims of notability, even if true, are insufficient for an article. Nyttend 03:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not imdb. Bigdaddy1981 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 3 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Giunchigliani

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

County commissioners are below the notability level for local politicians. Corvus cornix 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Local politicians can be written about if they've received a bit of attention, but regardless of that...Wikipedia:Notability (people) considers notable "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Giunchigliani has been a member of the Nevada legislature. Nyttend 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, as a (former) state legislator she automatically passes WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I appologize, I don't know how these pages work, but it seems to me she is notable under the guidelines because she is a former legislator in the Nevada Assembly (the national equivalent would be the US House of Reps). How do I remove the deletion tag on her page? Bremskraft July 3, 11:07 (PST)
  • Keep and Comment Obvious keep per the above comments. As for removing the AfD tag, it will be done so once this AfD is closed, most likely by the closing admin. Wildthing61476 12:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Above and beyond the carefully-sourced biographical details is service in the Nevada legislature, which meets all qualifications of WP:BIO for politicians. Alansohn 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep possible speedy under WP:SNOW. She was a member of a state legislature for 14 years and qualifies under WP:BIO see [20]. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Clark County Commission is widely considered the most powerful body of elected officials in Nevada. They are the governmental body that controls the Las Vegas Strip and a area about the size of New Jersey. There will be more articles on these officials in the future and they clearly are notable. Vegaswikian 21:21, 4 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 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of food pairs

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

Another obvious violation of WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Why create something like this? WHY?! Masaruemoto 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Wow, talk about a needless article. Aside from what was already mentioned, it's inherently OR. Nyttend 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Mr T would say, this is gibber jabber. Bigdaddy1981 03:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - cheese and pineapple? I'd like a source on that...oh wait... --Haemo 09:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What about rice and dal? Recurring dreams 12:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete shoot me now; don't wait until you get home. JJL 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone else. The "proverbial/idiomatic" and "complementary" "opposing", etc., labels have a fake intellectual air that means nothing here. Notice that none of these pairs are a blue-link together-- it's apples & oranges instead of apples and oranges.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of commercial pairs

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. More "pair-related" obsessive list making. A list of companies whose only connection is having two names in the title seperated by an ampersand. Masaruemoto 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not sure why someone thinks this is notable; even if this were a category, it would be needless. How is this possibly deserving of being in an encyclopedia? Nyttend 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable intersection of ideas. I see that you've chosen to nominate only a pair of these lists, Masaruemoto. There's certainly more where these came from, handily listed in Lists of pairs (though not every article listed there is worthy of deletion). I'm wondering whether we shouldn't get rid of that as well, since the redlinked entries will just encourage people to create more lists of this sort. Deor 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. I second the above: all of these pairs lists need scrutiny for the same reason. Gordonofcartoon 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. JJL 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This one needs to Curl Up & Dye Mandsford 00:16, 4 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 deleted by Dina. Non-admin closure of orphan AfD. Deor 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Mclennan

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

Non-notable person (contested speedy, looks like by a sock). Also bundling an inter-related (WP:WALL) non-notable bio involving the same tag-team editing group.

Diana vukic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DMacks 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna go ahead and tag both articles for Speedy Deletion, both look like clear attack pages. TheLetterM 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after looking at the pages, they don't fulfill A10. Still speedyable though. TheLetterM 02:54, 3 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human-based computation

Human-based computation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

original research - a synthesis of a number of publications in man-machine interaction to present a neologistic concept, which has a whoooppping 35 unique google hits. NOt to say that the term is clueless, too. I gather, human based computation has a history of millenia :-) `'Miikka 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep A fairly good article, with sourcing. It';s a major topic, as demonstrated by the abundant references. DGG 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Abundand refernces are for making synthesis, which is original research. The cited references do not introduce the term `'Miikka 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The term (also known as "human computation") is established in academic circles. Von Ahn won a MacArthur Fellowship for work on it. So, notable and referenced. It should use inline citations to cut down on the OR, though. — brighterorange (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Human computation" yes there is such term. But it has nothing about the current article. "Human computation" discusses why in certain tasks humans are better than computers. The current article is kinda Matrix (film) topic. `'Miikka 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're wrong about this. Just check out Von Ahn's papers. — brighterorange (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep well-referenced. I just read an article about this the other day in a (physical) newspaper. JJL 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The "original research" label doesn't apply to this article. Mandsford 00:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Brighterorange is correct, it's a well established concept. And it's nothing like Matrix, it's just computers distributing and collecting tasks done by humans. See the examples in the category, e.g. Amazon Mechanical Turk, Stardust@home. Rl 19:44, 5 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 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jo-Anne Dusel

Jo-Anne Dusel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) (non winning candidate) Prod removed without addressing notability Diff Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. AW 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete losing candidates need to demonstrate notability for other reasons. Her other work does not cross the WP:BIO threshold. Eusebeus 08:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks sources to establish notability. Addhoc 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus - defaulting to keep ck lostsword•T•C 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teh

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

An encyclopedia page for a typo? You got to be kidding. Piperdown 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a frivoulous entry for an article that for some reason wasn't deleted in 2004. Piperdown 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep it, Teh has multiple meanings and is definitely important in slang today.
The only meaning it has in english is a mistake on your keyboard. Piperdown 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Kepe Typeos aer hilariuos--Perceive 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Dleete per nmo Mandsford 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this just gives unfocused and unreferenced definitions for various uses of "teh." This definitely does not meet any speedy keep criteria as the original nomination is several years old... GassyGuy 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, for lack of sources and citations. Once it's provided with enough citations, I may change my vote. AW 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pathetic nonsense. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bigdaddy1981 03:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most notable slang terms in leetspeak and online communities in general. Needs some improvement, though. pwn isn´t much different, it just has an better article. ~ Felcis 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Teh" has received some attention in scholarly works -- see [21], [22] -- and a quick Factiva search will yield a few relevant newspaper results explaining the term. At the very least, some of this info should be merged into one of our articles on Internet culture. Zagalejo 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this page at all. If you feel it's not encyclopedic enough you're more than welcome to expand it. Mikya 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is well beyond a dic dec. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether it can be depends on what information can be found in the sources mention, but as it stands now, it actually gives a definition and usage guide, so, no, it really isn't. GassyGuy 04:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalejo; a number of worthwhile sources can be brought to bear on this one. Chubbles 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am surprised, but there seems to be enough material. DGG
  • Keep per Zagalejo. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The information given is I think highly suspect. Most of the content is an explainer of the grammatical role of the definite article with unsubstantiated claims made for this typo of a nature that smacks of internet meme-mongering at its worst. Where is the evidence, inter alia, that: "that is teh lame" translates as "that is the lamest"? Eusebeus 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, at worst merge with leet. It could stand better sourcing and some of the heavily cantilevered WP:OR assumptions should be cut back. --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - unbelievably, this looks sourceable. --Haemo 09:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – this is just somebody's opinion on the usage of "teh". Any solid data could go under Leet or Article (grammar).RandomCritic 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable and sourced, as shown above. Tarc 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to leet. That's the most obvious compromise between the keep and delete votes, and logically it seems like the best option.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and disambiguate as follows:

Teh is a common misspelling of "The", the definite article in the English language. It is used in Leetspeak. Teh is also a synonym of tea in some languages (see teh botol).

The grammatical usage, which dominates the article, is original research. I could not find the word "teh" in any mainstream dictionary online, let alone an etymology for its slang usage. Shalom Hello 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to leet seems to be teh fair choice here. Arkyan • (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep though I'm surprised to see myself typing that. JJL 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with the page. If you feel it is not encyclopedic enough you're more than welcome to expand on it. Mikya 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as I want to claw my own eyes out for saying so, the subject of the article is sourcable and is a notable bit of pop culture. I would relent and say merge as a compromise, but I feel that there is enough information available to warrant its own article. HOWEVER, I would like to see it cited a little bit more definitively than it is right now.Trusilver 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of online-gaming slang. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Most dictionaries would not support this word. Encyclopaedia's are the appropriate place to describe important terms such as Teh that do not appear in most dictionaries. Mathiastck 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" has typically been understood in two ways. (1) We don't want short articles. Please develop your topic as fully as is reasonable. This was the original intent of WINAD according to a 2002 version that I looked up a while ago. (2) We don't want mere dictionary definitions. Please forward those to Wiktionary. This is the primary meaning in use today. Mathiastck is now suggesting a third meaning: (3) Wikipedia can accept dictionary entries that are rejected by real dictionaries. I don't accept this interpretation. I think the grammatical development of "teh" is original research, and it has no leg to stand on so long as the word "teh" is not found in mainstream dictionaries. Shalom Hello 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because I like it... I'm having trouble finding sources: you just try googling for "teh". :-) It does have huge numbers of definitions in the Urban Dictionary, which yes, is user-created and thus not a reliable source strictly speaking; but since all the definitions pretty much agree, I think common sense would allow that consensus to be used as a source. I also found a Language Log reference to 'teh' as typo in case anyone wants to cite that claim. --Zeborah 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind - that should be "keep because it has multiple references as per Zagalejo". I've now rewritten part of it including citations to some of the scholarly articles Zagalejo pointed to. --Zeborah 10:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirest to Leetspeak. Lacks multiple refrences with suibstantial coverge, and most of the artcle is origilan research. Most of the keep arguments have been "I like it" which is not a valid argument. Wikpedia is not a directory of tyops. Edison 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. This is a real linguistic phenomenon, and frankly, it's irresponsible to delete it without input from a professional linguist. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable (although I must say I am horrified to see this AfD is getting more keep votes than Plot of Les Misérables). Everyking 10:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be a misspelling, but it's one that's notable because of how common it is and how it's developed into its own slang term. FreakyFlyBry 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:06, 7 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. There is a nearly even divide between keep and delete and a week's worth of discussion has not moved the center of debate significantly to one side or the other. Daniel Case 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy assassination in popular culture

