Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 16

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syrnia

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

The page has been deleted many times, but the AfDs were so long ago that I believe a 2^nd one is in order. Anyway, here's my rationale: The article is non-notable, and I'm guessing it hasn't been improved much since its past deletions. Thanks, > Animum < 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's been coverage in third-party sources, won an award, or otherwise met notability criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt to save future repeats of this. I don't see outside references that meet WP:RS; if someone comes up with some, I'll reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no links to support notability, nothing that comes even close to satisfying guidelines. Unless this is fixed, it should probably also be salted. --Haemo 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - No assertion of notability, no links to support notability, nothing that comes even close to satisfying guidelines. Probably could have been speedily deleted as a repost in the face of the other deletions. Also agree that the article should now be salted. DarkSaber2k 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. This is not an uncontroversial decision, so I'll give a lot of reasoning for it; consensus in this case is based on examining arguments for their validity and considering the remaining valid arguments. Arguments for deletion below revolve around a) low interest among general public, b) the list being indiscriminate, c) the list not being encyclopedic and d) the list being undeveloped. A) The manga might be of low interest in the United States (and perhaps the West), but Wikipedia is a global resource and the works are of sufficient interest in certain parts of the world to refute the 'lack of interest' argument. B) The list has a defined scope and specific inclusion criteria; therefore, it is not indiscriminate. C) The main article exists and references this list; inclusion of the list in the main article would make it's length unwieldy ... therefore, style guidelines support the creation of a standalone article containing the list. D) The template Expand list should be added as a hatnote. One repeated 'keep' related argument in particular is not valid: The article is young => An article can be deleted 1 minute after creation if deletion if consistent with standing policy. In addition, any argument based on 'other Manga have them, therefore this one should' is on the face invalid in relation to 'wp:otherstuffexists'. Finally, if the focus of the article should be volumes rather than chapters, that is a content issue that has no bearing on whether or not the article should be deleted. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Saint Seiya Chapters

List of Saint Seiya Chapters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is not an encyclopedia article. I'm not really sure what it is, other than listcruft. Corvus cornix 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not sure what it is about either, but I think they call it fancruft. Useight 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While Saint Seiya may merit a Wikipedia article, I'm not sure that this particular presentation of information is appropriate. A list of the Manga Volumes is somewhat reasonable, the chapters within them? A bit much in the way of information. FrozenPurpleCube 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article's been here for 36 hours, and it's already up for deletion? Talk about unreasonable. I don't think listing chapters is too much information. Every other manga list does the same, and they're still here. See List of Bleach chapters, List of Naruto chapters and List of One Piece chapters. Think of "chapters" as "TV episodes" and "volumes" as "TV seasons." Like this. Episode lists even include plot summaries for each and every episode, and no one calls them "cruft." What I'm saying is, give the article a chance.--Nohansen 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing unreasonable about noticing an article and acting on it quickly. There is a reason why AFD is a five-day process. Same with other referring to other articles. List of Bleach chapters was the subject of a deletion discussion, which closed as no-consensus, but I doubt anybody was convincing on either side. And the difference with the Sopranos is that episodes are more distinct works. I'd have no objection to a list of Saint Seiya Volumes, but this would be like having a list of Sopranos scenes. FrozenPurpleCube 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, List of InuYasha chapters is the best example of a way to do this, if that's your intent then I wouldn't object to an article like that. FrozenPurpleCube 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but possibly rename and re-focus for volumes instead of chapters. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 18 June 2007(UTC)
• Keep individual manga chapters are usually serialized in one of the weekly/monthly anthologies, so they do sometimes appear as stand-alone work within the anthology. But I agree with Scott: Chapters are relevent, but this needs to focus on the manga volumes unless it is taken out of the graphic novel's context (i.e. provide publishing dates for chapters when they were published in the Shounen Jump). Also, Saint Seiya is not an obscure series, was an extremely popular internationally in the late eighties/early nineties. - Mizi 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, totally equivalent to episode listings, and useful for all the same reasons. It needs formatted by volume though. Also, lol at calling Saint Seiya obscure. --tjstrf talk 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think you should give a new article a while to develop. If it unreasonably violated WP:NOT then why wasn't it speedily deleted?--Squilibob 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just so you know, violating WP:NOT is not a speedy deletion criteria. --tjstrf talk 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I would argue against the statement that every other major notable manga has one of these by pointing at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other manga have them doesn't mean that every manga ever needs to have one of these. For huge, incredibly popular ones (such as InuYasha), the need is there. Here, though, it seems like just a random collection of information. I agree with Mister Manticore, in that if this were to become more like List of InuYasha chapters, I would support keeping it. As of now, though, it seems as though it violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This is just a list of chapters that doesn't seem to provide any encyclopedic value. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Why hello there, systemic bias! Saint Seiya has something like 4 ongoing spin-off manga series, merchandise, and OVA series still in production 17 years after the original ceased publication. It never made it big in the US, but Saint Seiya is a "huge, incredibly popular" manga series. In fact, we use it as the canonical example of a shonen series on the shōnen article.
  Really people... --tjstrf talk 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Thank you for the information. I was unaware of the popularity that this manga enjoys outside of America, as an American. My delete stands due to my feelings on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Userfy Right now, it's too early to tell if this list will present information in a useful and coherent manner. It is in an undeveloped state and it is impossible to apply any provision of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#IINFO. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic fancruft. Why does this need its own article? Can't this be a subsection of the series' main article or something? --Potato dude42 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was structural failure. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Load bearing boss

This was proposed for deletion recently by someone who described it as "a made-up article with no references." The tag has been removed but the article remains an unsourced neologism. Perhaps we could find some reliable sources for this, and perhaps if not we should delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete made up or not, the article is pure cruft, especially the list of video game examples. -N 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism absent a demonstration of significant coverage of this term in reliable sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism turned listcruft. Useight 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete as OR. I rarely say that, but this times it seems appropriate, as the common element seems to be the idea of the author. DGG 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a one-off joke from the The Grand List Of Console Role Playing Game Clichés. It's definitely not notable, or encyclopedic. --Haemo 07:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - A truly horrendous example of original research gone nuts. DarkSaber2k 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's not made up, it was originally sourced to tvtropes.org , a very informal wiki. Yeah, that's still a Delete since I already copied all the items in the list over their article.Spriteless 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Types of bosses in video games are generally informal, and notoriously poorly sourced; this one is no different. It's essentially original research. Leebo ^T/C 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• merge info on self destruction into the video game boss article or the clichés article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even as a redirect, this is total neologism. Happinessiseasy 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex-sexualism

Sex-sexualism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recently invented "movement" with no sources. —Celithemis 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No relevent Google results whatsoever. From sentences like "It borrows properties from humanist movements and self-valuing movements (e.g. Satanism)", I'm guessing this is a hoax; I've added the relevent tag. -- simxp (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism.--Ispy1981 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as all above. JJL 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Might be notable enough to merit inclusion if there was any sourcing at all upon which to base a judgment. The fact that it doesn't show up in Google isn't in itself fatal -- see WP:GOOGLEHITS -- but since it doesn't, it makes it hard for us to seek out sources which might verify this information. Given no reliable (or any other kind of) attributions per WP:ATT, it's not possible to determine if this there is any such thing as this supposed philosophy of sexuality. Get us some sources, and I might be willing to change my opinion. --Ace of Swords 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Note that this is the originating editor's first and only Wikipedia edit. For whatever that fact is worth. --Ace of Swords 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 03:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moai in popular culture

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

Delete - indiscriminate listing seeking to capture any time a big-headed statue or someting that looks like a big-headed statue appears in any medium ever, completely lacking in sourcing or any notion of the mention's significance in a real-world context. It does not benefit Wikipedia to compile a list of such "I-spotted-a-big-headed-statue" trivial references as In the Nintendo GameCube game, Animal Crossing, one of the home decorative pieces is a Moai statue or the OR/POV assertion In the very first appearance of Marvel Comic's Thor the hero battled aliens called "The Stone Men from Saturn" that resemble Moai. Strongly oppose in advance any suggestion to merge any of this content into any other article about the statues. It's trivial cruft in a standalone article and it would be every bit as trivial and crufty stuck in somewhere else. Otto4711 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• What Otto said. Get rid of this. Now. -- Kicking222 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Also, I've read Thor's first adventure, and I don't think the stone men from saturn looked that much like Moai at all. Someone sure did a lot of OR here, and should move all this to heythatlookskindalikemoai.com. Capmango 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's just a collection of unbelievably trivial things that look like, or kinda are, Moai. --Haemo 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alton C._Crews_Middle_School

Alton C._Crews_Middle_School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school. Astrovega 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Non-notable school, fails WP:CORP. The article has no reliable and independent sources, and I dought that anyone will find any online. *Cremepuff222* 00:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dought^[sic] and ye shall receive. Alansohn 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated by Cremepuff. Cedars 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. There's plenty of information here, but unfortunately none of it evidences any notability, and none of it is backed by citation to reliable sources. As a result, this article should be deleted per and now that we have citations to reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, the article satisfies WP:N and WP:V, so I'm switching to keep. Thanks for creating another quality school article! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A second look: I was asked to take another look at this article as it has been substantially improved. However, I don't think it is there yet. I'm looking at one solid reliable source, and it appears that article is primarily about the teacher and the trip, and that the school is incidental. There are no citations to newspaper articles about the school winning the Intel award. I point this out not because I question whether the award was received, but because I am not convinced of the notability of the award. While it may be rare, scarcity does not demonstrate worth. It's certainly not on the level of a Blue Ribbon. In fact, the Intel award article (which is admittedly new) only cites to one reliable source, and it's a newspaper reporting on a local school winning the award, not an article on the award program itself. Don't get me wrong -- the article is clearly much better now than it was at the start of the AfD. It just hasn't crossed the WP:N threshold yet as far as I'm concerned. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

From your commment just above it's impossible for me to figure out what additional citation about the award would satisfy you. There's a news brief from the Atlanta Constitution which certainly proves the award's existence, but the already cited news release from Intel itself about the award it sponsors is certainly independent and reliable in and of itself, or do you dispute that? The award was made in conjunction with Scholastic, another sponsor. I skipped Scholastic's news release because it didn't seem to add anything to it. I get the impression when you talk about notability that you're shifting back and forth from WP:N, which has a Wikipedia-specific definition relying on multiple, reliable, independent sources and a vaguer notion of "importance and fame". If we have two independent, reliable sources we have notability under WP:N, correct? Please clarify. Noroton 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Two reliable, independent sources: here and here. Noroton 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per bsf + the fact that schools are inherently nn. Noroton as done good work trying to resolve the inherent lack of notability for schools (i.e. it's a school, hence merits an encyclopedia article) in this specific case. The question, however, is whether the Intel award and it's locally-judged performance mean it now merits encyclopedic treatment. In my view, the answer is clear: no. However, I was lazy in my earlier vote; the content should be stripped of guff and merged into Gwinnett County Public Schools, with a redirect to that page per Yamaguchi below, who has got it exactly right. Eusebeus 08:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools. Other than the usual refusal to consider any option other than the destructive choice of deletion by the usual cast of characters, there is no valid justification not to redirect the article. All school districts are inherently notable; almost all high schools will be able to provide ample sources to establish notability; few middle schools will be able to demonstrate notability, and this school is no exception. A review of the school's website (including the student handbook), and a search of Google and Google News/Archive uncovers no material to support notability, little surprise for a ten-year old middle school. The claim that "schools are inherently nn" is patently false and disruptive, and proven false by the thousands of school article on Wikipedia and the hundreds upon hundreds of reliably and verifiably sourced articles where consensus is clear that the articles meet all of Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Alansohn 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Kudos to User:Noroton for finding the details regarding the 2006 Intel/Scholastics award, shared by only 16 schools nationwide. As revised, the article makes a prima facie case for notability. Alansohn 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff does exist . . .. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?!?!?! And therefore you refuse to consider a redirect? What on earth does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with a single word of what I stated above? Alansohn 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have taken no position on a redirect. And, since you asked, I mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to your reference to "thousands of school article [sic] on Wikipedia". --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools, as per Alansohn's argument. Deletion is not called for and the article should be resurrected easily when enough information can be gathered to show the school is notable enough. Noroton 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Given what I found (see comment below) I have to change to Keep. Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redir to GCPS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to GCPS - there is some encyclopaedic material to merge. TerriersFan 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC) *Keep and expand with the material turned up by Noroton, below, that shows the school meets WP:N. TerriersFan 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - after sourcing and expansion now an unconditional keep. TerriersFan 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools per WP:LOCAL and comments by Alansohn. Yamaguchi先生 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree with Alansjohn about what a Google Archives search turns up. I found several articles that could be used to bulk up the article and justify notability under WP:CORP (a/k/a WP:ORG) that Cremepuff22 mentions up near the top. If someone wanted to use those articles and if editors wanted to follow WP:CORP and WP:N, the article could be retained. I personally don't have the interest, but the fact is that the school can meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Here's one article, this might be another, and another, and this looks extremely promising, and oh, my, my, just lookee here:

LINK

<copied text removed, please do not pasted it into the article for copyright reasons>

Non-notable indeed. Um, shouldn't editors who nominate for deletion on grounds of notability start doing a Google News and Google Archives search first, and save the rest of us the trouble?? Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that compliance with WP:N and WP:V is initially the responsibility of the editor who creates an article, if everybody who marked items for deletion took the time to try to fix them first, the excellent content at Wikipedia would be buried by noncompliant articles, because the people doing the largely thankless job of cleaning up around here would not be able to keep up with the flood of inappropriate articles. It's hard enough just to try to tag them with all of the vandalism, copyright violations, attack pieces and other inappropriate posts. Besides, some people make better writers, and some make better Wikignomes. There's a place (and a need) for people with all sorts of skills here! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the time involved in a Google News or Google Archives search is much shorter than the time it takes to nominate an article and participate in the discussion, but to each his own. Even a link in the "external links" section to a relevant news article takes hardly any time, or it could be linked on the talk page. I guess I understand that, whether or not an article meets WP:N some won't want it. Noroton 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But a quick google search is not all that needs to be done. The sources have to be reviewed to assess whether they provide significant coverage of the subject, and they have to be worked into the article. (External links are just that -- their presence does not indicate that the links support the asserted facts. If the facts are drawn from an external link, the link should be listed under "references" or "sources" or some other appropriate heading.) To some, writing encyclopedic articles seems to come naturally and effortlessly. I can tell you though that it takes me a lot of time to write a properly sourced article that complies with WP's policies. It certainly takes me a lot longer than tagging an article or even nominating it for AfD. Since my life is already hectic from other obligations, that is the main reason I spend most of my time here copyediting, tagging and discussing, as opposed to writing content. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment Well, I developed an interest and added the above information and some other information to the article. I think everyone who voted should reconsider. Noroton 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice job. Another case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I believe that people who nominate these types of articles need to do more due diligence. Dhaluza 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Duh. Dhaluza 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not satisfy my own notability guidelines.--trey 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methamphetamine in popular culture

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

Delete - indiscriminate listing seeking to capture every appearance of methamphetimine as a plot point no matter its importance or triviality. See the related Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amphetamine_in_popular_culture for three substantively similar articles which were all deleted. This article is no better and serves no better purpose. Otto4711 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per previous discussion on similar topics. Too crufty. Ichibani 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO and per precedents. Masaruemoto 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate and disguised trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a fictional character's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - just a collection of trivial mentions. --Haemo 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Peacent 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U2's 16th Album

U2's 16th Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Borderline speedy candidate for failing WP:CSD#A1, but regardless, almost certainly fails WP:CRYSTAL #2. I have no doubt that this article is going to be released but the fact the only detail that has been released about it is the fact that recording has started - this is generic information, and a limit amount at that. Proposing delete. AllynJ 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - plenty of sources quoted, including notable ones, eg VH1 and RTE. --Oscarthecat 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Narrow Keep - I know there is some several key items missing (especially the track list, album title and exact release date) there but it is just enough mainly due to the references.--JForget 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - to above; indeed, when I added the AfD template there was nothing more than an infobox. I'm less concerned about this article now, but I still consider it a borderline WP:CRYSTAL candidate. AllynJ 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but replace the phrase "it is unknown at what point the sessions are" with some nicer grammar. Capmango 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • well...you could do that. Don't wait for the closing admin...-MrFizyx 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Happy to do it, but wasn't going to bother if article got delete. I'll fix it if article is kept. Capmango 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think it is crystal ballery, in fact, U2 isn't likely to lie about their future releases, and mentions by the mass media makes the album more certain.--Kylohk 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep- sourced (though not all likely to pass WP:RS. More info is likely to emerge. U2 are kinda notable and all. -MrFizyx 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Elvis Presley. Considering the structure of the target article, the merge would lead to dispersal of the content rather than creation of a new section. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys Presley

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

Fails WP:BIO. Notability isn't inherited. Her son may be the King, but she's not the Queen Mother. Clarityfiend 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment is it really called "inherited" if it goes from child to parent? Shouldn't it be called "exherited"? In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure if she fails WP:BIO or not. Useight 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Outherited? upherited? unherited? I couldn't find any biography for her. Most people don't know her first name. She does have a small entry in IMDb, but that's hardly enough. Clarityfiend 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge To the King's article, this can easily be integrated with.--JForget 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's a Hound Dog of an article, and I keep telling myself Don't be Cruel, but this article has to be Returned to Sender. Just Because she's related to the King doesn't mean she's notable herself. If sources are found One Night before the end of the AfD, though, That's All Right. (In other words, Merge per Clarityfiend unless sourced.) Thank you, thank you very much. --Charlene 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable figure in her own right, recognized as having a major influence on Elvis' life, and being portrayed on numerous occasions in film and TV by notable actors. I agree that there's no point in doing articles about Elvis' entire family tree, but this aricle is about a persona more than notable enough to warrant a separate article. There should also be one on Vernon Presley, too, but no one's written one yet, it seems. 23skidoo 01:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Elvis Presley, unless article can be improved with verifiable sources per WP:ATT to establish independent notability. --Ace of Swords
• Delete per nom., probably all mothers of notable people have a "major influence" on their offspring's life - providing 50% of the genetic material even if they put the kid up for adoption seems to be influential in a major way as we learn that much behavior and temperment may have a genetic component (see Minnesota Twin Family Study and read the data generated by that study). That said, it does not make the mother of every notable here also notable. Or father, and grandparents, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.I searched for her and wanted to know more. --Timtak 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independent notability, she can't be called a "notable figure in her own right" because her only claim to notability is being the mother of Elvis (the article even fails to assert any independent notability). If this article is kept it sets a bad precedent for the creation of other articles about parents of famous people. The similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Carpenter was deleted for these reasons. Masaruemoto 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuteness

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

There are no real facts about cuteness, and there are many things in the article that are POV. ANNAfoxlover 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Although some offerings for additional reading there seems to be a big dose of WP:OR here. JodyB _talk 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? Which part is the original research then? Is it the analysis by Konrad Lorenz for which a source is cited in the article? Is it the the analysis by Stephen Jay Gould for which a source is cited in the article? Uncle G 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as the OR concerns go, this isn't the first writing to link "cuteness" to both studies in neoteny and studies of how cartoon characters are drawn. I remember reading an article in 3-2-1 Contact magazine when I was a kid that did the very same thing. Squidfryerchef 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I know it's not the best reason to keep an article, but we have one about cool also. Useight 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And that's a pretty good article, maybe a model for the direction "Cuteness" should go in. Cause that's where Wikipedia could really step up to the plate; there's a lot of things in the world that everybody knows about, like what's cool or what makes something cute, but serious studies can be hard to find. Squidfryerchef 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it's worth keeping, the thing on pedomorphosis and on Mickey for example is interesting. Roscelese 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Then add those to the Mickey Mouse article. We don't need a whole new article for one little bit of trivia. ANNAfoxlover 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You seem not to be looking at the article at hand, which comprises not "one little bit of trivia" but several paragraphs of verifiable analysis. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — The soure right now isn't very reliable, but perhaps some better ones could be found. If so, the POVish content could be removed, and I think there would then be a good article. I'm sure someone could dig up some good sources if they took the time. But in the article's present condition, it should be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which of Konrad Lorenz and Stephen Jay Gould are unreliable, and why? I suspect that you just looked at the "References" section, and didn't note who is actually being cited by the article. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think much of this is salvageable. The "psychology of cuteness" section seems to contain good, encyclopedic information. Zagalejo 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up especially references. The article does cite sources and the topic is worthy of discussion. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's a real phenomenon, and is backed up with studies in "neoteny" as well as the role of "cuteness" in various cultures, ex. kawaii in Japan. Suggest diffing against the article as it was a year ago and choosing the best parts. The article may have gone down in quality from a while back. Squidfryerchef 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it hasn't. Looking at this diff of more than a year, there is very little difference. The sections have been re-ordered, but contain much the same content. Some external links have become proper citations; and some external links to rubbish have been removed. The images have disappeared (about which one can find an argument on the talk page). And a pointer to a paper by professor Michael C. LaBarbera of the University of Chicago has gone missing.

    One editor who supported the removal of the images is the very editor who has just nominated this entire article for deletion. I note that xe supported the removal of images after xe could not get xyr own "Dogs are cute; cats are not." bias (evident from xyr edits and xyr talk page contributions) to stick in the article, leading me to believe that this nomination is what we've seen many times before at AFD: An editor cannot get their bias on one particular point to stick, so they nominate the entire article for deletion. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep First of all, cute fluffy bushy awww, second of all, as the article demonstrated, cuteness has been researched (nurturing instincts etc), discussed, awarded, and I believe the topic, due to its nature, scope and influence, in itself is encyclopedic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs better sources but has definite potential - Pharaonic 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a perfectly valid article on a perfectly valid field of psychological study. Capmango 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Origional research--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please answer the questions posed right at the start of this discussion. Uncle G 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps rename - Science of Cuteness? In the least, the opening paragraph does not do the topic justice. The article then launches into the real topic which is meritorious and notable. Enhanced by active researchers, this could be a truly excellent article and I would hope to see it grow with at least some enthusiasm. Pever 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Psychology of Cuteness would be a better title. Cuteness should redirect there, though Capmango 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Definitive Keep The article is linked to de:Kindchenschema. There appears to be no translation for it as used in academia (particularly in biology and psychology) and I'm not sure if that term, coined by Konrad Lorenz [2], can be translated at all. It roughly translates to "little child scheme" and is used in zoology to describe the recurring pattern of typical physical proportions in the young of higher animals (down to and including humans). Lorenz' hypothesis was that those patterns of "looking cute" are evolutionary linked to parental care witnessed in many species, esp. mammals, and constitute a biological trigger. Granted, the article could use some rewriting (starting with "Cuteness is a measure of how cute something is.") and should possibly be renamed to the German term if there isn't a proper English term, but the topic itself is definitely worthy of inclusion. Remember that even though Lorenz' research has been superseeded by more complex theories in neurophysiology and ethology, it doesn't change the historical landmark value of his research. —AldeBaer 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Couple more sources: [3]PDF, [4], [5], [6], [7]. Speedy keep as faulty nomination. —AldeBaer 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable, and even a fairly important topic, from a psychological and biological standpoint. --Joelmills 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a real topic in the encyclopedic sense (versus only the dictionary). The main problem this article faces is editors warring over subjective "cute" pictures of their pets or favorite animals instead of covering scientific studies of "cuteness." I think that as a rule to stop constant OR and unencyclopedic problems in this article the use of pictures should be disallowed. And yes, a rename to 'psychology of cuteness' may be warranted. The Behnam 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, comparing the two WordNet entries [8] v. [9] shows that "cuteness" is different from "cute." Seeing that this article appears to cover the "cute" meaning I will make the appropriate move. Of course I will move it back if that screws up the AFD. The Behnam 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just wait until after the Afd has been closed? —AldeBaer 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can wait. The Behnam 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This particular discussion can take place on the talk page of the article, in the mean time. --Deskana (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - There are multiple sources showing that this is an encyclopedic topic. If there are problems with the treatment, change the article, don't delete it. NoahB 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsuneyo Toyonaga

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

Unimportant person. The only thing notable about her is her birthday. Hence, she is listed at List of living supercentenarians. A list of the oldest people in the world and related statistics is important; however, that doesn't mean they all need an article. --- RockMFR 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Being the 9th oldest person in the world is not notable in and of itself. There are a total of 97 English Google hits, most of which are either Wiki copies or lists of the world's oldest people. Also, as Robert Young said, with only a few exceptions, Japanese cases are only updated once per year, which means she may have been deceased and we don't even know it. Furthermore, there's no news coverage, which means that this article is not likely to expand any further than what it already is, and all it is is a copy of details from the list of the World's Oldest. If she ended up becoming the world's oldest, it could be expanded, but until then it should be deleted. Canadian Paul 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete for different reasons. I believe that being 9th-oldest in the world SHOULD be notable in and of itself. However, the practical reality is that we currently are limited by strict Japanese confidentiality laws and a lack of Japanese interest in super-c's (except for first place). Therefore, we are constrained by the situation...there is little information available on this case and placement in the list should be sufficient.

Note this differs from a case in the USA or even Europe, where interest leads to local news coverage and enough extraneous information to warrant an article.