John F. Kennedy assassination in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original Research Piperdown 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I hosed up this AFD and I don't know how to fix it. Piperdown 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, not sure what went wrong in the first place. A space before the {{afd2}} might have been the culprit? cab 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This is part of many articles spun off from the main article about the JFK assassination, created because it's a topic of its own. November 22, 1963 is pretty well off limits, as with December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. Mandsford 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep is an invalid !vote. Delete, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA, virtually unsourced. Anything with such POV entries as novel is an enjoyable example of the vast library of Holmes pastiches deserves deletion. Corvus cornix 03:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is okay to !vote speedy keep but this doesn't qualify as such. Morgan Wick 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right. What I should have said was the speedy keep is an invalid !vote in this case. Corvus cornix 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; The significance of the event doesn't make the trivial references to it significant. There are going to be thousands of references to such a famous event in popular culture. Example; "In the 2005 skateboard video "Thrasher King of the Road", Geoff Rowley did a line down the road on which John Kennedy was assassinated.". The rest of the examples aren't much more meaningful. Masaruemoto 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Another invalid vote Speedy keep, it's obvious that this topic deserves a particular article, since the variety of adaptions of Kennedy assassination. It's true, that thanks to the significance of the assassination that make it's widely adapted in books, films, music etc. Thus it makes the topic "... in popular culture" significant and remarkably notable. I don't see anything of this article to be considered as POV or trivia. Also, this article lies in the streaming of "Cultural depictions of ...." or "... portrayal in media" (e.g. Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln). If we delete it, we have to consider all other articles of the same type. AW 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup Notable event with a number of very notable depictions or references in popular art forms. List is long enough to give compelling reason to spin off from original article. Chubbles 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep some few ... in popular culture articles are justified by the material and the intrinsic multi-generational importance. This is one of them. DGG 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Appleworm. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. origional research.--SefringleTalk 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but trim the cruft. --Haemo 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chubbles. RandomCritic 11:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is yet another directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list do not gain notability for depicting or in some way referencing the JFK assassination, and the notion that the assassination somehow becomes more culturally significant because it's referenced in episodes of Seinfeld or parodied in music videos demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp history, not to mention being somewhat insulting. There could I'm sure be an encyclopedic article written on this topic but this "ooh, look, a JFK assassination reference" collection of crap is not it. No one would suggest that the assassination itself is not notable. That does not mean that every single reference to it is, and of course no topic "deserves" an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements or rewards. Otto4711 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    Who say this article is any kind of "entitlement or reward" or "collection of crap"? Does it mean that FBI portrayal in the media also a CoC? To be honest, I find this comment rather an insult to all the writers who contribute to this article (though I'm not one of them). The topic becomes significant and notable because Kennedy assassination is so notable that it offers a huge number of depictions, that's why "KA in popular culture" is notable enough to stand as an article. Some items on the list are not notable don't make the overall article not notable. If you find "some items" that are too peddling, just remove them. The article needs some fixing and trimming, according to other suggestions above, but not being deleted just because of "some items" or being biasedly considered "collection of crap". AW 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My entitlement comment was in response to the all-too-often voiced notion that bad articles should be retained because the topic of the article "deserves" to have an article. Generally speaking, if an article is called "Blah in popular culture" and the body of the article is composed almost entirely of "In TV show XYZ, character A says 'Blah' to character B" or "The glug scene in movie QTD is an obvious parody of Blah" or "Band Such-and-such mentions Blah in the lyrics of their song Not About Blah" then it's a collection of crap. I am not interested in trimming or pruning this article of its non-notable entries because it is my opinion that all of the entries are non-notable in the context of the historical event. Knowing that a number of otherwise unrelated TV shows or music videos or whatever have referenced or parodied or otherwise mentioned the JFK assassination does not tell us anything about the assassination, the cultural impact of the assassination, the various pieces of fiction from which the references are drawn or the world around us. Otto4711 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And to answer your question about the FBI article, it doesn't really matter what that article is like because the existence or status of other articles is not relevant to the existence of this one. Each article stands or falls on its own. Otto4711 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That same rationale should be applied to the current witch-hunt of "in popular culture" articles. The deletion of articles like this one has no bearing on this particular article's merits. Chubbles 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Characterizing the AFDs of those articles as a "witch hunt" is a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, firstly, a lot of people use the word "deserve" in the meaning of "the topic is notable enough to stand as a particular article". It's a way of writing and no deduction that the topic must be an "entitlement or reward" should be concluded just from a narrow sense of the word. Secondly, you seem to get trouble with identifying the notability of the topic "... in pop culture" and the notability of the entries in the article. It's true that some (but not all) of the entries are non-notable, but it doesn't make the whole article become a colletion of crap. The initial aim of the article is to show the readers the widespread depictions of JFK assass in pop culture in which the historical event is referenced, not how much and how vividly they tell us about the assassination. In fact, to depict the event in veracity (as you require) they need to make an entire film. Thirdly, as I said above, this article belongs to the structure "... cultural depictions", thus its deletion will cause effect to all other ones of the same type. Should remember that apart from this article, List of portrayals of and references to Bill Gates and Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln are also in similar state, meaning that they all lack of references. FBI portrayal in the media seems to be better but still needs more sources. What will happen to these articles? Waiting for other nominators beside Piperdown to nominate them and end up deleting all? We are building an encyclopedia, so it's our duty to find the way to improve articles. Writing article and improving it are difficult tasks, but deleting it just through one click. AW 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"I am not interested in trimming or pruning this article of its non-notable entries because it is my opinion that all of the entries are non-notable in the context of the historical event." ---> Pushing PoV is not warranted on Wikipedia. AW 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please. Every time an article gets kept or deleted it's POV pushing, the POV that the article either is or isn't suitable for Wikipedia. If thinking that an article should be deleted makes me a POV-pusher, then you're every bit as guilty for wanting it kept. That dawg, as they say, don't hunt. As for what if any impact deleting this article would have on other articles, that amounts to arguing WP:WAX. The Gates or Lincoln or FBI article lack sources, tag them for sources. If they fail policy, nominate them for deletion. Their existence doesn't justify this article's existence and the proposed deletion of this article isn't dependent on them. Argue this article, not hypotheticals and red herrings. Otto4711 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Masaruemoto. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into John F. Kennedy assassination. There should be something about this on Wikipedia, but it does not to be long. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This one involves very notable history significance which most other similar listcruft lists failed. so Weak keep but cut some of the less notable items.--JForget 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just a random list of mentions of the assassination in popular culture. There actually are sources that discuss the enduring role memory of the Kennedy assassination plays in American culture, but this article manages to cite none of them. There is not a single sentence that is worthwhile. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment since my "Speedy Keep" vote was an !invalid vote, I'll have to say Strong (but not Speedy) Keep. I'm not sure if this is covered in a WP, but it occurs to me that, while it adds nothing to the notability of a film or TV series to be referred to "in popular culture" (since those can be seen at any time). I joined in asking for the deletion of Ferris Bueller in popular culture, since

that type of "someone mentioned his name here" activity detracts from a classic movie (the same with "The Wizard of Oz IPC" -- "Charlie McCarthy said he was driving to Emerald City in a 1940 radio broadcast".

  • However, I think historical events and historical figures fall into a different category, and that (in certain cases) the pop culture references actually do add to the significance. For example, consider the HMS Titanic... it's been 95 years, and there have been worse sea accidents, such as the sinking of the Dona Paz in 1987, but the 1912 disaster has been "remembered" by succeeding generations. Likewise, only a minority of us, myself included, were alive during the JFK assassination (itself, less bloody than the Ngo Dinh Diem assassination earlier in November '63) but JFK lives in memory for generations born afterward, worldwide, even in Vietnam, in part because of pop culture. I agree, though, that the list needs to be cut down... Masauremoto pointed out the silliness of including a line from a skateboard movie... and that's a problem with IPC's, in that people want to include every friggin' reference. I'm tempted to go in and chop out some of the JFK list now (since the old version can be restored quite easily anyway). Interested in hearing a counterpoint, for the sake of debate Mandsford 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Mandsford and others... Ranma9617 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per consensus above. --164.107.222.23 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR isn't something negotiable because the event is significant. What I haven't seen is anyone address the issues raised for deletion. WP:ILIKEIT are not good reasons to keep an article. There are a lot of things wikipedia is not WP:NOT and a soapbox, or a publisher of original thought is not it. I expect the closing admin will keep this in mind.--Crossmr 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Original research is not at issue here. There is no visible original research in the article; it's a collection or index of citations. Grouping similar things together in an index is encyclopedic editing, not original research; no novel conclusions are being drawn from the grouping. If there are no original conclusions, there is no original research. RandomCritic 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What?! There are almost zero sources! How is this other than original research? This is not a collection of citations, because there are no citations. Corvus cornix 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a single "reference" and its to imdb, which isn't reliable since its a user controlled site.--Crossmr 12:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, OR and not citing sources are not the same thing; to be OR it would have to be making an original argument drawn from a synthesis of the literature. That's not going on here. Second, of course there are citations. They aren't in standard formats, but WP doesn't prescribe citation formats. Just because a work isn't cited using ref tags or citebook or what have you doesn't make it less of a citation. RandomCritic 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
He's referring to the fact the article mentions shows and movies by name; I suggest both sides, but especially RandomCritic, read WP:CITE. WP does, to some extent, prescribe citation formats. Also, simply mentioning shows and movies means citing primary sources, which cause some people to go "ee-eyah", per WP:RS. Secondly I suggest he read WP:OR and {{originalresearch}}. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. If it's not cited, then by the letter of the law, it can be considered as OR. Morgan Wick 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Morgan Wick. The existence of a movie, book, TV show, song, is not, in and of itself, a citation. I cannot fathom how that can be claimed. Corvus cornix 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly a notable topic. I think some people just hate to see an article with "popular culture" in the title. Really, this is a huge topic. You could have subarticles split off from the subarticle. Everyking 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • People hate to see 100% original research articles. Piperdown 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. Not really an article at all. - Gilliam 05:12, 8 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 redirect. Sr13 07:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex_Ebert

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alex Ebert
Alex_Ebert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and article has no independent references. Vanity bio. Piperdown 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I don't know much about Ebert. But his band Ima Robot is signed to a major lablel (virgin), he has several sideprojects going on, and gets a fair amount of press. While the article is poor it should not be deleted as "vanity" article as he definitely famous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.200.189.32 (talk • contribs) 7 July 2007. — 71.200.189.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:IAR. Thanks to the efforts of A Man in Black, the nominator's rationale (no assertion of notability) no longer holds true. Shalom Hello 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit

Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability Bridgeplayer 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A1/A7 per nom. Shalom Hello 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google is your friend. Being a commercial game from From Software and Ubi Soft is an assertion of notability, because every game release from a major publisher is the subject of at least some commentary. I'll tidy this up to be a decent stub. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Man in Black. Bucketsofg 13:30, 3 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 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erickson, Peters & Thoms

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Erickson, Peters & Thoms
Erickson, Peters & Thoms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unrefernced, uncategorized, spamish... It's a contensted prod. Evilclown93(talk) 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This firm has no Google hits (though successor firm does have a few), no verification, and it is a bit spammy. Realkyhick 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP Bucketsofg 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see any claim to awards, honors, or anything beyond a regional interest. Rklawton 14:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:09, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. Proof of notability given. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeshiva University High Schools of Los Angeles

Yeshiva University High Schools of Los Angeles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Found this page while doing a vandal patrol. The article itself has POV issues, but that's not the big thing. There's no proof of notability offered. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Eddie 00:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from a producer for a couple of sitcoms, there is no claim to notability, and the article reads less like an article about the school, and more like something advertising for the school. Almost spammy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I know a few friends who actually went to this school. I don't see how the school is more or less notable than the Ida Crown Jewish Academy, which caters to the same demographic in a different city. I'll try to cleanup the cruft and standardize the structure. Shalom Hello 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. Please take a look now. Shalom Hello 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this and every other school that doesn't have any reliable sources other than its own web pages. Piperdown 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. High schools are the center of many communities and are inherently notable. -- DS1953 talk 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What next? Every church in every town that has its own website merits its own entry too? Churches and other places of worship are also the centers of their communities. Neither schools nor places of worship are notable if being the center of a community is all it can claim. I'm sure interested parties can find this school on Google. Wikipedia is not supposed to be Google. Not picking on this school, but it's not notable and neither are thousands of other schools. For the communities these schools are in, a mention in the "schools" section of that community's article should suffice. Piperdown 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep By reputation, the school is distinctly notable. The pruning done by User:Shalom is a major step forward, but further sources need to be added. Alansohn 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. No other sources apart from its own. AW 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a clearly notable distinctive high school with relevance to a fairly wide community. Leaving churches aside, let's stick to high schools. There are a good number of specifically oriented religious-affiliated high schools, and I think they each merit an article if there is sufficient material--as is the case here. I note that it is not affiliated with Yeshiva University, so there's no possible merge there. DGG 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete With a hard squint, this could maybe be discerned as notable on the grounds of its curricular split, maybe, but nothing is evinced to suggest that is particularly striking. I respectfully disagree with DGG - we're not here to play favourites with identity politics. A High School that serves Orthodox Jews in LA is no more important to that community than any other school in any community. Per my view of schools (essay here), this should go. Eusebeus 07:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless I'm missing some critical distinction, these schools seem to have a lot of news coverage [23]. Not all schools are notable, but this one appears to be. In general, ethnic/religious-specific schools tend to be more likely to attract in-depth media attention than the run of the mill Public School No. 123 or John Dough Academy. E.g. the metropolitan paper runs a series on "diversity in education" and grabs a few such schools to do in depth profiles, a scholar studying bilingual education does a case study on the school, or, if nothing else, the city's only Pastafarian/Lower Elbonian/left-handed newspaper runs an article about the school (of course, a lot of the coverage in community-specific media consist of hagiographies of the students or teachers, written by someone whose kid/nephew/etc. happens to attend the school ... I strongly suspect this is what's going on with the very first GNews Archive hit) cab 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per cab Bucketsofg 13:28, 3 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 - despite earlier warnings that I shouldn't explain my evaluation of the consensus, here it seems pretty clear. One unexplained comment to delete, and although it's suggested categories are better than lists, the general feeling seems to be that lists are useful in their own right. Redirection is mentioned, and can always be discussed as an editorial decision, but doesn't seem to have much support. Cheers, WilyD 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Singapore companies

List of Singapore companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is nothing but a duplication of material supposedly listed in the article SGX, so it is a duplicate of part of an existing article. This article also violates NOT a list of links (because that's really all it is) and also NOT a list of indiscriminate information, as there is no criteria set forth for inclusion or noninclusion of a company on the list. MSJapan 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Do you have any plans to nominate all articles in Category:Lists of companies by country for deletion? I would think the reasons you list are equally applicable in many of those articles. Meanwhile, kindly check if this article is a complete dublication of Singapore Exchange.--Huaiwei 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Actually, due to some disambig shuffling, it's actually a less-comprehensive copy of Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange in a different format (although the article claims the list resides at SGX). Moreover, the deletion is because both the category and the other article exist, both covering the same information. Lastly, I didn't know this list type was an overall phenomenon, so I just might go ahead and nominate them all. I'll need to look into it. MSJapan 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Huaiwei 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral With the category system covering the same ground (and doing it better), we don't need this - but it does no harm to keep it IMO. Shalom Hello 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and nominate others. Horvat Den 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Granted, the world economy is not as fascinating to some as Wayne's World or As the World Turns, but there is a valid reason for us to be aware of manufacturers (and large employers) in Singapore, and any other foreign country. For all you know, one of their products is hanging in your closet right now. Corporate information is often neglected in paper encylopedias, and all of the "List of (blank) companies" compilations should stay. These need to be expanded, however, so that we know what the blue-links are about without having to click." Mandsford 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange and leave the category on the redirect page. I agree that a list needs to be available for the category. Since a more complete, albeit restricted list, exists why not use that one? How many notable companies are not listed on the SGX? Vegaswikian 08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I suppose PSA International, the world's second largest port operator, is not notable enough in Vegaswikian's books?--Huaiwei 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the exact same discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies (which nominates every list in Category:Lists of companies by country. John Vandenberg 13:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominating the same article for deletion twice at the same time is rather odd. Rebecca 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per my comments on the other articles in this category at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies - Can someone please check out the multiple AfD's? Paxse 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did this first, and then the others (per above), and I thought I had left this one off the other list. MSJapan 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You did too - sorry, my mistake. I've just checked. Cheers, Paxse 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big meanie

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

Unsourced article on a non-notable band. --Finngall talk 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn band, no major releases, lasted three years and disappeared. MSJapan 00:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn, fails WP:BAND rather spectacularly. Bigdaddy1981 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BAND Bucketsofg 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Non-notable. Precious Roy 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 07:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups of nine

List of groups of nine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. The Lord of the Rings, the Supreme Court of the United States, Stargate... they're all here. Equally ridiculous lists were previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of four, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of six, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of seven. Masaruemoto 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom amd stated precedent. MSJapan 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- per WP:NOT. Eddie 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of lists of people-related deletions. —Eddie 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but see if we can get our current supreme court replaced by the fellowship of the ring. Capmango 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless. But now you have figuring out which Justice matches which Fellow... Roberts and Boromir? Thomas and Gimli? The mind boggles. Brianyoumans 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote for Ginsberg and Gollum .. wait, he wasn't a member of the nine. Drat. Delete, by the way. Arkyan • (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, loosely associated topics. Useight 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - why is nine important? Who knows. Indiscriminate. --Haemo 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • O Nein!-- since groups of four, six, and seven were deleted, it looks like this article will have a similar fate, which is actually okay... there's an article entitled 9 (Number) and most of this seems to be drawn from that... whatever is new from this article would fit there nicely. Mandsford 00:27, 4 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 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous pairs