The bottom line: this article should be deleted be it provides no new information.Ryoung122 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No information that isn't included in the oldest people list. --RandomOrca2 17:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of tributes to Dimebag Darrell

List of tributes to Dimebag Darrell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM or tribute site. Virtually all unsourced, fancruft copy violations. Needs one or two comments from key people sourced into the main article. All this really belongs on some fanboy site. Lugnuts 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fancruft.--Ispy1981 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:FORUM. No reliable sources. *Cremepuff222* 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Tag it for {{cleanup}} and propose a merger back into Dimebag Darrell. I don't see discussion occuring within the article (WP:FORUM?), but clearly it has grown out of control. The quotes from obituaries are certianly over the top. AfD should not be the first stop for every problem article. -MrFizyx 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial; the extensive quotations likely constitute copyright violations; a significant proportion of the musical tributes should be removed as unverifiable speculation of allusion and the remainder are as of yet unsourced. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Korean version of the article is in worse shape, and the present English version bears striking similarity to the Japanese version, suggesting a parent-sibling relationship. Perhaps if one of these other-language versions matures, a better English version will re-emerge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haansoft Linux

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Possibly dead or merged with Asianux. Chealer 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article provides information that is referencable. As far as notable I don't believe I can say much, but with the information shown available, this article seems worth keeping. Redian (Talk) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted in hopes of broader participation and clearer consensus. DES ^(talk) 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless third-party coverage can be found and used. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The question is whether their Linux is as much used in Korea as their wordprocessor or whether "Haansoft" is yet another mee-too Linux distro nobody cares about. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the article on their word processor, I'm not sure that it does a good job of articulating its notability either. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article may not, but, AFAIR, their editor managed to keep MS Word share of the market much smaller than just elsewhere else. Pavel Vozenilek 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Of course it would be good to have third-party coverage, and it would be helpful if the company's own web site would clearly state that Haansoftlinux has been discontinued in favor of Asianux. So we make do with whatever hints and indirections we can find on the web. I found no mentions of Haansoftlinux with a date on them later than mid-2006. Here is a trade journal article from April 2007 that interviews a Haansoft official, who mentions Haansoft and Asianux, but doesn't use the word 'Haansoftlinux'. Some further circumstantial evidence: (1) If you try to open www.haansoftlinux.com, the site that opens up is www.asianux.co.kr. (2) On the haansoft.com web site, if you try to open up 'Haansoft Linux Desktop 2.0' you get an error. EdJohnston 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KolibriOS

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

Notability to come. Chealer 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the only OS that can be installed on the same NTFS disk with Windows without modifying Window's bootsector. Even linux doesn't support this option! There is not many graphical OS'es that written in assembler also. 193.232.113.222 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per Chealer, but also because this is spam created to link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the OS is under GPL, I don't know if terms like "spam" and "vendor" should apply. I am not going to !vote at this time, but I am more sympathetic to keeping an article about an OS than about a distro of an OS. So far, though, I don't see the sources. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

GPL != noncommercial. There are many for-profit GPL'd products out there. —Psychonaut 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but I really don't think a group of programmers coding a new OS in assembly are expecting it to become a raging moneymaker. I get the point, though, GPL software is not automatically non-commercial, just as obscure software with a WP page != spamming vendor. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it isnt notable yet. See coLinux for a linux that can boot from a windows ntfs disk. John Vandenberg 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Bickle

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

Contested prod; template was removed by anon and reverted, which is against policy. Original prod reason was "Totally pointless rehash of the main article on the film." Procedural nom; no opinion. Chick Bowen 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I find nothing wrong about the fictional protagonist of Taxi Driver.--Edtropolis 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the meter running. The pop culture references tilt it just enough. You tryin' to delete me? You tryin' to delete me? You tryin' to delete me? Then who the hell else are you trying to delete... you trying to delete me? Well I'm the only one here. Clarityfiend 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 30th best film villain is notable. Calgarycalgary 20:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The page needs references and sources. Personally, I'd redirect to the film and cover anything important about him there. FrozenPurpleCube 21:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taxi Driver, with maybe a sentence or two of expansion about the character in that article. There's very little here that isn't covered in the main article, as this is almost entirely a repetition of the plot plus the interminable Youtalkintome-cruft, excuse me, I mean "popular culture" section, which under no circumstances should be reproduced in the main article. Otto4711 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would rather see the pop culture references in this article than in Taxi Driver and I see no reason why that list should be lost. - Pharaonic 11:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - in the absence of the cultural references section, what would your opinion on keeping this article be? Otto4711 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The Overview section is just a repeat of the film plot and should be drastically trimmed. (I may get to it later, if it's still there.) I've copied part of it to Taxi Driver. Clarityfiend 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Based on this sentiment, I would like the closing admin to take note of the large number of stand-alone "in popular culture" articles which are pretty much identical to the pop culture section of this article that are nominated and deleted on a regular basis and weigh that when considering opinions that are in whole or in large measure based on the disposition of the pop culture segment. Otto4711 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't help thinking we should be discussing character pages in general. Do we have character pages, or put all the information on the film page? The Godfather and Vito Corleone are good examples of articles that describe the character's integration into the plot on one page, while describing the character on another. Perhaps Taxi Driver should be edited accordingly, while Travis Bickle remains? Then again, The Godfather had an ensemble cast while Taxi Driver didn't -- putting all that on The Godfather would result in an enormous article. If the cast is small, redirects may be preferred (though it'd be inconsistent). Note that we have many pages that replicate information between film and character -- Jack Torrance, Stella Kowalski and Baby Jane Hudson, to name a few. -FeralDruid 09:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FICT is instructive: 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. If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article. In this instance, the article is not an encyclopedic treatment of the character and the article on the film is not so long as to require a split. Otto4711 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scibuntu

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

Notability to come. Chealer 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, no evidence of notoriety presented. Just a small part of some Linux distros. meshach 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per meshach. Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete From the software source: Scibuntu 0.4-beta - A brand new Scibuntu - that rather says it all (a pre-version 1 beta) ,Pever 00:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web); votes for 'merge' not accompanied by supporting arguments. External links do not contain mentions of the topic and therefore can't be drawn upon as supporting references. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venus Construct

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

Article does not try to establish notability and fails notability guidelines quite badly, page created by someone with a major conflict of interest/just shy of outright spam DreamGuy 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Feminist Art Movement.--Edtropolis 20:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn work of art. Almost no Ghits, no awards. Clarityfiend 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — There may be some notability, but the current sources aren't independent or reliable (and I couldn't find any) Don't merge unless good sources are found. *Cremepuff222* 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Psdubow 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice toward recreation if sources can be found (albeit unlikely). Sr13 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreams of Deception

Dreams of Deception (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

1. WP:NOTE: No coverage anywhere at all.
2. WP:CITE: Again, no sources at all. The only source is the creator of the article, which leads us to
3. WP:COI, so it can be considered as advertising/spam.
4. It's also either a copyright infringement, or the creator releases all the information under the GNU Free Documentation License.
   Basically, some guy (I doubt 'Seed Entertainment' is a registered company) decided to make a game and create an article about it before at least creating a homepage for it. This should have been speed deleted IMO.--Svetovid 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• What can i do to prevent this page from being deleted? It has everything the other future game pages have. What is mine missing. Please do not delete it, but tell me what i can do to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:About and the subsequent pages.--Svetovid 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also try reading this. meshach 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom. Basically Wikipedia is not MySpace.--Edtropolis 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Wiki is not a webspace provider. No evidence that it meets WP:N. meshach 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence that it meets WP:N. Rgds, - Trident13 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Per very structured nom. The article is purely OR, so it needs some independent source (which I couldn't find). *Cremepuff222* 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:OR. If some verifiable sources or references can be found, I would change my vote, although such sources being found seems unlikely. Clamster 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 03:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will link the images and content to the seed entertainment website shortly, which is not a company, but more of a small business. I will notify you all when i have finished. thanks in advance.

Ok, i have made a link to the seed entertainment business website. Please verify. http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)

• Comment -- I notice that the page has a copyright statement buried in it now, saying "All names, logos, and other game play aspects Copyright(C)2007 Seed Entertainment. All Rights Reserved.". How much of the article content is copyrighted by Seed and is therefore not allowed on Wikipedia due to GFDL incompatibility? From what I can see, probably nearly the whole article. -- ArglebargleIV 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon a bit of research I should have done earlier, I've deleted the entire Game Description section -- it's directly lifted from http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com/seedentertainment-projects with incompatible licensing. -- ArglebargleIV 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If i am the author of the text and a representer of seed entertainment, is it still against copyright? I can't copy my own work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)

The verified author of the work has to explicitly release that under the GFDL, and that may not be enough. Evn so, the text was promotional ranther than descriptive in nature. -- ArglebargleIV 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please go to http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com. The copyright has been updated to allow reposting as long as accreditation is given to seed entertainment.

• Delete - Seem to be vanispamcruftisement. No reliable secondary sources etc etc. DarkSaber2k 11:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. Even though it was posted by the business who's product it is, are the others any better. Even though other people posted reviews about other future games, are they not promoting or executing vanispamcruftisement for the company who created the game? It is not like this is a false article with stolen information. I do not have large texts saying "buy this!" or "visit seed entertainment". I simply posted the facts and details about the product. If people are interested, then great. When i read other future game articles, i sometimes too become interested in that game. Please do not delete it from all of the reasons just mentioned.

Please keep you arguments away from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and keep it relevent to this article and the problems with it raised in this afd. DarkSaber2k 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there seemed to be a bit of interest in merging, the merge opinions don't really seem to indicate where it would logically go, and no one's prevented from adding sourced material about it to any other article in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FlightLinux

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

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm, on one hand it's a NASA project which gives it some vague notability, but on the other hand it's a Linux distribution whose sole claim to fame is that it was only meant to fly in space, while ultimately not used... all the while both NASA and ESA have actually used and will be using other distributions in space successfully. Due to being a minor "product", this would be Merge material if suitable target candidate is found, but if not, I'm not opposed to Deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. Not notable enough for it's own article, but should be a redirect and mentioned somewhere. It's notable enough (being a NASA / ESA sponsored project) that it needs to be mentioned, just no here. Patch86 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I suspect it is notable but only as part of a merger. JodyB _talk 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted in hope of a broader consensus. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — And a merge isn't necessary because there are no indpendent dources to verify the content. *Cremepuff222* 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into ELKS if the article would otherwise be deleted (then have a debate about why it's there, then recreate this article... )- Peter Ellis - Talk 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the only reference is broken and the article is otherwise unsourced. Fails WP:V. TerriersFan 02:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was spayed and neutered. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Price Is Right in popular culture

The Price Is Right in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete - indiscriminate collection of information and a directory of loosely-associated pieces of trivia. Article seeks to capture any mention of TPIR, Bob Barker, something that reminds someone of TPIR or uses a catchphrase that is associated with the show, regardless of the triviality of the inclusion. Otto4711 18:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, referencing needed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">Dalejenkins</span> 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pure trivia. --Oscarthecat 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but perhaps put some of the better ones on the actual Price is Right article. Man, what a great show. Useight 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Otto's assessment JodyB _talk
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a trivia guide. --Charlene 19:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with The Price Is Right.--Edtropolis 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Oh no. Why do you thing it was offloaded from there? Pavel Vozenilek 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete not on par with other ...in popular culture articles. Cedars 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Trivia is not encyclopedic. --Charlene 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Didn't mean to do that. Sorry. --Charlene 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, with the large majority of the content being deleted in the process. --Android Mouse 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because this is a disguised list of trivia with no real-world context. It is indiscriminate to list all the mentions of this show or any show in the media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack and the beanstalk(ish)

Jack and the beanstalk(ish) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This pantomime has no sources provided and there are no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. The article claims that the show was performed on a VHS release titled Steve Oliver: The CV, which itself garners no relevant Google hits and is not listed on the Internet Movie Database. The Steve Oliver who created this pantomime does not appear to be the same Steve Oliver who has a Wikipedia article already. I submitted this article for proposed deletion, but the {{prod}} tag was removed; then another person submitted the article for proposed deletion, but I removed the {{prod}} tag because an article can't go through WP:PROD twice. Anyway, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">Dalejenkins</span> 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. --Oscarthecat 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom huji—TALK 19:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why delete this article about a cult hit. Just because it doesn't garner google hits. If you look at the years the show came out, you will realise that this was pre-internet! The article should stay, after all there are articles about murderers and sex offenders on here and nobody complains — 81.96.71.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - FYI, this anon. SPA just tried to remove the AfD notice from the article ... Oops! They did it again!. :-) —72.75.70.147 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment And they tried to remove the Afd again. Edward321 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This show was written in 1993, and released to video in 1997. A look at the article History of the World Wide Web should be sufficient to establish that this was not the pre-Internet era. While the Internet was less commonly used back then, it certainly existed and was available to (at least some of) the public. --Metropolitan90 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - This anonymous vandal 81.96.71.55 may be the author, Podmaster2 (talk · contribs), but that's beside the point ... after they posted a comment about this AfD on the article's main page, I moved it to the talk page, and did something that none of the other editors have apparently tried to do; educate and raise their consciousness about how things are done here ... they have been operating under the delusion that there is some kind of conspiracy against the subject, when the fact is that they have never been appraised of WP:N, WP:A, and WP:COI ... please, people, remember the time when you knew even less about Wikipedia than they do now (assuming they've read those three articles), and next time try to put a velvet glove on the iron fist when dealing with self-promoting nuggets like this one ... the prohibition against biting them does not prevent us from reaching out to point them in the right direction, does it? Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot believe the snobbery that is operating within this site. I am not podmaster whatsisname, I am a fan who remembers the play very well. Just because YOU have never heard of it doesn't mean nobody has. If I recommended for deletion someone or something that I hadn't heard of, then someone would be annoyed about it. The play was written in 1993, and at that time is wasn't as commonplace as now to put everything on the internet. If it was written and performed now then it would have a website but not then. Even in 1997 when Mr Oliver's video was released it wasn't as big a deal to put everything online. Websites were seen as a passing fad (wrongly obviously) back then. I say keep this article as the opinion of the elite who think they own wikipedia doesn't count as gospel. It's a shame there isn't a regulator to moniter bullying. I'm all for freedom of speech but are any of the objectors to this article the boss of wikipedia? Another point that seems to have been overlooked by these people is that this is an article about a play that hasn't been performed since 1997, with no sign of a revival. So how on earth can this be seen as advertising? Why advertise something from the past? Keep the article by all means and let's see some common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.71.55 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 June 2007
  • As I explained very clearly on Talk:Jack and the beanstalk(ish), Internet coverage has absolutely nothing to do with it ... find some press clippings that talk about it and that would be sufficient ... no one has said anything about "advertising" ... the problem with the article is lack of Notability and Attribution, i.e., it doesn't matter if I've never heard of it so long as I can Verify what's claimed in the article by being able to look at the microfiche of a published article about it in a library somewhere ... as for "bullying," please provide something to back up that claim ... OTOH, your repeated vandalism (including your attempt to remove material from my talk page) is well documented, but no punitive actions have been taken ... yet. —72.75.70.147 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is nothing really to merge; there is a mention in two of the three artists' articles already, one of which is supported by reference to an interview. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The DNA Algorithm