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

Extreme violation of WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Adam & Eve; Bread & water; Calvin & Hobbes; North Dakota & South Dakota; Chris Evert & Martina Navratilova; and it just gets worse. Words can't describe how incredibly pointless this list is. Masaruemoto 00:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete if only to save the sanity of Wikipedia. MSJapan 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- per WP:NOT. Eddie 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. —Eddie 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this as well as those other "pairs" pages that are linked at the top of this article. I don't think it gets any more "loosely associated" than this. --Hnsampat 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Put it out of its misery Capmango 02:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Download & Delete: Loved it & Hated it, it's good & bad, fun & games for boys & girls, ultimately here today & gone tomorrow, so grin 'n bear it. Mandsford 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC) and friends
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per incredibly pointless and indiscriminate. --Haemo 09:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate. Bucketsofg 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's Pointless & Indiscriminate as stated above. Arkyan • (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it's an unsourced, unnecessary list filled with original research. Acalamari 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Famous pairs? Ha, that's funny. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:20, 3 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, defaults to Keep. Note that the article has been moved to the (better) title List of cities by Per Capita economic output (PPP). NawlinWiki 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richest cities in the world

Richest cities in the world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, incomprehensible list. By what bizarre measure is Mexico City richer than Boston? Clarityfiend 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By comparing Purchasing Power Parity. I agree it's bizarre, but it is a standard economic measure. I believe the phrase per capita in the article is in error -- the raw numbers are obviously not per capita, and the ranking is not per capita. Capmango 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced, and inherently POV without sourcing. With sourcing, it still depends on criteria, and there's no way to get an objective list. MSJapan 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced. I believe the list purports to show cities ranked by their economic output (how the hell that's done is another thing given that no governmental multinational agency produces such statistics); fo it to be "richest" the article should, at least normalize this number by the number of inhabitants. Bigdaddy1981 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite text Its completely sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into larger item city; this is a fine list and would contribute to a larger entry --Drtillberg 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not sure what folks are complaining about; this is the sort of information you look to an encyclopedia for. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Purchasing Power Parity, but it is as objective as any other means of comparing GDP in two different places. Capmango 02:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment gross domestic product in billions of US dollars. I'm not sure how one purports measure the GDP on a city given that GDP explicitly is a measure of a nation's output. Bigdaddy1981 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capmango. Probably needs a better title, e.g. List of cities by per-capita economic output (PPP). Also, why doesn't the table show the actual per-capita GDP? cab 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Its not per capita. Dividing the number for a specific city by that city's population would give you that statistic Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) cleaned it up but has added an error in purporting that these statistics are per capita. Bigdaddy1981 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, so the problem of this article is the writing and lack of sources for the statistics or the title. "Richest" make it a little bit original research. AW 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there seem to be objective sources, but the title does not make that clear. DGG 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete along with : Richest cities by 2020 , both has no references of the statistic studies. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 07:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems reasonable, we have articles on countries by GDP, what is wrong with cities? I know something else exists isn't a reason, but in this case I think this is something people are interested in. Anyway cities are fast becoming the new countries anyway with their own laws and the like so information like this is actually interesting and encyclopaedic. Ben W Bell talk 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: according to countries GDP you can not compute cities wealth , not every country takes care of their cities statistics. would you like to read fake information ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A list that, absent a specific, credible source can make no claims to encyclopedic verifiability or accuracy. Ad that is the issue. As it is, the list is a reprint of the PWC report, which itself is fairly arbitrary, and so this amounts to a reprint of someone else's OR, which risks CV issues among other things. If this is exapnded beyond the PWC report, then it becomes a hopeless muddle of competing metrics and statistics and descends into a morass of unverifiability. That's not on. If you want to find out who PWC thinks are the richest cities in the world, go to them directly. For an article on Wikipedia, we need multiple, independent sources that can be verified. That is not the case here. Eusebeus 08:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Eusebeus is right, this is merely a presentation of PWC's workproduct. There exist in no country that I know of's national statistics any calculation of something that purports to be the "gdp" of a city. Moreover, if you wish to go to the link you will find that the reports suthors admit that the population data they use is not comparable between cities. This is terrible research and will only harm the wikipedia. Bigdaddy1981 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • whoa now, it may be a copyright violation to simply reprint the list (however, lists of facts are usually not copyrightable) but it is definitely not original research. Original research refers to research conducted by Wikipedia editors, not to reports issued by one of the largest companies in the world. — brighterorange (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a rather well-defined list of the GDP equivalent of cities around the world. GDP per capita is calculated on a purchasing power parity basis, which adjusts the actual GDP per capita based on the costs of living in that country or city. The PPP-adjusted per capita value is multiplied by the population to come up with a total number. This list comes from a rather credible and verifiable source. This list does not show PPP-adjusted income per capita; its shows each city's GDP adjusted on a PPP basis. Alansohn 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - is reprinting the Pricewaterhouse list like that kosher? I'm not a copyright lawyer so I'm not sure if it counts as a copyvio as stands, but it does seem to be substantially a copy-paste of the list. Otherwise, keep per the arguments given above. Arkyan • (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In addition to the fact that it is properly attributed to the source, a list of facts and information is generally not copyrightable. Alansohn 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Question - this list isnt just a presentation of publically available data (as would a list of officially published GDP or population be), it is instead a presentation of the outcome of a research project conducted by PWC. I plead ignorance as to whether this makes a difference or not - just thought it worth mentioning. Bigdaddy1981 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We can use information from any reliable source, and this would seem to be one. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to use the data simply because the raw data used to calculate the numbers are not available. I would have preferred to see additional data for unadjusted GDP, GDP per capita on a PPP basis and population, but their absence doesn't seem to undermine the end result. No Wikipedian gathered and calculated the data, so it's not original research on our part. These results wouldn't seem to be any different from the results of any other economic, statistical or medical research done by any other reliable source. Alansohn 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Question - I agree its not OR, I was just wondering if there are any copyright issues with using workproduct from a private firm that may or may not have rleased it under free license. Bigdaddy1981 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me then. Arkyan • (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I doubt the accuracy of these "GDP" data. Bigdaddy1981 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and cleanup We probably don't need the whole list, and it could use some breadth (including different metrics) or renaming, but this is sourced and encyclpedic. — brighterorange (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above comment from Eusebeus. The information itself is as worthy as other, similar lists that have been mentioned, but that's neither here nor there. The greater issue is one of copyright: at best this is a derivative work of information whose copyright is owned by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Unless they have released it under an acceptable free license, or into the Public Domain, the article should be deleted ASAP. There's a good reason why the Foundation and the community are very concerned about copyright issues: one high profile infringement suit could potentially close down the entire site. -- Hux 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keepif it can be tied to the report in question. PwC is one of the most respected companies in the world---and a research report by them would have instant credibility in this regard. I do, however, have to vote to delete the 2020 because that one is still speculation.Balloonman 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Changing to Delete Eusebeus is correct in his reasoning belowBalloonman 05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This list only applies to one point in time, and it has nothing to do with wealth, it is about size of the economy so at the very least it needs to be renamed. But that just brings us to the issue of the inconsistency of city boundaries. Osomec 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems odd to me that so many editors are voting to keep this article despite the clear problems that have been noted. This is a straight reprint of this commissioned study, so copyright issues certainly apply. More importantly , however, the study uses a set of specific metrics to allow for a city-by-city comparison, such as using PPP (as oppose to e.g. trade-weighted terms), defining cities by their "surrounding urban area", etc... That's all fine, but how then can this list expand to reflect multiple, independent sources? As soon as information is introduced from another source, the comparison becomes worthless: the integrity of a single analytical method is necessary for the information to make sense. Another study could base findings on a separate set of metrics, making a data merge impossible. What we end up with is an article that should be called the PricewaterhouseCoopers Richest cities in the world, like the List_of_most_expensive_cities, which should be called Mercer Human Resource Consulting List_of_most_expensive_cities. Is Wikipedia really supposed to be a repository for single-sourced studies? That last example is informative, btw. The Economist publishes its own version of the most expensive cities in the world. Because it uses a different set of parameters, however, the information it derives cannot be included. Surely this is textbook WP:NOT. Eusebeus 07:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: Wikipedia has thousands of articles that come from a single source. List of most three-point field goals made in National Basketball Association history comes straight from the National Basketball Association; Highest-income places in the United States comes straight from the United States Census Bureau, to name just a few in addition to your examples, and none of them list the source in the title. Morgan Quitno publishes lists of the most dangerous and safest cities in the United States which are widely referenced, despite the single source. Clear consensus on Wikipedia is that such lists from a single reliable source are reliable in themselves and based on these precedents Wikipedia is an abundant repository for such lists. To add a second or third source to this article, just add a second or third column of values, in addition to the PwC calculations, adding an explanation for each set of metrics and allowing readers to sort on their metric of choice. Calling the task a no-brainer exaggerates the difficulty of the effort to merge a second, alternative source. Lists of facts cannot be copyrighted, and you yourself have provided examples of Wikipedia articles that use such sources with full acceptance by the Wikipedia community. A rather clear precedent exists to keep this article as is. Alansohn 11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, those points are well-made and well-taken. I am unsure I agree with your initial logic. Unlike the examples you cite above, the PWC study is their own original research and relies on the parameters that their research department has selected (presumably not the case with 3-point FGs or even urban pci stats from the USCB). The use of additional columns as a means for overcoming the single-source problem of the data as presented now is a more judicious point. A list of facts may not be copyrighted, but this is the product of their research department. I think you will find that many such "lists" remain, in fact, under copyright of the Group that produced them (The EIU, for example, makes it data available, but does not release them into public domain). That may not be the case here, but specific evidence to that effect would be salutary. Eusebeus
  • Weak keep pending a serious copyedit and rename to Richest cities in the world in 2005 - the lead explains nothing and fails WP:JARGON, but that's not a reason to delete per se. More serious is the issue with WP:ATT: the single source is "The 150 richest cities in the world by GDP in 2005", but the article uses "List of the 100th Richest Cities in the World from 2006". Either the section header is wrong, or there is some OR going on here. EyeSereneTALK 12:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good reasonable article, it shows the wealth of cities which can be very important. we have countries by gdp and gdp per capita, what the hell is wrong with cities, also the title of this article has changed into a more significant title. i say keep this article, and it is sourced. well done to the user of this article.20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus

  • Comment, I note that the above comment, which purports to be from Eusebeus was apparently added by anon. isp: 86.143.187.31. Bigdaddy1981 04:00, 9 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 mute point, article already redirected. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protoss Empire

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

Original synthesis of primary sources, in the form of an in-universe plot summary. There's little to no hope that this article might have some sort of real-world commentary, because it's nothing but a dump for a bunch of backstory from StarCraft. Similarly, there's no hope that it might become a general page on the Protoss faction in general, because we already have that article. Plus, Protoss is in no need of a massive dump of even more backstory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, although there are actually more references in this item than the more general one. --Drtillberg 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    All of them are the works of fiction being synthesized, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, it's been redirected The Clawed One 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    How is that editing going to make this article not redundant with Protoss, or make it not original research? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Wikipedia Annex once ready, or a StarCraft Wiki if available. The same should be done to all StarCraft in-universe articles. Merge any relevant information to appropriate articles. — Deckiller 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this AFD really necessary anymore as the article is now a redirect to Protoss, or does anyone want to AFD that one too? I suggest speedy close as a redirect. Someguy1221 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as redirect. It's no longer an issue, is it? Further, I don't see how moving content to another website that's not affiliated with Wikimedia counts from our viewpoint as transwiki, or anything else than deletion. --Kizor 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Protoss. Since User:The Clawed One seems content to leave this as a redirect, I won't take a position on the nominator's rationale. No-one is asking for the history of Protoss Empire to be deleted, so the previous versions will remain in the system. If in the future the redirect is ever undone, then anyone who still feels strongly about it could file a new AfD to figure out if the view stated above by the nominator is the right one. EdJohnston 23:43, 5 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High School Musical: Sing It!

High School Musical: Sing It! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

largely unsourced and crystalline (i.e. the only sourced information is the game title) Will (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, because this is a future-release video game, so we should keep it until the release. The article may be improved from so on. AW 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete because this is a future-release video game, and we have policies about peering into crystal balls.
We have the policy crystal balls doesn't mean that we apply it to future events or future-release products. What the current and future event templates serve for? 09:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It has a release date, and the game will probaly sell a lot of copies. Seems notable. If it has a release date and a predicted price, and the date is this year, I think it is probably not crystal ball. Dolive21 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but this doesn't look like crystal ballery, per Dolive Rackabello 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL would fit for an article called "Untitled possible future video game based on High School Musical (2010 or 2011, or maybe 2012)." However, an announced product with a near-future release date is okay. Capmango 01:20, 4 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 all. Sr13 08:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (4th nomination)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (4th nomination)
Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (Second nomination)
List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Considering this is the fourth AFD nom, I'm going to summarize the points which have been mentioned previously:

  • Still fails to cite any soruces as required by WP:V / WP:ATT. Some users have argued that these are "easily verifiable" (as in: any example can be verified simply by observing the fiction in question), but that is not how WP:V is defined. When all else fails users should at least cite the fiction itself as a source, but no one has taken time to do even that.
  • Fails WP:LIST; the membership criteria can be considered trivial, indiscriminate, or overly broad, because the criteria is not unambiguously defined. Editors have inserted and pruned entries to/from the list according to their own personal POV, whether they think a given example "really" meets the list criteria.
  • Attracts listcruft. This is far from a high-traffic list article, nonetheless the majority of its edit history consists of users adding and/or updating entries in the list. And, again, without providing any sources.
  • No compelling arguments to Keep. Past arguments include:
    • Reader/editor interest -- in other words "I like it".
    • Requests for cleanup -- users claim it's easy to find references and address the core rationale for AFD, but no one has, the bulk of edits consist of expanding the list, still without citing any references.

In summary, and my own opinion on this matter, Delete all because after several months of various edits this article still has none of the required citations or references, the primary rationale for deletion has never been rebutted or addressed in the slightest, and (due to lack of editor involvement) probably never will. Arguments in favor of keeping don't hold water while arguments for deletion are solid, and with previous AFD's concluded as "keep" or "no consensus", it leaves me wondering if the closing admin called the result via counting hands instead of weighing arguments; after all, Wikipedia is not a democracy and neither is AFD. --Stratadrake 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: At risk of WP:POINT, I'm going to italicize (rather than bold) any comments which fall under the criteria of arguments to avoid. --Stratadrake 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While "per nom" is as bad as "I like it", you really can't expand on the nomination. Kudos. Will (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just lists of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to cite any sources. Oysterguitarst 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nomination is spot-on. These lists also risk arbitrariness per WP:LIST and cannot aspire to an encyclopedic standard. Eusebeus 08:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete excellent nominating statement. Some things can only dwell so long without being improved before they get deleted. --Haemo 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sufficient time has been given to clean this article up, to no avail. Wildthing61476 12:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as noted, there has been plenty of time for the glaring problems with these lists to be addressed and those who passionately argued in favor of "keep and clean up" have not, as so often happens in these cases, followed through. Otto4711 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the same arguments I made in rounds 2 and 3. Sufficient examples already given at Fourth wall to illustrate the point and having the independent list article is a bad idea. The other problems with this article are persistent and were not fixed after the first nom, or the second, or the third. Calling for cleanup here is really no longer a valid argument. Arkyan • (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm going to jump into the lion's mouth on this one. I'm more than happy to delete listcruft and clear violators of WP:NOT#DIR, but I'm not terribly sure that this is either. Each one of them is well put together to varying degrees, the only thing that is preventing me from changing my position to "keep" is the complete lack of sourcing and the fact that it absolutely reeks of WP:NOR violations. Trusilver 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Special:Whatlinkshere/Fourth wall is just as useful. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • PITCH TILL YA WIN!!! Nominated in April2007 but not deleted. Nominated in May2007 and not deleted. Nominated again in July2007. What is this, a carnival? Maybe we're not supposed to assume bad faith, but I think we can make a case for it here with three nominations in four months. If you can try to delete an article that frequently, I don't think it would be wrong to put it right back up within a month if you succeed on the third go round this year. Mandsford 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What's your point? The article violates WP:NOT without a doubt. If closing admins had done their job and read the discussion rather than counting votes, the first discussion would have closed as delete. It's impossible to assume good faith from people who make there argument based on the procedure of the nomination rather than the state of the article relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Jay32183 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Absolute failure of WP:LIST. -- Kesh 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful and no deficiencies that cannot be fixed.Legalbeagle001 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Being useful is not a valid reason to keep, and being an indiscriminate list of loosely related terms is not something that can be fixed. Jay32183 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment- WP:USEFUL doesn't say its not a valid inclusion reason, in fact it states the contrary (second paragraph). The important thing to do would be to establish its usefulness to an encyclopedia. Would people want to search by it? Does it make finding related information easier? In cases like those you can probably IAR to NOT, as long as its genuinely useful to an encyclopedia. -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:USEFUL says that being useful is not a valid argument to present in an AFD. Under no circumstances does WP:IAR apply to WP:NOT. WP:NOT is not a rule, it is a definition. WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want. Jay32183 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I still fail to see where WP:USEFUL says it is not a valid argument to present in an AfD. Its listed in arguments to avoid, but it also says "there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion." My point with IAR wasn't that we need to ignore something, but that if its found something is useful to the encyclopedia, it may be appropriate to ignore the rules/definition whatever you want to call it which excludes it. IAR is not a free pass, and should only be used for an action after careful consideration of the reasoning, which is all I was pointing out. If its useful to an encyclopedia, don't count it out because something else tells you that you generally should. This, however, is not a !vote for keeping or deleting, I'm merely trying not to rule out a possibility as suggested by the end of the intro at NOT. Indeed, without any discussion on WHY it might be useful, there's nothing to consider. -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 02:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
            • WP:USEFUL outright says do not make the argument "Keep - useful". The person presenting that argument does not elaborate on how the article is useful, therefore, it is not a valid argument. Jay32183 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fiction which "breaks the fourth wall" is as common as dirt and has been for many years. That makes such a list an arbitrary subset of a boundless set of instances, and thus an indiscriminate list. The selections also lack any secondary source to say that they are important examples of breaking the fourth wall, making their selection as examples original research. I like it, but it is not encyclopedic and can be deleted as WP:OR and as an indiscriminate list violating WP:NOT. Edison 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I bet many users would love knowing about all of anything "breaking the fourth wall" and adding new information as more shows, films, etc., does this sort of thing. Besides, this gag is always hilarious to me. --WikiPediaAid 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that cameo instances of breaking the fourth wall are common. What about keeping just the entries where this property is an integral part of the story, like in Tony and Tina's Wedding? That should make it more encyclopedic, useful and manageable. And/or a remake into a category rather than a list? Gotyear 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A "category:fiction that breaks the fourth wall" would still be vaguely defined and overly broad. When it's an integral part of a fiction's narrative, will it not certainly be mentioned in the respective article? --Stratadrake 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, it would be mentioned in the respective article, but I think an article or category that lists such works would have encyclopedic value. Category: Fiction which predominantly breaks the fourth wall. Specify the entry requirements in the intro. Gotyear 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Or perhaps "Category:Fiction that involves breaking the fourth wall", where breaking the fourth wall is more than just a humorous gag. But this still leaves the problem of a clear criterion for inclusion, and since it's a category, it's hard to estimate whether it would be easier or more difficult to keep out the cruft, since using the fourth wall as a comedic gag is arguably overly broad or non-defining, two things to avoid per WP:OC. --Stratadrake 19:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per solid nom statement. --Quiddity 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't buy any of the arguments for deletion. Every entry on the list is in essence a citation. Do we need to find someone who has written that "Kurt Vonnegut himself appears in the book Breakfast of Champions"? To verify the information, get a copy of the book and it is obvious that Vonnegut appears in the book. It is not original research to say so. The fourth wall is an academically studied topic. Having these lists are useful to the study of the topic. Could the list be better, sure! But I do not understand why people want to remove lists like these. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The original research isn't saying the works broke the fourth wall. The original research is claiming that the works are meaningfully connected to each because they broke the fourth wall. Jay32183 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sam, go read WP:CITE for examples on what constitutes a proper citation -- this list fails to have even one reliable citation. Secondary sources are preferred, but citing even a primary source (e.g. when, in George of the Jungle, Thor argues with The Narrator), is better than nothing; and despite three AFD nominations no one has done even that. Entries in the list have been added and pruned according to the personal POV of various editors, thus constituting "material which ... is believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it", a type of original research. --Stratadrake 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo (MP3 player)