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

Non noteable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Should be merged with Daniel Bedingfield, Nikola Rachelle and Natasha Bedingfield Dalejenkins 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. --Oscarthecat 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete regarding the non-notable information offered on this article. huji—TALK 19:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge as above. Not notable in itself.-gadfium 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dalejenkins 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

• Delete and merge any useful info. as indicated. JJL 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep merging to multiple articles doesnt leave a useful redirect. There is sufficient sources that mention this band.[10][11][12][13][14][15] John Vandenberg 09:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • John, none of the links you provided offers information which proves this band is a notable one. So I don't see why you think the article should be kept. Regards, huji—TALK 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Wars Battles

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

I proposed deletion but it was technically objected by an anonymous editor saying keep. So I'm bringing it here. As you can see, this has gone through 2 AfDs before, both reaching a consensus to delete. That might make it speediable as a repost, but this might technically be a new article as it was created a few months after the other was deleted. Anyway, the content of the list goes into far too much detail on each battle, copying the exact text from those articles and moving them to the article. Of the four red links or non-links, they are just not linked correctly to the article (except for one which was deleted). This is what categories are for and there is already a category for the battles. This page should just be deleted. Phydend 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wookieepedia and redirect per all cruft lists. Delete—Wookieepedia already has expansive articles on these battles. I also suggest listing the individual battles with this nomination so we can sort through what has out-of-universe potential (should be kept) and what should be transwikied or deleted. — Deckiller 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your suggestion until now. It's probably too late to add the individual battles to this nomination as too many people have already weighed in on it, so I'm not going to, but it might be a good idea look into nominating them all in their own. Phydend 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 17:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily; it's always good to see if information can be transwikied first. — Deckiller 17:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh god, that's a huge amount of duplication. This needs to go. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete listcruft. Artw 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed.--Svetovid 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT.--Edtropolis 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Category:List of Star Wars Battles as several of the titles are wikilinked, suggesting articles have been createdJForget 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to merge to, as it's a duplication of the individual articles. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also debating sending some of the other, non-film articles to AfD. Any battle articles we have that aren't featured in the films are unlikely to have out-of-universe info. — Deckiller 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Useight 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to its being completely composed of duplicated texts, fancruft, and covered by a category. --EMS | Talk 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While this does indeed deserve to be tossed, I feel I should point out to the posters above that essays are not policy. As such saying something deserves to be deleted for being listcruft or fancruft is not a valid policy argument. Jtrainor 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The two previous AfDs were to delete, so I would suggest in the future to use the template {{db-repost}} instead of resorting to AfD again. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klibc

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

This poorly referenced article is about klibc. The article claims this is a libc implementation, which would mean it is a library. But the article describes it as a suite of commands and utilities. Either way, the subject doesn't appear to make any claim of notability. Mikeblas 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of claims of notability are not valid reasons for deletion at AFD, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Here, we discuss whether a subject actually is or is not notable, not what claims the article may currently make. In that regard, we discuss the presence or absence of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, such as ISBN 1590595858 which devotes pages 286–289 to this subject. Uncle G 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the authors of the software have titled a system for booting Linux as klibc. klibc is more than a library, but the fact that it is poorly named by the software authors doesn't mean it should be deleted from wikipedia. Bpringlemeir 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - it's from H. Peter Anvin - nearly anybody who's seen a Linux system boot has seen his name go by. This is a component in the boot process of many Linux systems - see the reference in Initrd. The article (and the software) is titled correctly; it's the stripped-down libc provided as part of the boot process before the entire libc is available. There may be a suitable merge target for the article, but the content should certainly be kept. I'd let the experts decide how to cover this in the overall Linux coverage. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not everything someone notable does is necessarily notable. -- Mikeblas 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The current state of the article is not very good. It is poorly referenced, and it doesn't indicate any notability within the article itself. Listing the programs included is probably a bit of a no-no as well. I have tried to look for sources, but most of what I've found is nothing more than the contents as included in the Linux Kernel. That doesn't make a good choice for building an article, and I'm not sure everything that's in the kernel package is worth having an article on. FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you read the book that I cited above? Uncle G 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, why would I? The book itself isn't used as a source in the article, and you didn't even give a title, or describe its contents. It may well be covered in that book, but let's see, less than 5 pages? I'd like you to tell me what worthwhile content is in those pages to make this worth keeping instead. Sorry, but I'm not going to go to the bookstore or library when you don't even bother to say the title, let alone articulate what's in the book. If there is some valid content in it, that might mean something, but with a title like "The Definitive Guide to GCC" I suspect it's not going to establish the individual notability of this component very well. Maybe I'm wrong, but you'll at least have to say why. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You would read it because it was cited. Moreover: I told you outright what the book discussed. Furthermore: You could have found the title by clicking on the hyperlink. You didn't need it spoon-feed to you (as is clearly evident from the fact that you've written it above). Special:Booksources for that book is just one mouse click away. I even gave you the exact page numbers to read. Read them. Looking at and evaluating sources is what you are supposed to be doing here. When someone cites a source in an AFD discussion, and you don't even look at it, asking instead why you should look at a cited source (a question that boggles the mind when coming from a Wikipedia editor), it is nobody else but you that is not bothering. Uncle G 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • As I said "I'd like you to tell me what worthwhile content is in those pages to make this worth keeping instead. Sorry, but I'm not going to go to the bookstore or library when you don't even bother to say the title, let alone articulate what's in the book." Really, you've made a poor case for use of your source as a deciding factor here by not including that information. So do your fellow Wikipedians a favor and at least give us something to go by besides an ISBN and some pages. This is especially relevant because merely being covered in this one single book doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm sure there's a lot of things about GCC that get covered in detail in that book, how many would I support having articles? Not many I think. You can call me lazy if you want, but you're just going to have to convince me that looking at your source is worthwhile. Otherwise, I'll remain unconvinced that it should have its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment'. Problem is: the book Uncle G cites above and the article itself say it's a library. But the article says it includes a list of programs, which makes no sense. Given no references, it comes off as nonsense -- even if only in a technical way. Since my questions about this misinformation have gone unanswered for a few weeks, I did AfD with the idea that no information is better than misinformation. -- Mikeblas 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. You didn't need AFD to fix the article. {{cleanup-rewrite}} is one of the many other tools that exists. If you see a wholly unsourced article that isn't very well written, you should find sources yourself, wield the merciless sword of verifiability, and rewrite the article as a good stub based upon sources. As you yourself say, the content as it stands doesn't agree with the source that we have. So you have verifiability grounds for zapping it entirely and rewriting the article. Only if you cannot find any (independent) sources after you have searched for them is AFD the place to come. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You don't need an administrator to hit a delete button. You only need the edit button, which every editor has. You have 1 source now. You even have exact page numbers. Be bold! Uncle G 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Mikeblas, but also because this list of the product's components and attributes is just spam copied from the release notes. Worthy of a readme file perhaps, but not notable otherwise. --Gavin Collins 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article remains unsourced and the content, as Gavin Collins says, is more suited to release notes than an encyclopaedia article. TerriersFan 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If the article were rewritten and had reliable sources, I can imagine it might be possible to establish that the topic was notable. But we need to work from what we see in front of us, and what's here is quite disappointing. There are no third parties quoted as to the importance of klibc. Linux is notable, and if this article were smoothly integrated with our other Linux coverage, it would be worth keeping. Even initramfs is way better than this. If anyone wants this article kept because they consider the notability 'obvious', then I'd suggest we strip it down to the first two sentences, because all the rest of the article is misleading and confusing. EdJohnston 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Cortez

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

Would appear to fail WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. A technician for a band who's currently filling in for another member who is "on leave". While there are two references neither talk about the subject at all - first is a non-RS cartoon strip referring to the original band member; and the second refers to the original band member by the way of their brother and doesn't mention the subject at all. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. fails notability criteria--Candyfan 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jlime

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

Notability to come. Chealer 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article doesn't claim notability or ask other sources to do the job either. YechielMan 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me... --Arny 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted in hopes of clearer consensus. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - One source does not make notability. -- Kesh 01:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Two? Three? Four? Besides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:JNN.
• Keep It was inside LinuxFormat 94 and a simple googling shows its notability. 80.251.192.2, 19:23, 17 June 2007
• Keep Cites the founders website, has a third party review and has been in a Linux magazine. (I also just added a source for the ipkg section). Seems notable enough. 21:12, 17 June 2007 (BST)
• Keep This is the best embedded Linux distribution and the ONLY one for HP Jornada's and I heard they were going

to add mobilepro to the supported list. Its very notable in Linux world. --217.208.148.126 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like a bad idea to delete such a notable Linux Distro,it was even in Linux Format this month Page 17 issue 94 A google of Jornada Linux will site the Distro at No 1 http://www.google.co.uk/ search Jornada+Linux and see for yourself ;) This is in no way a dead distro but is constantly being updated by a notable Linux Kernel Developer see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristoffer_Ericson that in itself should be Notable enough and also a review was on HPCFactor on Jan 22nd 2007 http://www.hpcfactor.com/reviews/software/jlime/donkey-1-0-2/ Hagisbasheruk 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It also is the only existing project for Linux under the Jornada, and efforts are being made to bring it to other HPCs (turning it into an "umbrella project" of a sorts for Linux under HPCs, the only existing one). Plus, all the arguments above. B Lizzard 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Everything above pretty much states it. Mr.KlicK 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Mr.KlicK
• keep handhelds.org also mentiones it. Lack of notability is out of question IMO.
  • The above arguments boil down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. Neither of which are convincing in an AfD. -- Kesh 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This nomination came out of a broad survey of linux distributions by Chealer as an attempt to reduce the number of non-notable articles on linux distributions. A noble, difficult, worthwhile task to be sure. However, most of these articles are unsourced, and Chealer exercised his best judgement/opinion as to which of the articles to nominate for deletion or not. Once nominated, articles such as these are placed in the difficult position of having to adhere to the strict guidelines concerning notability. The nomination process here has been subjective, and in my opinion linux distributions, being informal and opensource rather than commercial, tend not to receive the sort of press attention that commercial endeavors do. This is not to suggest that all articles on linux distributions should be kept, but rather there is a gray area here. I understand the need for sourcing material, but there are many, many articles in Wikipedia that are unsourced, won't ever be, yet are encyclopedic and worthwhile (c.f. flukeman - having recently watched the X-files episode, I was thrilled to find a Wikipedia article on it.). The nomination process for articles such as this has been rather arbitrary, and IMHO something is not quite kosher with this process.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdushaw (talk • contribs) 09:36, June 18, 2007
• Comment I agree with Bdushaw, even though this distribution hasn't received much publicity it seems quite well known in the linux world and therefore notable on its own. --217.208.148.126 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment By the same standards cited by the deleters above (and indeed wikipedia policy) the following articles would also be deleted: GPE Palmtop Environment, Familiar Linux, OpenZaurus, OPIE user interface, Maemo, Qtopia, ELKS, Openembedded (and OpenPsion which is also up for deletion at the moment and how I got involved here). I am well aware of the policy that pointing out other faulty articles is no argument; however, all these articles fall into a very similar category. I am in the curious position of agreeing with sources, references, notability, etc. ... up until the conclusion in this case. There has to be a way for opensource development of linux on PDAs can have a good representation on Wikipedia. Bdushaw 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think it got enough notability --80.251.192.1 11:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While initially the outcome was clearly to delete, the article has since been expanded to assert notability via the site's content being distributed by a notable independent party. Delete comments say this is advertising, but do not elaborate on their rationales. Once this web site is shown to meet WP:WEB, any advertorial tone in the text can be edited away; "redoing" the article does not require deletion. Resurgent insurgent 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divine.ca

Divine.ca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB. Listed for AFD after User:Cappy411 removed the speedy tag. Oscarthecat 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant advertising.--Edtropolis 14:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advertising.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-Notable. Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Divine.ca is a well known site within Canada. It is one of the largest websites in Canada for women. Site statistics show that divine.ca has over 300,000 unique visitors per month. In addition, Yahoo! considers divine.ca a partner and syndicates content from divine.ca. This site is similar to iVillage (a women's website based in the US), but is targeted to Canadian women.

For proof of notability, please visit these sites:

Divine.ca homepage

Yahoo! Partners Page

Please do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cappy411 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 June 2007.

• Comment. It's blantant advertising. Wikipedia is not an internet guide or an online shopping wiki where I like buy stuff.--Edtropolis 15:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That's a laughable, pathetic attempt at proof.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I nearly speedily deleted it, but I'll grant that some notability is asserted. It needs backed up with independent sources—and Yahoo is not independent of its own partnership, so it needs other media coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC); amended 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have a hard time understanding why divine.ca would be deleted, when other womens sites such as ivillage.com are allowed to have a page on wikipedia. I would also disagree with the previous comment that Yahoo! is not a media source. The partnership divine.ca has with Yahoo! is evidence that divine.ca is a legitimate company and a company of note.

Other coverage:

http://www.gratisbingogames.com/20061008/scratch-win-and-raise-money-for-breast-cancer.php

http://www.infopresse.com/guide/GAM.asp?ID=3003&Section=4&SousSection=221&Type=3

http://www.divineweather.com/rules.html

http://wellness.w3.ihscnet.net/blog/

http://www.shania.com/stcares.htm

http://www.bra-g.com/news.htm

http://www.trind.ca/news/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cappy411 (talk • contribs).

• • Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That said, iVillage.com does not have an article. iVillage does, but it asserts notability when it says it was purchased by NBC Universal for $600 million. Granted, that's not backed up with a source, but it's at least asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of the links cited above by Cappy411 are primarily covering Divine.ca. The gratisbingogames.com link is the closest, but a) it's a little adrift of reliable, IMHO and b) only identifies that the site has been around since 2005 and is giving 5 cents per some event to a breast cancer charity. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop putting spam on Wikipedia. It violates WP:ADVERT.--Edtropolis 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. To OscarCat: I have told this user not to spam Wikipedia.--Edtropolis 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to Edtropolis - those links aren't spam, they are attempts to make a point. Thus your WP:SPAM warning post on Cappy411's user page was not wholly justified, as that user did not violate Wikipedia:Spam here. (Also somewhat violates WP:COI since you're involved in this AFD. -- Guroadrunner 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. IMHO (since I'm speaking as an AfD participant here), the links were a good-faith effort to assert notability and not spam. Let's stay on the topic of the article here and save anything else for a talk page (including the AfD's). —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redo - article is poorly formatted, an orphan and of questionable notability. If users want it, they will make it again. Guroadrunner 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• As Edtropolis states, the links are not intended as spam but as a good faith attempt to establish notability. I would contend that iVillage was a notable company prior to it's purchase by NBC, as it was one of the largest sites in the United States targeted to women. Divine.ca fills a similar role for Canadian women, being one of the only online-only sites (no print component) in Canada that directly targets women.
  

Further coverage includes (this is not spam, but again, an attempt to establish notability):

http://www.rethinkbreastcancer.com/partners.html

http://www.newszoom.com/search/read/beyonce+knowles/beyonce_knowles/20/02/

http://www.leonalewisfansite.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29425&sid=6508744267dd997b63036b58e8ad7e1f

http://www.contestqueen.com/resources/inthenews.html

http://www.gratisbingogames.com/

http://www.tornade-coiffure.com/cours/evenements/media.html

http://mlm.business-opportunities.biz/page/4/

www.branchez-vous.com/inc/BRANCHEZ-VOUS_MediaKit_October2006_WEB%20Version.pdf

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/body-mind/divine/career_money-want_to_give_to_a_breast_cancer_charity_-want_to_give_to_a_breast_cancer_charity_

http://www.incomexchange.com/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.57.151.96 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

• The comment that divine.ca is blatant advertising because the name is a url is unwarranted. Unlike iVillage, the name of the site in question IS divine.ca, not divine. This is shown in the numerous links referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thechickpea (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC). — Thechickpea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete as a blatant ad of some NN site. meshach 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redo: After reviewing Wikipedia’s own criteria for submission, it would seem that Divine.ca is being rebuffed only because its own is not properly structured.

I would suggest following the example of these similar online magazine entries listed below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Zen_Monkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondance_magazine

Surely the criteria of the notability can be met using accepted research methods, as web metrix would prove or disprove claims sited by either side.

Wikipedia’s own argument:

“Conversely, very few things are well known everywhere. For instance, Pepe may not be well-known in London, but that does not by itself mean he is not notable.”

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F

Divine.ca is well known in Canada as an online webzine for women.

I would recommend allowing article to be reworked before any final decision is taken.— 66.131.254.52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete, Having taken time to visit the links proffered in support of keeping the article, I came away convinced that this is merely blatant self promotion. Further, surely like most folks on this thread, I am familiar with many Internet forums. A visit to the divine.ca forums shows relatively little interest at all. Neither the proffered links nor the site's own forums come close to suggesting notability. Oh and I am Canadian and have never head of this site. Pever 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion the article page seems to just be stating facts and shouldn't be considered spam or advertising; especially after reading some of the articles posted by other ezines. Oh and I'm a Canadian woman and have been getting divine.ca's newsletter regularly for about a year now. Mnm1108 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC) — Mnm1108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per WP:WEB. I read the links provided and they were not sufficient proof of notability, either as an online magazine or as a form of Internet marketing. Canuckle 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep : As per Wikipedia guidelines, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, is not a valid argument when discussing page deletion. As a Canadian site targeted to women, this site cannot be expected to be universally known by everyone in every country and by all Canadians. Search engine results for "online women magazine Canada" reveal that divine.ca is the 5th site listed. As these are organic listings, it would stand to reason that the site is known for being an online women's magazine in Canada. Furthermore, I would disagree with the previous comment that the forums show relatively little interest. Have you compared the forums of other online women's magazines, or is this opinion based on forums in other fields (such as IT/technology where users are generally more active)? Let's compare apples to apples. --Thechickpea 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)— Thechickpea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep : As per WP:WEB “The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7]” Yahoo distributes divine.ca's content; Yahoo is well known and independent of divine.ca.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.201.233.102 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)— 24.201.233.102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: Google Canada search for "divine" shows divine.ca as the first organic listing when searched. A Google.com search "divine" shows divine.ca as the ninth organic listing when searched. Clearly this shows evidence that divine.ca is recognized. --Tinklebottom 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) — Tinklebottom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Upon reconsideration, keep. I finally found a page (http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/home) that is Yahoo branded where Divine.ca is listed by Yahoo among "Our partners." Yahoo is well-known, Yahoo is independent of Divine.ca, Yahoo distributes Divine.ca content, and the distribution is non-trivial/non-user-submitted. WP:WEB notability criteria are satisfied, veifiability satisfied with the inclusion of the Yahoo page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep—as per C.Fred's most recent comment. --Paul Erik 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, mets WP:WEB as content is carried by Yahoo. John Vandenberg 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on content being carried by Yahoo. --Thechickpea 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Can only vote once. --Oscarthecat 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nipple sucking

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

The title of the article makes it obvious what the subject matter is. The article was recently created by a new user with 3 contributions. It was unreferenced original research until I added some references. I could probably add more references but I'm just not sure that this is a valid encyclopedia topic. The content could be merged. I just don't know, so I'm asking for consensus here. Oh yeah and nothing links to it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Disgusting. Violates WP:PORN.--Edtropolis 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you find a normal and widely-practiced sexual activity disgusting and worthy of suppression. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you; there are other wikis out there which may better suit your worldview. —Psychonaut 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The last comment by Psychonaut was not called for. Edtropolis is welcome to contribute here and saying that his or her "worldview" is not appropriate for Wikipedia is completely ridiculous. Comments like these do not make new users feel welcome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't notice that Edtropolis was a new user. I did look at his contributions, which are mostly AfD !votes, and assumed that he was familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR, and other policies which make his !vote rationale completely inappropriate. Edtropolis, since you are evidently a new user, I apologize and withdraw the second sentence of my comment. But please consider editing Wikipedia for a while before diving into AfDs, so that you can familiarize yourself with our conventions and learn what are and are not acceptable rationales for deletion. —Psychonaut 11:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hoo boy. I'm sure that I'm going to catch nine different kinds of hell for recommending this, but here goes: Merge to foreplay. Groupthink 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PORN is just an essay, not a policy or guideline. Your delete vote smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is thus invalid. Groupthink's suggestion seems to be a better one: merge and redirect. Also, if you think mere nipple sucking is disgusting, then I dread to hear what you think about such articles as donkey punch, cleveland steamer, anal torture, urethral play, rusty trombone which I find truly revolting. I don't find nipple sucking disgusting at all.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As George Carlin once infamously observed: "Betcha can't eat just one!" ;-) Groupthink 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I had to google that just to find out what you were talking about.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as encylopedic (if not more so) that the aforementioned cleveland steamer and rusty trombone! Lugnuts 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But yeah, this is a much more normal and common sexual practise than either of those two, and you can't really argue with me on that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the "Dirty Bristow" comment on the rusty trombone article is the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia! Lugnuts 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment that's irrelevant to this debate, and anyway although that slang term seems to be in use it isn't referenced to WP:RS and may be a WP:BLP violation although I've left it for the moment.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - gonna remove it per WP:BLP on second thoughts. Back to the nipple sucking debate please.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is just as encyclopedic as other articles we have on much stranger sex techniques. These have been subject to many AFDs ending in keep, especially donkey punch, so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply. Given the limited time, I'm willing to keep it with expectation of expansion as more and better sources turn up. I'm comfortable with merging to foreplay, as well.--Chaser - T 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment a merger into foreplay might be difficult as that article is in a poor state just now anyway, and having a huge section about nipple sucking might seem strange.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. True, Wikipedia may have things like this under this rule, but this article is something else. It is gross and will be a vandalism target. What if the if the article was just made by a vandal? Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A reminder, we are not censored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If an article is a encyclopedic topic, it should be kept, no matter who created the article. I'm trying to ascertain here whether it is encyclopedic. I don't see what's so gross about it either, especially in comparison with other sex articles.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is gross and will be a vandalism target stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Not a valid argument to delete. Lugnuts 14:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment True and something being a vandalism target, in itself, is a completely invalid reason for deletion. Yeah, let's go delete the George W. Bush article...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And 20,000 high school articles...--Chaser - T 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment whose inclusion rests on notability, and has no correlation with vandalism. This is quite obviously a notable sexual practice, but whether it deserves its own page I just do not know.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see how you can find nipple sucking gross. It's one of the first things I do to a woman during foreplay, without fail.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's lovely, but we're here to talk about whether the article should be deleted or kept based on policies, not whether we find the practice gross or our own private sex lives. Thanks.--Chaser - T 16:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Others have stated (as an invalid argument for deletion) that it's gross. I'm just trying to highlight that others may not for that purpose; I interpret WP:NOT#FORUM quite liberally.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --Thekittybomb 16:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment... and your reasoning is? Groupthink 16:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it's not a vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think this AFD is heading for no consensus.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

More like a keep. The delete votes are citing reasons that are not policy based. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge to foreplay. Dalejenkins