Apollo (MP3 player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A google search shows dozens of download sites and web topics on this mp3 player, but no reviews or anything that WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V demand. Not notable. hbdragon88 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't seem notable. Oysterguitarst 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 08:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Out Da Body Shop

Fresh Out Da Body Shop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - contested prod. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of this item. Note that the article for the artist, Mazaradi FOX (aka Mazaradi Fox) has been deleted multiple times as advertising, so it's likely this is advertising as well. This is part of what appears to be something of a walled garden centered around Category:G-Unit. Otto4711 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikiepedia doesn't even have an article on Mazaradi FOX, the artist who released the mixtape, so why would we have an article on some minor mixtape by the guy. The guy's article was delete not too long ago. --- Realest4Life 21:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Oysterguitarst 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - can this please be closed now? Otto4711 15:20, 5 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. Both sides have very valid arguments, but can't lean either way, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Edwards

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

This page seems to be about a person who ran for political office and lost. There is little else on the page that would elevate it to notability standards. With no other claim to significance presented in the article, arguably it does not meet WP:BIO guidelines; she has not been the subject of any credible independent biographies nor has she received any significant recognized awards or honors. Her inclusion would probably be more suitable for a page that lists candidates for national office or in a page on her race (see: United States House elections, 2006 notable races). Marylandstater 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This article was created during her candidacy, and at that time she may have been notable. Now she has lost the election, and the 2008 election is in crystal ball territory. Losers of local elections are not notable IMO. The article is also short on reliable sources. Shalom Hello 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Ummmmmm, she's is currently a candidate for Congress, and the policy is to keep those.... --Cjs56 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What policy? Morgan Wick 01:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You know, "the policy." As in, "the policy that probably doesn't exist, but seems to me like a good rule of thumb so I call it a policy" policy. Also, I've seen a lot of "articles for deletion" discussions about current major-party candidates for Congress, and I have never seen one get deleted- not that precedence should be misconstrued for policy; I'm just sayin' is all.--Cjs56 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I would be accepting of major party candidates to Congress once they've been through the primary process, but any old kook can sign up to be part of the primary; doesn't make them notable. Morgan Wick 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree, but the article clearly states that she isn't "any old cook." She has an extensive resume of mainstream activist work, earned the WaPost's endorsement in 2006, and came within a very close margin of winning the primary that year as well. Also, I would note that the district which she would like to represent is so overwhelmingly Democratic that the primary will almost certainly determine who wins the general. --Cjs56 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless you consider the Washington Post to be an unreliable source, I don't see how you can claim this article is short on reliable sources. It's got (unproperly formatted, but legit) links to several Post articles, as well as the (biased, but still useful) links to the arca foudation and Edwards' campaign site. --Cjs56 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that major party losing candidates for national legislative positions are notable, and therefore she is from the previous election. I think it ought to be our practice, and if enough people start agreeing on this, then it becomes an informal guideline. I would not extend this to candidate for a party nomination; as Morgan Wick says, that's a little too remote & much too low a bar (at least in most states).DGG 07:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have read the above coments with great interest and am still not persuaded that a person meets the notability standards simply by running for a national office. In fact, what you call a national office in reality is just a local race. The district is one of eight Maryland congressional districts and until I came across this article, I could not name any of the challengers who lost congressional races in Maryland. She may have some notoriety in the Washington suburbs, but none in Baltimore burbs, Western Maryland or the Eastern shore of Maryland. I certainly would not find a person who lost the primary in Texas or Minnesota notable; and I doubt if anyone in Dallas or St.Paul has ever heard of Edwards or would consider her noteworthy either.Marylandstater 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet notability.Balloonman 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Edwards is running for the Dem nod in 2008 again (she just launched her campaign July 1); she's also been generating a lot of interest on national political blogs. This rematch will be (and is) closely covered by national media. It makes sense to keep the page. Psjalltheway 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete She's not notable yet. She's a footnote on Al Wynn's bio, until she beats him.Triple3D 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per DGG's logic. Giggy UCP 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 08:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B. Jain

B. Jain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:CORP, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate this publisher's notability. Skinwalker 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - main contributor seems to have a CoI. I can't find a lot of references to their "scientific homeopathic journal" either: 7 citations in Google Scholar for a journal that has been issued for tens of years. Han-Kwang 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No credible assertion of notability. Shalom Hello 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Look at Skinwalker's edit history. He loves to go around tagging anything about homeopathy for afd. The article itself is a stub about an Indian publishing company. It is pretty comparable in content to other stubs about other publishing companies. Why is Skinwalker not tagging these other articles? B Jain is probably the worlds biggest publisher of homeopathic literature. The company deserves a little stub in Wikipedia, why not? This is pure and simple a bad faith nom, and ideologically motivated AFDs like this only weaken Wikipedia. Abridged talk 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to this editor's personal attack, other than to say that Wikipedia has far too many pages on completely non-notable pseudoscientific figures and companies. AFDs like this tend to bring out the partisans and "true-believers". Cheers, Skinwalker 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My edit history shows clearly that I am NOT a "true believer", but have been a balanced editor. I explained above why I felt this stub deserves to be in wikipedia. This AFD has brought out a partisan and a true believer, and that, my friend, is you! You would increase your credibilty if you AFDed something that didn't have to do with homeopathy! Abridged talk 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a modest article about a specialized company--but there should be at least one other source; this should be possible, there must have been references in the homeopathy journals. DGG
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP requirement, that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." Article can be recreated if & when such sources are found. Abecedare 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. --Ragib 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete until sources are found and it satisfies WP:CORP. GizzaDiscuss © 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete while it is possible for a family owned and managed company to be notable, those are the exception---as a general rule, it is a clear indicator that thsi doesn't meet CORPBalloonman 05:22, 7 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 BJAODN to User:Shalom/Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Year 60,056 problem. Shalom Hello 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year 60,056 problem

Year 60,056 problem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No article needed. UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

delete - unlike the the 2037 and 10000 problem, there is no assertion why this would ever become a practical problem, and the fact is already mentioned in NTFS. Han-Kwang 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete silly (nn, unsourced). JJL 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back somewhere. Maybe Year 2000 problem or something. Verifiable topic but it is a bit on the esoteric side. Arkyan • (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Sr13 08:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hull City A.F.C. Reserves

Hull City A.F.C. Reserves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating:

  • Hull City A.F.C. Juniors

Other than a few very minor details, these pages contain no more content than there is already on the main Hull City A.F.C. page - so no need for a merge. Not only are they are redundant, but they have no room for expansion - Hull City aren't a big enough club to require fringe players listing in the reserve page - unlike with, for example, Arsenal F.C. Reserves. And youth players are automatically non-notable, so there is no need to list them in the youth article. HornetMike 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
  • Delete Duplication of information means two pages to maintain instead of just one. Beve 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pretty needless. Mattythewhite 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't warrant more than a section in the main club article. Number 57 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above comments, too much information that could easily be covered on the main Hull City FC article. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 07:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment just because various individuals are not notable enough to require an article of their own does not necessarily mean that they shouldn't be mentioned in the article - they just don't need a wikilink to a seperate article. Robotforaday 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, just noticed Hull City A.F.C. staff. Once again, this article contains nothing that isn't in the main article anyway. Little room for expansion either, most of the backroom staff are non-notable and therefore there's little point in listing them. And we've recently deleted a couple of seperate squad articles. So, if it's OK with everyone I'll add it to the nomination. HornetMike 11:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete too as per nom. Number 57 13:06, 5 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. Jinian 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Ann Crecente