Keep - it's not about whether its dirty, it's about whether it encyclopedically written and notable enough. I say it fits the latter if anything. Guroadrunner 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep topic is clearly encyclopedic as a fairly common sexual practice, and the references now included are enough to pass at least the minimum bar of WP:V and WP:N. The article should be expanded and improved with more and better refs, but that is not a reason to delete. DES ^(talk) 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I urge the closer to discount comments where the only reasopning is "Gross" or other vareints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DES ^(talk) 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Foreplay. There are adequate references from the Kinsey Reports to Masters and Johnson to document this as a part of foreplay among humans. The fact that some editors here find the idea "disgusting" or "gross" is pretty hilarious, but irrelevant to the topic being encyclopedic. Later in their lives they may find it less so. It easily satisfies WP:N, but there is not quite enough in the present article for it to stand alone. Edison 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I agree the present article needs to be expanded and better referenced, but this is not a reason to delete. If you agree "it easily satisfies WP:N" I would think you would want to improve the article, not merge it into something else.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. DES said it well. This is totally appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I don't think a merge to foreplay makes any sense. Not to be too explicit or anything, but nipple sucking is not solely for foreplay (obviously it often takes place during coitus itself, also it might not lead to sex). Thus it can be referenced in the foreplay article (diligent editor HisSpaceResearch has already taken care of that for us!) but it should have its own article just as French kissing, erotic spanking, and oral sex do--all practices which may or may not be part of foreplay. When someone has some spare time and does not mind getting into trouble, they should create a "Wikipedians who think nipple sucking is gross" category. I won't add myself to the cat, but I'll totally watchlist it.  :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Foreplay if it's not expanded after some time.
  Arguments like "it's disgusting" and "it could be vandalised" are logical fallacies and against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.--Svetovid 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see it clearly notable as a part of foreplay, but as a standalone fetish it should, well, stand alone, like the other 100,000 things people become sexually obsessed with.An example was the "Specialist" on HBO's Deadwood [21] Merge the prelude/accompanyment to intercourse into Foreplay and perhaps keep what's left as Nipple sucking (fetish). (And I can't believe I just typed that).Edison 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's clearly a very common sexual practise, and much more common than an extreme ("1 in 100,000") sexual fetish.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fetish? Obsessed? ...--Svetovid 09:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge - there's nothing really wrong with the article (bit stubby!), or the subject. My only thought is that it can't really be developed much more beyond what it presently is, without going into different options/techniques, which verges on WP:N. As part of foreplay it would at least form part of a whole article and placed in context - who's going to spend the whole night just sucking nipples? Rgds, --Trident13 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Good show for a new contributor. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Routine part of human behavior; anyone thinking this is remotely relevant to PORN is a little out of step with the world, and it wouldnt matter if it were. WP NOT Censored means it literally. Sufficient references. Of course there can be more. One good study found, but there's quite a bit of relevant fiction/nonfiction/movies/etc/etc. DGG 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use some more work but it is encyclopedic. - Pharaonic 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep my heart says dl but I can't find a way to separate this from the other sex act pages on WP. JJL 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article needs more work but it fits the encylopedia aspect of Wikipedia, and it is NOT porn. It is simply a normal part of human sexuality.Lord Balin 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, There seems to be two issues, the validity of the article heading and the validity of the content. The article title seems properly retained. The content is almost without merit - but could be rapidly being transformed. When first visited, there were 2 links. There is now 1 to a how to site. The comment "some genetically female people..." leaves me concerned that this is not even heading toward encyclopedic content. Pever 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:I was the person who included the comment about genetically female people; the point being that the presence of breasts does not necessarily indicate a female gender identity (i.e. the word "women" may not be appropriate), but "female-bodied" is still accurate. The "how-to" site was always there; see the diffs in my vote, below. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with foreplay, if not, delete. I made an attempt to bring the quality of this article up to an encyclopedic standard; before; after. The second paragraph was related entirely to erotic lactation, and the "one good study found" that DGG mentioned actually had to do not with whether a man had sucked his wife's nipples, but whether fathers had tasted breastmilk at their partner's breasts. I don't feel that oral stimulation of nipples on its own merits its own article. What is there to expand on—the physics of oral suction? Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I haven't exactly studied this in depth (or actually at all) but I imagine there is plenty to expand upon here. Above DGG made reference to portrayal in "fiction/nonfiction/movies/etc" which seem valid for inclusion in the article, but one might also discuss the history of this practice and cross-cultural differences (I assume different cultures have different attitudes toward it and that attitudes may have changed over time, though even if attitudes were relatively static across time and place this fact would be worthy of inclusion). Also doctors or "sex experts" may have weighed in on the practice of nipple sucking (maybe 100 years ago medical professionals recommended against it, who knows) and this could be included as well. I could be wrong about all of this, but I'm guessing there's more than enough material out there to expand this article and make it more encyclopedic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Bigtimepeace's arguments above (not just the comment directly above, but in the rationale for keeping way above): this is a common human sexual practice, meriting inclusion. It should not be merged under foreplay for the reason that it is not solely used in foreplay. And yes, there is plenty of material out there to expand this article. Note also that this article has been moved/renamed to Oral stimulation of nipples. --Ace of Swords 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. How... clinical. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed. I shudder to imagine what this might mean for Dirty Sanchez, Hot Karl, Rusty Trombone and Cleveland Steamer... Groupthink 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    Wait a sec, the link to "Hot Karl" is to a rapper?!? Oh gawd, please don't tell me I need to make a disambig page... Groupthink 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    Apparently you did need to make a disambig page, and you did a shitty job of it, which in this context means, oddly enough, "good work!"--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is a harsh mistress. If she requires me to wade ankle deep into excrement in order to add a disambig page, then I take a shot of pennicilin and obey... ;) Groupthink 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I moved the page so that it would be more complete in its title. I should have made a note of it here; please excuse me. Joie de Vivre ^T 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep – It is an encyclopaedic topic, so you should add more references. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Foreplay or Sexual_fetishism First sentence of the article reads, at present, "A person may engage in oral stimulation of nipples as a sexual practice." -- But this isn't a "sexual practice" anymore than oral stimulation of the nose or the toes or the earlobes, or any other non-genital body part (e.g., the lips, while kissing), is a "sexual practice".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 June 2007.
  • Could you possibly read what a fetish is before suggesting something? This sexual practice is more distinctive than oral stimulation of the nose or ear. Also, how do I sign posts for others?--Svetovid 10:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • How to sign; answered on your Talk page. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Cheers, I got it now.--Svetovid 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is more distinctive than stimulation of the nose or ear, and I agree that it does not necessarily or even frequently constitute a fetish. However I do feel that it is mainly a form of foreplay and that it should be merged there. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To Mike18xx, actually it is a sexual practice. Sex practices do not have to involve the genitals, which I would have assumed is a fairly obvious point. Thus I'm not sure about the rationale for this delete vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment IMO this should not be merged to foreplay, be cause it can occur before, during or after intercourse, or as part of an erotic or sexual encounter that does not involve intercourse. it should not be merged to any fetish articel, because for most people this isn't a fetish (although no doubt there are some for whom it is). if it had to be merged somewhere, the only target that seems reasonable to me is Human sexual behavior. but that is already large enough, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep perfectly valid encyclopedic subject, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Yamaguchi先生 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it's as valid an encyclopedia article as many other Safe sex articles, e.g. Autofellatio, Uncircumcized, Masturbation, French kissing, Erotic spanking, Oral sex, etc. It's certainly amongst my favorites. Unless we have the urge to merge, that is not an option, because this can be part of the act, or So Much for the Afterglow. I can't believe I wrote that, either! Bearian 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holman Scale

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

2 non-wiki ghits. It may exist, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Contested prod Kathy A. 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom. Has no sources and fails criteria in WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Without sources, notability is unestablished and it fails WP:V (I don't interpret the blog in the google results as a reliable source).--Chaser - T 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete - WP:V is impossible.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only place you'll find this term is on blogs, primarily here: phisherman. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," see WP:NOT. StudierMalMarburg 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Just because it's "used frequently by fishing bloggers" doesn't mean it can be included on Wikipedia. It is not WP:V, and no sources will ever be found. WP:SNOW it already! *Cremepuff222* 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Unattributed rubbish, per WP:NFT. Dhaluza 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maharishi Patanjali Vidya Mandir

Maharishi Patanjali Vidya Mandir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A school in India that fails WP:ORG. PROD in October 06 was contested with comment: "Google shows it exists". That is undoubted. However, the article contains no hint why the school should be notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete with comment Google shows I exist, but it doesn't mean I get an article. Nothing to suggest notability here. The school website, "under construction", is a deadlink.--Ispy1981 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's more like a dictionary than an article.--Edtropolis 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The present article is completely uninformative. A pity as Wikipedia has very poor coverage of Indian schools. I'm sure there is plenty of scope to expand the article if anyone was interested enough to take it on. Dahliarose 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V due to no sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to not establishing notability or context. The school does exist and could be notable in some form, but the current article is not worth keeping. Camaron1 | Chris 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Per WP:CSD A7, and page has been so tagged. Unremarkable subject with little to no context about it nor any information which meets WP:N and WP:V. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Creek's Field of Flight Entertainment Festival

Battle Creek's Field of Flight Entertainment Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The last half of the article is just advertising, but is this a notable enough event for Wikipedia? Has it "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" per WP:N? 650l2520 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article was written substantially as an ad, but it seems to be a recognized and substantial event. I have checked the Blue Angel's schedule and posted a link a the article; if the BA come, it is a significant event. I trimmed out the time sensitive info. about the 2007 schedule which was advertising. --Kevin Murray 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up - as tagged.--Edtropolis 15:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — If I wasn't absolutely sure sources could be found, I honestly would have said "delete" on this one. There is notability inserted in the article, however, but independent sources need to be found. *Cremepuff222* 00:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge→ Michigan. I considered closing this as 'keep' until I did some investigating. A primary notability criterion is that a topic has been written on as the primary topic by independent parties; this appears not to be the case for this festival. There is sufficient coverage to support its existence and some detail about it, but not sufficient for a stand-alone article. I looked to see if there was a Culture in Michigan article or a culture section in Michigan and didn't find either; my suggestion is to create a 'culture' section in the Michigan article (subsuming the professional sports section, for instance) and report on major festivals there, until such time as the section becomes large enough to spawn an article of its own (culture in michigan). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Lacks actual articles written about it in secondary sources. All I could find in Google was what looked like echos of a press release. Since it appears to be a fairly large public event which actually exists, I'm marking it a 'weak' delete. I went ahead and did the article cleanup to remove the capital letters and the advertising tone. If someone could find coverage of this event in ballooning web sites, that might be enough for me to change my vote. (Surely aviation magazines would have some coverage too?) EdJohnston 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sundancer (Yacht)

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

The article contains no hint why the topic should be notable. Was a contested PROD in July 06; but concerns have not been addressed since then. Also entirely unverifiable, not even by a Google search - it seems that quite a number of yachts are called "Sundancer". -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, Google is difficult as this is a common name and a brand name. The contributors have little WP affiliation/experience. I don't see where further research will yield a demonstration of notability. --Kevin Murray 13:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - As per nom.--Edtropolis 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google searches for Sundancer+"Len Last" (the supposed builder) and Sundancer+"Felix Holmer" (a supposed former owner per the original version of the article) turn up nothing. I don't see how this could be made to satisfy WP:V. Deor 15:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Kennedy III

Conrad Kennedy III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by Kris Classic with the comment ”his time in ROH and other notable indy promotions should make him notable enough. Lack of info isn't a cause for delete”. Was prodded for being a non-notable wrestler. A few low card apperances for RoH isn’t enough to warrant notability, working for Border City Wrestling isn’t automatic cause for inclusion since the promotion itself is barely notable, no sources, fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, as it is WP:NN and has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — He is notable because he is a professional wrestler, but the there aren't any reliable sources to back the claims. *Cremepuff222* 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add sources my reading of WP:BIO for athletes says that any professional wrestler is notable (if I'm wrong about that, someone with more wrestling knowledge please enlighten me). Plenty of Google news hits to verify that he is indeed a professional wrestler. Capmango 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep As a professional wrestler, he borderline satisfies WP:BIO for being a professional athlete. However, reliable sources should be added about him.--Kylohk 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I tend to disagree with but nonetheless grudgingly accept the notion that being a professional athlete is a ticket to notability (the same deference is not afforded to published scientists). I came here to close this AFD, but opted to see if supporting material could be found to allow the article to be kept. I've added two references to the article that provide information on matches the wrestler has been engaged in; I'm not terribly happy with the quality of the references, but they are there nonetheless. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Sweat and Ears

Blood Sweat and Ears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The prod placed on this article was removed after it expired with a comment that it should be AFD'ed. Article is about a small time local indie wrestling company that fails WP:N as well as WP:V and should be deleted MPJ-DK 08:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If the subject were "[k]nown for their high profile matches" as claimed, there would be real reliable sources. There are not any. --Evb-wiki 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Per Evd-wiki. In addition, the sources need to be independent from the subject. *Cremepuff222* 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Nikki311 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please note that it is not significant when the tag was removed. As the administrator who reviewed the tag, I felt that Prod was just not appropriate in this case and suggested AFD for that reason. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calc (group)

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

Questionable notability Guroadrunner 07:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "questionable" is being extremely kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability and no demonstration. Seems unlikely that further efforts would save this. --Kevin Murray 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Not notable group with no sources to show any notability. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Fail WP:CORP as a non-notable group. It also needs reliable sources to show any notability. *Cremepuff222* 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wreckless media radio

Wreckless media radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Podcast that adopted its current name in April '07. I initially speedy-deleted this, but after inquiry from the author, I think it at least asserts notability (being on the front page of Stickam and being highly ranked by a podcast rating service). That said, I don't think those sources are sufficient to show general notability per WP:WEB. NawlinWiki 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 13:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — There seems to be some notability, but the claims aren't backed with reliable sources at all. *Cremepuff222* 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Resurgent insurgent 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After Every Dark Night There Is a Brighter Day (album)