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ann Crecente Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ann Crecente (2nd nomination)
Jennifer Ann Crecente (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Article was previously deleted here and then speedily deleted as a repost by User:TexasAndroid. Deletion was overturned on DRV to relist at AfD given that new information had come to light. I'm Neutral. IronGargoyle 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge: to Jennifer Ann's Group, which seems to be a proper place for the various laws passed after her death. As it stands, the amount of biographical information on the subject herself is near-to-nil.  RGTraynor  16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Subject of article has been cited in two laws passed by the Texas legislature this year. The subject of this article is separate and distinct from the group. The group has its own distinct article which discusses the efforts of the group. In addition to the two laws that have been passed the subject has also been discussed in many newspapers and on television as cited in the article. This is a well-sourced article and meets the criteria of WP:BIO. At worst this article could possibly be considered a stub but would not be appropriate to be merged or deleted. Finally, the most common complaint during the first AfD was that the legislation had not yet been proposed. Most were in agreement that if the legislation passed then the article would be appropriate for Wikipedia. At that time we did not expect TWO pieces of legislation, one of which is named for the subject of the article and has been named "Jennifer's Law." Please review the article in question for details about the legislation. Drew30319 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Umm ... what elements of WP:BIO do you claim the subject meets? The sum total of the information presented about her (as opposed to her murder and events leading thereafter) is her dates of birth and death and that she was a high school honor student that had a boyfriend at one point, all unremarkable facts shared by millions of people. The aftermath of her murder is certainly notable, but covered in the other article. Given that other article, a pass on WP:BIO is only supported if the facts of her life - all but completely absent here - would meet WP:BIO were she never murdered.  RGTraynor  18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment While I appreciate your point (and your taking time to follow the discussion) I disagree. There are many people - far more notable than the subject of this article - whose sole notoriety is based on a single event, be it their death or their assassination of a notable person. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, etc. While I don't presume to equate their newsworthiness, I make this point to show that it is sometimes a single event that thrusts somebody into notability. As to your question about what element of WP:BIO is met: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This has been sufficiently met and is very well-cited. Drew30319 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: The distinction is that the person is the subject, as is the case with the examples you gave. We know a great deal about the lives of Booth, Oswald and Ruby; their biographies have been covered in countless books and articles. As their Wikipedia articles show, a wealth of biographical information is available. With Ms. Crecente, this does not seem to be the case. Her name, and nothing more than that, has been memorialized. Even by comparison with other crime victims (such as Kitty Genovese), her notability suffers: a directed Google search (minus Wikipedia, Myspace, Youtube and her memorial website) turns up only 26 hits [25], a paltry total.  RGTraynor  01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment The proper search on Google would be:
"jennifer crecente" OR "jennifer ann crecente" Google search and the result is 533. You can also try misspellings of the last name (ie. "crescente" or "cresente") to add a few more. Even if the number WAS only 26 that would still be sufficient to meet the notability guidelines per WP:BIO. As the number is 500+ that's not an issue. She has been the subject of TWO laws, one of which is named for her. She has had a grant named for her for post-grad students. The article is very well-cited and all information is covered by the press (newspapers & TV) or legislature. Is your suggestion that more information be added to create a more robust biography?
Drew30319 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per RGTraynor. Propaniac 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. SImply not notable in life, and everything notable afterwards can/should be well covered by the group's article. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - multiple sources and enduring notability. Addhoc 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge -- though I am agnostic as to whether the merged article should be named "Jennifer Ann Crecente" or "Jennifer Ann's Group", the two articles' content overlaps extensively. Alba 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Is agnostic the word that you wanted to use???Balloonman 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I won't presume to speak for Alba but can say that agnostic is sometimes used to mean noncommittal or indifferent. Drew30319 06:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a strong argument for notability for "Jennifer Ann Crecente." There is also a clear separation between "Jennifer Ann's Group" and the article in question. I do not see a reason to merge or delete this article. Notability does not expire upon death. CuriousGiselle 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see added value to the reader from a merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jennifer Ann's Group, since the individual does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO and the article is a memorial for a murder victim. Edison 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I belive that notability of the subject is clear, and "Jennifer Ann Crecente" is a more likely search term than "Jennifer Ann's Group". Many people notable largely for a single incident have "biographical" articles, and IMO this is perfectly proper. Consider Thomas Shipp as an example. (note: This is not an WP:WAX argument, but rather an argument that such articles are in many cases proper, with an example to help illustrate this.) DES (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The article doesn't add anything of value that the GROUP article doesn't already adress. Wikipedia isn't a memorial (The preceeding unsigned comment was left by Baloonman)
    • Comment The two articles are significantly different. The GROUP article does not contain
      • any information regarding the murder,
      • the background of the victim, or
      • information regarding the $5,000 annual grant created by the Texas Psychological Association named The Jennifer Ann Crecente Memorial Grant.
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL states "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." These articles meet this condition - each on their own merits. Drew30319 15:28, 7 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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP e-Commerce

WP e-Commerce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

fails WP:SOFT. doesn't establish notability. Misterdiscreet 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. e-Anything presumptively fails notability criteria, be they WP:CORP, WP:WEB, or WP:SOFT. The same curious aphasia that compels the promoters of non-notable businesses to claim to provide "solutions" rather than products or services, also makes the e-Prefix irresistable. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Conflict of interest: main contributor Danmilward (talk · contribs) is the name to which the website domain is registered. Han-Kwang 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:20, 7 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 Redirected to Dream journal. NawlinWiki 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamlog

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

non-notable. you can add any word you want to blog but that doesn't mean it deserves a wikipedia article. blog + food, for example = blood. that, however, doesn't mean blood (blogs) would be a good article to create Misterdiscreet 16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's a pointless page that I suspect was invented by a webmaster anyway with the intention of linking to their "dreamblog" at some point.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Wright Hubbard

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

Per WP:BIO, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate this person's notability. Skinwalker 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete — I'm not sure its notable, even with sources. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a bad faith nom from a serial bad faith nominator. Here are the full notability criteria as described in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases under "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals":
The person has received notable awards or honors -- NO IDEA
The person is regarded as an important figure by their peers or successors --- YES, she was the first woman pres of the American INstitute of Homeopathy from 59-61, president of International Hahnemannian Assn from 45-46, edited THREE homeopathic journals
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique --doesn't sound like it
The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews --- YES, please see article revision.

Based on the above, this individual EASILY meets criteria for notability. Abridged talk 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WP:BIO states "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) This[26] source is a reprint of an article in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, which is not intellectually independent of the subject. For someone to meet this criteria, they must have been the object of attention from published sources outside their area of expertise. Otherwise nearly every published scientist in the world, for example, would merit inclusion. Skinwalker 12:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Editor of major journals in a subject -- generally accepted in many AfD as at least a partial consideration for notability. The book was published by a homeopathy publisher she was president of for all of 2 years, and published 27 years after her death--that seems sufficiently unrelated. 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:59, 4 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 : Nomination withdrawn by nominator as explained below. Non-admin closure --JForget 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick K. Humphreys

Frederick K. Humphreys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate this person's notability, beyond the NYTimes obit from 1900. Skinwalker 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination, based on the search results and obit clarification. Skinwalker 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The obituary from The New York Times is not only a source, but the fact that this individual was selected by The Times for inclusion as an obituary is a pretty strong demonstration of notability. Additional sources should be added to expand the article. Alansohn 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Rhetorical question: Does everyone who had a NYT obituary in 1900 merit an article? More seriously, your point about additional sources is a good one. I cannot find any, despite using google (web, scholar, and book), isiknowledge, and lexis nexis. Perhaps this is too old of a subject to be included in these searches, but I doubt it. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't quite say that an obituary in that period confers notability by definition, but it does lend a strong presumption. Humphrey's obituary runs for several paragraphs, was the lead obituary of teh day, and one of only two obituaries that I can see in that day's paper. In addition to the obit, Humphreys was covered extensively in The Times, including an 1895 article about him and many other mentions in articles about patent medicine moguls. We have to be careful to avoid the presumption that a lack of Google hits or Lexis/Nexis mentions is evidence of non-notability for individuals who were at the height of their career in the late 19th century. Alansohn 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that modern search engines aren't the best way to determine notability for 19th century individuals. If someone can add additional secondary sources, I will withdraw this AFD. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just did a Google News Archive search and found 411 hits concerning the company, or him, or his grandson, who later ran the company. What search terms did you use that you couldn't find any? [27]
    I used "Frederick K. Humphery". Skinwalker 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I searched for the company that he ran "Humphrey's Homeopathic" and have found many items for sale as antiques. Based on the number found it appears that his company was successful and well known. This combined with the NYT obit is enough for me. CuriousGiselle 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The New York Times actually published fewer obituaries on average per issue in 1900 than they do in 2007. The Times publishes about five to six per day now, but back then one or two a day was the norm, and those individuals tended to be very notable. I think we can take the Times's word for it, and we can also assume that newspapers whose archives from the 19th century are not as easily searchable may have also discussed him in his time. --Charlene 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: Secrets of the Rebellion

Star Wars: Secrets of the Rebellion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable film[28], WP:AUTO, WP:CRYSTAL Spvovs3 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Secrets of the Rebellion has been featured repeatedly in both Canadian media and International media, for print, radio, and tv. It's also been a featured story on Digg and Slashdot. Also, sites referring to the film often exclude the "Star Wars" prefix. A better Google search[29] shows over 12,000 hits as of July 4 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CervantesX (talk • contribs) — CervantesX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete or change. Because this is not Star Wars. It's a fanfilm, and this not made clear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.247.174 (talk • contribs) — 84.158.247.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Lacks secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a film, it is subject to notability guidelines for films (WP:NF). This film fails to meet any of the policy's standards for inclusion. Trusilver 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:22, 7 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) (non-admin closure) — Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Skip Heller