After Every Dark Night There Is a Brighter Day (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

One-off article for an album done by an artist not on Wikipedia. WP:Music Guroadrunner 06:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Non-notable artist, non-notable album.--Ispy1981 15:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC. There is no significant media coverage, as well as no reliable sources. *Cremepuff222* 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless Max King (musician) is shown to be notable and an article is created. -MrFizyx 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Girl

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

Non-notable meme. No references. I put a speedy tag on it, but it was removed. Corvus cornix 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - flash in the pan web meme. Artw 06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I've got a crush on Obama too, but unless there are some reliable sources lurking out there, this fails notability guidelines. --Haemo 07:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. gren グレン 08:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, clearly no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - I don't think this will last and I don't think it's particularly noteworthy, but that being said, a simple search of "Yahoo! News" finds dozens of articles from various reliable TV and newspaper sources talking about this. Also, CNN has discussed it and, as of right now, has a link on the front page of CNN.com to a segment about this video. So, at least for now, sources do exist to back up its notability. (No telling if it will last, though.) --Hnsampat 12:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. The author needs to take it there.--Edtropolis 13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - In just a few minutes I was able to source the contents of this article from multiple non-trivial, third-party and reputable news sources (e.g., ABC News, MSNBC, Fox news). The !votes for "delete" above, therefore, should have their concerns abated. The subject is unquestionably notable, and since notability is not temporary, it does not matter that the current level of media coverage will probably not continue. The fact that it has the potential to influence (however subtly) an upcoming U.S. presidential election merits mention here. ◄Zahakiel► 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that notability is not temporary and use the third sentence of that section to justify my opinion: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." Deor 15:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I actually fixed a spelling error in that article while working on this, so I've read it pretty thoroughly. It is true, as the page states, that present news coverage does not necessarily constitute long-term notability, but the elections issue, and the nature of that coverage, would speak to at least some potential long-term importance. As those voting "keep for now" have rightly said, it is a current matter of much discussion, and has been noted by a variety of sources. This fits our criteria for inclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't put much stock in "keep for now" arguments; my reading of the relevant guidelines is that a topic has to have demonstrable long-term notability for an article to be created. If an article is kept as "notable for the moment", it's very difficult to get rid of it in the future, since folks will argue that notability is not temporary. Deor 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And it's not. The nature of the current coverage is already examining its potential influence on such long-term issues as a presidential election. This may be a "sudden" phenomenon, but it's not just some guy with a glowing broom handle dancing around the place either. ◄Zahakiel► 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-enduring web meme. -N 14:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - For the moment it is notable. Anyone remember "All your base are belong to us"? --Art8641 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, brief Internet phenomena. Well, I guess it is noteable for the time-being, but it won't be remembered like All your base belong to us was. --Thekittybomb 16:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't know that, do you? I'm not saying that it will be remembered, but none of us knows what the future holds. Less important phenomena have been known to persist for an ungodly long time. --Hnsampat 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Persons asserting that "It will be very quickly forgotten" are very confident in their personal crystal ball. That is not a good basis for deletion of something that satisfies WP:A and WP:N. It has been the subject of lengthy independent stories in a number of newspapers (not just blogs) such as the Chicago Tribune [22], besides the ones already cited. That said, it should be judged by the "rejected" WP:MEME, a notability standard for internet memes. There seems to be some implicit standard for judging such memes, because Bus Uncle, a celphone video of an old guy raving in a pugnacious manner on a bus, was appareently never even nominated for deletion, and actually became a featured article. Bus Uncle got 1.7 million viewings on Youtube in 3 weeks, or 81,000 per day while Obama Girl received 777,000 viewings in 3 day, or 259,000 per day, over 3 times the viewing rate. I could see deleting it on the basis that per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a newspaper, in keeping with the essay WP:NOTNEWS, which calls for deleting mere "water-cooler" stories. Edison 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Certainly. And water cooler stories can only be determined to be such after the meme dies away. There's good reason to believe, beyond mere speculation, that as long as Obama is a viable candidate for the 2008 election, this video is going to keep coming up in discussion, if the current coverage is any indication at all. And of course, All your base was also a Featured Article in 2004... nobody expected it to be so enduring a web presence, and that wasn't even about a politician :) ◄Zahakiel► 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The Bus Uncle was previously nominated for deletion in May 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bus Uncle. cab 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not necessarily a fan of articles on web memes, but this one seems fairly significant since it is tied to a presidential campaign and has been heavily discussed in major media (which is somewhat surprising). This may be a flash-in-the-pan story, or it may be an enduring aspect of the 2008 campaign which warrants an article. Right now, there is simply no way to tell. I vote to keep for now and to close the AfD with a note that deletion could and should certainly be reconsidered if the meme dies down in the months ahead. I would also note that several of the first few votes seemed to be solely on the basis of lack of notability as established by reliable sources. Now that RS have been provided, I think these editors should reconsider (or simply re-justify) their votes/comments and if not these comments should be given less weight. It is now a substantially different article and "no reliable sources" is no longer a valid delete reason in my opinion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. There is no evidence of lasting encyclopedic notability here. MER-C 05:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep arguments of no lasting relevance seem a little absurd when talking about presidential candidates, their campaigns, and supporters--they give rise to books and everything related for decades and decades. Not news does not mean ignore everything that might be in a newspaper as well. DGG 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep About as weak as humanly possible. However campaign/campaign-related ads do sometimes become of lasting value. This one was mentioned in credible news sources. I think this is just a temporary fad, I despise the word/concept meme, but if by 2008 she becomes a major discussion point in the campaign we might look silly for the lack of foresight. (I don't think this will happen, but we can't be certain she will be forgotten either)--T. Anthony 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The Internet section of that article could be expanded to include more on this video and other Net-related Obama issues. It isn't really worthy of its own article yet.--T. Anthony 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's making headlines. Will it be making them 10 years from now? Probably not, but it's made enough of a splash that if Obama Girl ever gets mentioned in conversation, the uninformed should be able to turn to WP for enlightenment. - Pharaonic 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. After I saw the video, Wikipedia was the first place I looked for additional information. How many candidates get sexy videos made for them? I think that alone makes it notable enough for a site like Wikipedia. Foofy 17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Pharaonic. JJL 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this first internet viral sex video for a candidate is not notable in the slightest. The storage costs and bandwidth costs to the wikipedia must be considered. In fact, not only should we delete this entry, but I think we should delete all future entries that haven't paid their subscription fees. How else will we keep Wikipedia pure? Also, is there a speedy delete bot that can be used to tag a "Speedy delete" on all new entries? Better safe than sorry I always say. Allowing a keep on this will just encourage people to add new entries to the wikipedia at a time when current entries need a great deal more revising. Is that really what we want to permit? 71.39.78.68 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Subscription fees for Wikipedia? Blocking all new entries? You do realize that Wikipedia is, by definition, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --Hnsampat 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" Is that really what it is, because frankly, I'd swear that definition sounds like something Douglas Adams would have written.71.39.78.68 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is copied from the Main Page of Wikipedia: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That's the first thing you see when coming to this site. So yes, that's really what this is. There are certain aspects of the site, such as the fact that there is no time limit, and even anonymous users (such as yourself) can make changes to articles, that work against the concerns you have raised regarding this particular article. The Obama Girl entry does meet the criteria that Wikipedia has established for information inclusion, so it's fine for being here. ◄Zahakiel► 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • All of you need your sarcasm detectors adjusted. -N 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Haha, oh man, I feel a bit dumb now. I should've picked up on the sarcasm based on just how outrageous the comments were (and the reference to Douglas Adams in the reply). Okay, let me strike my comments above. In my defense, though, I think this serves as a good example of how sarcasm is easy to miss when reading something posted online. --Hnsampat 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
            • While it is true I was being sarcastic, I have often thought that "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" does sound like something out of the pages of HHGTG. And I think the speedy delete taggers will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.71.39.78.68 01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
              • If y'all had read some of the comments I have, you wouldn't have been so sure... :) ◄Zahakiel► 02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Plenty of reliable sources coverage. Almost aOver 1.3 million youtube views [23]. Meets our standards. Notability is permanant, etc. --Oakshade 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please point to any guideline or policy which says "lots of youtube visits means that something is notable." Corvus cornix 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So any other arguement besides being the primary subject of mulitple non-trivial published works (which this person is, by the way) is not allowed? I could say "Please point to any guideline or policy which says 'If Corvis cornix says something is a non-notable meme and has no references, even if the topic is notable and has references and is the subject of mulitiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources, it's still non-notable'", but I won't. --Oakshade 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's every bit as relevent as Dick in a box or Numa numa. --Mongrel 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid deletion discussion criterion. Corvus cornix 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • According to an essay--not a guideline, and certainly not a policy. Oftentimes "othercrapexists" is, well, a crappy argument, but sometimes comparisons can be useful, thus I don't think the point that Dick in a box has an article is completely irrelevant or invalid.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It depends. If a subject has survived deletion and been declared notable through process than a subject of similar notability could also merit inclusion. I think there is or can be some sense of precedent. Numa Numa got "no concensus" so isn't necessarily a precedent. The other one is listed as a Good Article so may be a precedent of sorts. (That stated I think the analogy is inexact and I switched to merging)--T. Anthony 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable by reliable sources. -- MisterHand 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Existence ≠ notability. Corvus cornix 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's true, but not everything that exists is covered extensively in third-party sources. This was. That is our standard for notability. ◄Zahakiel► 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Why is there a deletion attempt right in the middle of the whole news story. It doesn't make any sense. Waiting a few days will help us see how big and notable this really is. There are other possible developments that could occur (Obama responds, conservative people react, poll changes and more). It's way too soon to consider it for deletion, which is why, at the moment, I say Keep. Pizzachicken 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why don't we change the name of this article to "Amber Lee Ettinger"? and put obama girl as an aka?
  • The article is about the video and the character, not the person. --Hnsampat 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Deor Donama 23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As mentioned above, it is culturally relevant to our times. The reason I created this page is because I saw so much of her on news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that I was curious what the video was about and if it had relation to people in Obama's campaign. I came to Wikipedia and was shocked to notice it had no page, so I made one, hoping more people would add to it. This is certainly part of our cultural history and more relevant than many pages you find on Wikipedia. I got 365,000 hits on google for "Obama Girl." Considering the story is a mere 4-5 days old, thats huge. There are plenty of US news sources talking about this topic. Not to mention, I saw a british news paper talking about it recently online when doing a search. Deltaforce5000 7:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pizzachicken. Right now there are lots of people following up the story on major news channels by checking it out on wikipedia. We might consider deleting later if actually turns out to be non-notable in the long term, but right now this is notable and referenced and it could qualify as notable in the long term. --Aranae 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All my reasons are redundant, and previously sated well by Pharaonic, Foofy, & Aranae. - Bjewiki 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Added New York Times reference to the other reliable sources already in the article. Youtube now shows 1,238,6861,503,000 views in the 6 8 days the video has been online, plus 253,00 views of 3 closely related videos, and it has received worldwide coverage in the press as shown by Google News [24]. As "memes" go this is more notable than the others which have Wikipedia articles. Edison 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Considering this video may greatly impact the election, and bring young people to the voting booths, it is certainly as encyclopedia worthy as much of other content on Wikipedia. If pornography stars have Wiki entries, then certainly this ought to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.89.140 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the sources say notable. Everyking 08:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everafter (webcomic)

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

This does not seem to pass WP:WEB. There is only 1 assertion of notability, that the comic strip is "widely popular", yet there are no references given to support this. Article seems designed to promote the comic.Delete TheRingess (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. And pease porridge in the pot, still needs reliable sources to back up notability, nine days old or not. --Haemo 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Snafu Comics.--Edtropolis 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — and do not merge. There are no independant sources to back the claims of notability, so the information should not be moved. *Cremepuff222* 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This probably fails notability, however it seems sort of on the edge. Maybe redirect if not delete? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Olney

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

Non-notable president of non-notable organization. Corvus cornix 05:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete; the parent-organization article has already been marked as such. --Quuxplusone 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I had originally listed it for speedy, the tag was removed. Corvus cornix 06:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• hangon. Really... There is a «prestigious Louis Atwell Olney Medal for outstanding achievement in the field of textile chemistry»[25] «established in 1944 in honor of Louis Atwell Olney, the founder and first president of AATCC [to recognize] outstanding achievement in textile or polymer chemistry or other fields of chemistry of major importance to textile science»[26]. So maybe there is a reason to have an article. But not as is, that's for sure. - Nabla 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Added to the article. - Nabla 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Then fix the article quickly, instead of writing the article here! Hu 04:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Though the article is short, the facts at our disposal show that he was a famous textile chemist. This establishes his notability, and future editors who go to the library should be able to dig up more biographical facts when they have time. In 1921 he founded a society, the AATCC, which still exists and satisfies WP:CORP, since it is a national organization of chemists. I added his date of death and some details about his two cited books which I found in the Library of Congress catalog. Wikilinked our long-existing article on the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. EdJohnston 02:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Note. Someone created a redundant article The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (with 'The' in front) which was speedy-deleted as a copyvio on 16 June. There is no need to re-create that unnecessary article. (This duplicate article must be the one mentioned by Quuxplusone above as a speedy candidate). EdJohnston 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Textile and dye chemistry isn't just a applied branch of the subject; rather, it is from this subject that modern synthetic organic chemistry developed with the preparation of the first synthetic dyes in 1858. (perhaps it would help if the chemists would actually write general articles for this). It's been central to polymer chemistry from the start--the natural textile polymers are the substances for which macromolecular chemistry and x-ray crystallography were developed. The Association is central to the development of chemistry in the US, as is he. I've added some references for him, more on the wayDGG 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • since it doesnt seem the chemistry wikiproject was notified, continue for another 5 days. 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K2 (theme)