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

Artist is not notable and article is written like a fan bio Gudeldar 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Not that you'd know from the puffery in the article, but Heller is definitely notable. The article is sorely lacking in references and needs a pretty much complete re-write. I'll try and pitch in with some clean-up but wanted to drop my 2¢ here first. Precious Roy 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Nomination Article has been substantially rewritten in a much more encyclopedic tone -- Gudeldar 07:18, 7 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. Sancho 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictitious domain name

indiscriminate and never ending list. WP:NOT. Crossmr 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The fiction from which these items are drawn have nothing in common beyond happening to mention a non-existent (or in some cases, existing for promotional purposes) domain name or website. This tells us nothing about fictitious domain names, the fiction from which they are drawn or the real world. Otto4711 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand descriptive text to avoid critiques like Otto's. --164.107.222.23 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to List of fictitious domain names. It is a list. Keep it because the information is useful to several topics, for example the use of information technology in movies, the world wide web in popular culture, and other interesting topics. --User:Krator (t c) 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:USEFUL is not a particularly compelling argument, but even if it were I dispute the notion that a list of fake domain names is useful to anyone studying IT in film or any other topic. Otto4711 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. It seems as though an article on fictitious domain names could be written (much like the more-established 555 telephone numbers). That said, this may well not be the basis for such an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Which consists mainly of a jumble of trivia and speculation. 555 telephone numbers and ficticious domain names are not the same though. 555 numbers are real in some places, and occur frequently. There is no pattern to ficticious domain names.--Crossmr 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair point, and never let it be said that I'd object strongly if the decision goes against me in this situation. Still, my gut feeling is that there might be certain points which can be sourced properly and form the nucleus of an article. Are there certain fictitious domain names which turn up over and over again, for example? Are there any which were thought to be fictitious at the time they appeared on screen but actually redirect to someone's homepage? That kind of thing. It's late here and I'm not thinking clearly, but maybe some of that makes sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And what is the encyclopedic value beyond that? That sounds like it would be completely based on trivia that wouldn't give a reader any greater understanding. TV/Movies/Books all use fake domain names for the same reason they use fake telephone numbers. The greater understanding can be explained in one or two sentences, they don't want to provide free advertising for someone, and they don't want to take the time to register a real one. If a "fictitious" domain name redirects to a real one, then its not really fictitious is it? If the domain name follows a proper format (www.name.legal extension)then I don't think it could ever be listed here. In fact many of the entries on this page are not fictitious domain names, but domain names which companies tied in to game/movies that were real, and actually put content on. That alone demonstrates the problems here. Look at the introduction A fictitious domain name is a domain name used in a work of fiction or popular culture to refer to an Internet address that does not actually exist. Yet a good 1/3 of that page contains examples of sites which are actually in existence (even as 1 page promo items).--Crossmr 12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, fair point. This is almost certainly not the beginning of an article on fictitious domain names, even assuming that one could be written. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial life in the Bible

Extraterrestrial life in the Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Basically a stub saying that: "Several themes and events in the Holy Bible are thought to acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials and their contact with human beings during biblical times." Plus a quote from Ezekial. With no sources this is a POV mini-essay. GabrielF 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Without the quote from Ezekial this would be speediable as a rephrasing of the title. This is nothing but very stubby unsourced original research. Someguy1221 00:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete And it's Ezekiel, where I'm sure the old UFO or time-travelling jet pilot theory is explored. Not to give anyone any ideas, ut technically, all the angels are "extraterrestrial". Worthless as an article. Mandsford 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if the article went beyond a stub, it would go into WP:ORland. Capmango 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - While a proper article could be written about the subjects (there are books out there about "ancient astronauts" and Biblical passages), this isn't it. Doesn't even fit as a stub in its current form. Best to just delete it, and let a better article come along later (preferrably with a better title). -- Kesh 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Definitely POV, arguably OR, and unsourced. --JayJasper 12:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL oh wait, that's not a proper vote... delete OR POV V NN where to begin?Balloonman 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep Delete - The Bible does indeed talk about Extra-Terrestrials (Gen 6.2-4) etc. Although I think it is covered in Angels, I do know that there are a few Rabbi's who have interpreted Close Encounter reports as confirming Ezekiels vision (Ezek 1.4-28). I'll see if I can find any sources before the Afd closes. Mike33 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry... still won't change my voteBalloonman 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't expect anyone to. The Rabbi I mentioned was called Yonah Fortnan, and he was a lone warrior, though he worked for the Federal Education Department. Only other sources just made me laugh through inconsistency or Kabbalic notions of 7 earths! It probably has a validity somewhere in Wikipedia, but not as a single argument, I have amended my comment to reflect that. Mike33 00:21, 8 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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neill Corlett

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

Fancruft. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeJap Translations. Non notable ROM translator. No reliable sources. Nothing that suggests notability. If he's "well-known" then there should be sources. I would also note that due to the nature of their work, the Google Test is a poor judge of notability. Misterdiscreet 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Person in question satisfies the criteria for notability in that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, specifically, his organizational and technical contributions in translating what are considered some of the most popular videogames of an era. Neill's work in video game translation and other projects is, above all, a unique example of a way in which the internet has transformed interaction with digital entertainment - enabling passionate individuals to enhance content in unforeseen ways and share their work with others.

    The aforementioned criterion alone satisfies Wikipedia's notability standard, but I will respond to arguments about lack of sources: Due to the legal uncertainty of fan-translations, it cannot be expected that this subject will receive much coverage in the media. However, some of Neill Corlett's work has received mention in a book from a reliable publisher: Carless, Simon (2004). Gaming Hacks. O'Reilly, p. 267. ISBN 0596007140. cab 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Corlett has also been mentioned by major video game website IGN for some of his non-translation work (http://xbox.ign.com/objects/680/680440.html). Also, there is no reason why the nature of the subject does not detract from the credibility of the Google Test; if anything, it bolsters its credibility since the creative material involved and the necessary means to observe it can only be obtained through the internet, therefore representing the subjects' primary domain of interest.

    In case there is any question about the notability of the games translated by Neill Corlett: observe the length of both Japanese and English wikipedia entries for Seiken Densetsu 3 and Final Fantasy III, which provides, at the very least, some measure of popularity of these games. Also note that the franchises of both are ongoing and popular to the point that they possess wide-spread name-recognition and led to the creation of a high-budget film based on one. Additionally, in recent years, Final Fantasy III was deemed popular enough to justify its commercial rerelease on the Nintendo DS.

    Finally, the fact that Neill Corlett produced a translation of an extremely popular game years before the company that created it did (possibly due to his influence) is itself unique and noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.97.106.12 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep How could a non-notable subject get an article created about it ten years after the fact? FWIW, I also disagree with the outcome of the DeJap AfD and I'll try to reverse the outcome of that AfD after this and RPGe conclude, per WP:DRV. 209.209.214.5 15:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP - Notability only exists within a very narrow community, not a public figure. Not enough public information available to create an actual biographical article. No independent sources to satisfy WP:N, WP:RS or WP:V. Finally, I know Neill and he has expressed a desire to have the article deleted. -- Kesh 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Neill's alleged desire to have this article deleted is irrelevant, just as was Daniel Brandts opinions in the many AfD's he had. Further, most academics have notability only within a very narrow community. So to do a lot of mathematical theorems and algorithms, yet most of those have wikipedia articles. Not to mention pokemon, most TV shows (there's an article on every single Lost episode - you can't those episodes are notable to anyone outside of the very narrow community of people who actually enjoy that show, can you?) 209.209.214.5 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. Per BLP, no, his opinion is not irrelevant. The closing admin can consider or reject that when weighing their decision. Finally, the article does not cite any independent sources per WP:V. I've amended my !vote as such, since it apparently was not clear enough. Neill's desire to have the article removed is only icing on the cake, and your points do not address the policy problems this article has. -- Kesh 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP,WP:N,WP:RS --Fredrick day 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • throwing around links doesn't constitute an argument. see WP:JUSTAPOLICY (from the page Kesh linked to) 209.209.214.5 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged --Fredrick day 05:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • interesting. Kesh can link to it but i can't. whatever. i'll just quote it here, instead. 209.209.214.5 06:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Only slightly better than just a vote, this also does not provide other editors with specific reasoning why the article should be deleted. Although the article might be in violation of the policy or guideline referred to, no explanation is supplied on why the article violates that particular policy. It is also good to remember that in many cases an article might be changed so that it no longer violates the policy and in those cases it might not have to be deleted at all. Try to explain to other editors how this relates to a particular policy and how that policy supports your vote. Naturally, this also applies on quoting policies to support keeping an article.
Imagine that your own username got blocked, with the reason being a vague wave at policy, "Violates WP:USERNAME", giving no indication of which specific rule it broke. You might have no idea of what to change, of how to make it acceptable. You'd want more detail than that. Likewise, please give others your detailed reasons for objecting to their work, so they needn't try to read your mind.
Note that it is harder to explain why an article does not meet a policy or guideline, as that would be similar to proving a negative. Still, rather than merely writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - no sources cited or could be found with a web search" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts." It's often possible to pinpoint specific violations. For instance, an article that includes a copyright notice goes against WP:COPYRIGHT.
Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above.
  • Delete - Wiki cannot have unsourced articles. The AfD at hand is not about the subject, but the article, which is entirely original research, unless well-sourced. the_undertow talk 00:52, 5 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.
Languages