K2 (theme) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable WordPress theme, we don'thave articles on any other WP themes. I don't see anything that makes this theme specially notable. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Wordpress and Delete. 220.227.179.4 14:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete isn't an option, as the GFDL requires a history be kept. Not that I'm seeing much here worth merging anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete absent a showing of some third-party notability. If there's anything that needs to be said about this theme, let Wordpress say it on their website. FrozenPurpleCube 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom.--Edtropolis 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Lost Lake (a disambiguation page). During the course of the discussion Lost Lake (Canada) was moved to Lost Lake (Abbotsford). The original concern was around the title being misleading, giving inappropriate emphasis to a single Canadian lake. There appears to be little concern expressed below about the content of Lost Lake (Abbotsford). If there is a desire to delete Lost Lake (Canada) after its target is changed, please list at WP:RFD; if there is a desire to delete Lost Lake (Abbotsford), please renominate via WP:AFD (I'm closing this due to the discussion not focusing on the article content). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Lake (Canada)

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

Reason the page should be deleted Sp4rk3d 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This page should be deleted because the information is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp4rk3d (talk • contribs) 23:03 (UTC) 15 June 2007

• Comment: I have added the rest of the Lost Lakes I could find to the disambiguation page Lost Lake. All of them are notable. I have moved this page to Lost Lake (Abbotsford) for disambiguation within British Columbia. Lost Lake (Canada) has been redirected to Lost Lake. Tim Q. Wells 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience I have changed the redirect at the top (Lost Lake (Canada)) to the article for deletion. Tim Q. Wells 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Note AfD was malformed; cleaned up. LaughingVulcan 05:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I replaced the article with a stub on another lake that is in Whistler, British Columbia. Tim Q. Wells 05:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. There is more than one lake in BC alone called Lost Lake - there's one near Powell River, one near Whistler, one near Coquitlam, and one in the Cariboo. There are also Lost Lakes in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Northwest Territories (possibly three!) and Nunavut. I'm not sure what makes this one in Whistler more notable than the others, but Lost Lake (Canada) is a pretty bad name for just the one. --Charlene 06:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Sp4rk3d has previously blanked this stub when it was originally titled Lost Lake (Sumas Mountain), saying that his brother wanted the article removed. Spurious and unfounded in my opinion. A_Kiwi (User:A_Kiwi)

• Comment. I have added the rest of the Lost Lakes I could find to the disambiguation page Lost Lake. All of them are notable. I have moved this page to Lost Lake (Abbotsford) for disambiguation within British Columbia. Lost Lake (Canada) has been redirected to Lost Lake. Tim Q. Wells 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Magioladitis 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE This page should be deleted because it is really a very unimportant lake, and if there are so many otehr Lost Lkaes in Canada, why should this one be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.215.187 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Useful disambiguation and lakes tend to have reliable sources containing information about them. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Another editor has changed the link to a redirect to Lost Lake, and in fact the original AFD notice is on Lost Lake (Abbotsford). When an article is under AFD it must not be renamed or changed to a redirect until it is resolved. I have attempted to revert as much as possible. 23skidoo 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 23skidoo is correct. The original AfD was tagged with Lost Lake (Canada), as was the malformed tag here. ANd the Lost Lake (Canada) now redirects to Lost Lake, a disambig page for Lost Lakes. I'm not sure if the right course of action is to simply fix the tags here and at Lost Lake (Abbotsford), as the user above did not do (nor should have started moving pages around,) or if the AfD here should be closed and reopened for Lost Lake (Abbotsford), or if this should be closed out with no prejudice towards somebody else nominating Lost Lake (Abbotsford). It wasn't that the disambig redirect was bad, per se, just causing a lot of confusion with this AfD. LaughingVulcan 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Speedy close. This AfD is a mess. Close it and start a new one for Lost Lake (Abbotsford) if that's the page you want to delete. —David Eppstein 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• How is it a mess? The article for deletion was moved. And why on earth would we start another one? Consensus seems to be clear and users I'm sure would not vote until they are certain of the article for deletion. The only delete vote was made by 207.216.215.187 and is almost certainly a meatpuppet of Sp4rk3d. Tim Q. Wells 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Mr. Wells. The reason it's a mess is because it still says at the top "Lost Lake (Canada)". So if I plug that into the Search box on the left instead of clicking the link, I get the disambig page. If I click it at the top, all of a sudden I'm looking at Lost Lake (Abbotsford.) Most simply, the article now being considered for deletion is not the article that this AfD log says it is. Also, at least one of the Keep votes above is very clearly speaking to the disambig page you created, while other Delete comments are talking about the Abottsford article. Editing the page to make it better during AfD is great. Moving pages and replacing the page with a redirect, etc. isn't cool, because a) it causes this type of confusion - what's the closing Admin supposed to read into this debate now that it's talking about at least two things? and b) There was no reason you couldn't have expressed the opinion "Move article to [[Lost Lake {Abbotsford)]] and Redirect to Lost Lake", or "Redirect to Lost Lake" if you wanted the original article gone. Still not saying you didn't have a good idea - I like the solution you came up with - but now the non-comment parts of this AfD are confusing. LaughingVulcan 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Close per myself above; let anyone who wishes renominate Lost Lake (Abbotsford) if they wish. LaughingVulcan 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close and Redirect Lost Lakes (Canada) to Lost Lakes (disambiguation). The Lakes Project naming convention is that the main redirect target the most notable lake of the same name. I don't see the evidence that this Abbotsford lake qualifies as the most notable lake of that name in Canada. Canuckle 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SLinux

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

Notability to come. Chealer 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly non-notable—the first release was just two weeks ago! We really need a {{db-software}} CSD. —Psychonaut 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 12:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perl/Linux

Perl/Linux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE KEEP. :-P —SlamDiego_←T 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Chealer meant "Perl/Linux", not "Linux" 650l2520 04:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha! Bill, we know that it's you! ;-P —SlamDiego_←T 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:SNOW. All accounts in favor of deletion will be sockpuppets of Bill Gates. —SlamDiego_←T 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Now that the suggestion that Linux be deleted has been replaced with one that Perl/Linux be deleted, I withdraw at least two of my earlier comments. —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. themcman1 _Talk 12:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. We really need a {{db-software}} CSD. —Psychonaut 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default to Keep). Walton^talk 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list and directory of loosely-associated topics. Seeks to capture any reference to Holmes or any character from Holmes whether Holmes appears or not or anything that has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase. Otto4711 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I think Holmes is such an iconic and popular figure that an article about this topic could be written up to encyclopedic standards. This is not it -- it's unsourced and very tenuously connected. --Haemo 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and delete anything interesting to main article. -N 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and delete as per Corvus cornix and Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps. huji—TALK 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sherlock Holmes has in fact attained an extremely large place in popular culture in the 120 years since the first story was published. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles popular culture references should be spun off to a separate article if they make the main article too long. The Sherlock Holmes article is too long as is, at 77k. These entries are not loosely associated (they are fictional appearances of Holmes or his main villain Moriarity), not indiscriminate (all are closely related to Sherlock Holmes), and not trivial, and so the grounds proposed by the nominator and other advocates of deletion do not apply. In any event, WP:TRIVIA, labelled a guideline, is so disputed that it has had to be protected, not a ringing endorsement of its having consensus. The normal editing process can remove any entry which merely "has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase." It is not OR or unsourced to state that a CS Lewis book says "those days Mr Sherlock Holmes was still living in Baker Street ... " We do not need a second book stating what the first book says, or stating that a reference to Holmes is a reference to Holmes. Deletion is inappropriate for something which genuinely has a major place in pop culture, as does Sherlock Holmes. Edison 19:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles is an essay. It has absolutely no force as a policy or a guideline. It is an expression of opinion. Even if it did have some measure of force, it does not say what you're representing it to say. It does not say that "in popular culture" sections should be split off into a standalone article. It says that such sections in articles are discouraged and that the temptation to fork out such sections from the main article should be resisted, but that if it is succumbed to the resulting article must meet all relevant policies and guidelines. This list is indiscriminate and its items are loosely associated because it seeks to capture every reference that it can regardless of the source of it and it offers no commentary about the importance of the reference in the work from which it's drawn, to Holmes, or in the real world. What does knowing that C.S. Lewis wrote the words "Sherlock Holmes" in a book tell us about Holmes, the book, Lewis or the world? Nothing. What does knowing that in an episode of CSI the team investigated the murder of a Holmes portrayer in a fan club tell us about Holmes, CSI or the real world? Nothing. What does the mention of Holmes in a Coasters song tell us about Holmes, the Coasters or the real world? Nothing. There are certainly ways to do articles on the pop culture impact of things. The oft-bandied about Joan of Arc list is one. The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, although it needs a good bit of work, is another. But these endless lists of in-this-movie-this-one-guy-says-Blah-to-this-other-guy kind of "be the first to spot the reference" game some editors like to play under the delusion that it contributes something worthwhile to the project, aren't. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever the result, do not merge it back. There was a good reason to offload this information away. And I have to agree with Edison - for example there one rather known 1930s movie in Czech language using the "Sherlock Holmes" character. Not that I am going to put it there but to me it strongly suggests that people will feel the need to insert such references. It is better to have them in a leaf than in the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Better here than there is a poor reason for maintaining a pop culture article. As has been said time and again, if the people who maintain an article want this stuff gone, they should edit it out. Dumping a pile of garbage into a separate article is irresponsible and places a burden on other editors to do the job that the editors of the initial article should have dealt with. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not much good now, but certainly could be. Johnbod 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced trivia.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and tenuously-linked trivia at the moment. Something good may be able to come of this article, but this isn't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep though in most cases these articles are unnecessary, for the major cultural icons there should be, and I for one would like to see all the non-English media versions found and discussed. WP is the ideal place for this. DGG 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although there is a clear bias against these sorts of articles on Wikipedia, and the article itself can be improved, Sherlock Holmes is undeniably a case where such an article is viable and necessary. 23skidoo 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Ever notice how often at AFDs people base their argument for keeping in large part or even in toto on how much better the article could be? And then, in two months when the article is nominated again because it's still terrible and no one's done any work on it, it gets deleted? Otto4711 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is an exception to the normal delete of pop culture artilces, because the phenomenon of Holmes in popular culture is itself the subject of discussion and coverage by reliable sources, e.g., National Public Radio (US), A book entitled The Baker Street Reader: Cornerstone Writings About Sherlock Holmes (Contributions to the Study of Popular Culture), and University of Minnesota library. This subject differs from the huge number of "in popular culture" subjects which can never be more than a list of cross-references to the "icon". Here, the phenomenon itself is notable. The article, in its current state, is very much like many we have deleted; but unlike those, this may yet be a great article because it is a notable subject - it ought to be improved rather than deleted. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, the Holmes stories are very influential, but that's covered in Sherlock Holmes in other media and (the atrociously titled) Non-canonical works related and derived from Sherlock Holmes. I don't see what this covers that those don't, except really trivial offhand mentions. —Celithemis 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually neither article (I agree that the name of the latter is suboptimal) really captures the spirit of the article I envision (and yes, I am hoping perhaps against hope that te someone would write it). The other media article is the films, tv stories, etc. based on Sherlock Holmes; the non-canonical adaptations (SH is in the public domain apparently and anyone can write a SH book, or make a movie). Neither article touches upon the public's inclusion and adoption of Holmes in anything but the literary and film/tv sense. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the information in Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes really get us any closer to that?

Whatever of it isn't already in other articles, that is. In addition to the two other articles I mentioned, there's also quite a bit of similar stuff in Sherlock Holmes. In all, two articles include lists of Holmes computer games, three of them talk about House, and three discuss the same Neil Gaiman story. —Celithemis 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That question you pose is an interesting one: one the one hand, no; on the other hand, once this gets deleted, no one could write the article that I envisage; it would be speedied as "yet another one of those pop culture" articles that "we deleted a while back". Carlossuarez46 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Any number of articles which were deleted have been recreated. There is no prejudice to recreated deleted articles that are qualitatively different from the deleted. No one is likely to look to delete at an actual sourced article that discusses the phenomenon of SH in popular culture as opposed to a random smattering of bullet points on the grounds that it's recreated material. Otto4711 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Violation of WP:NOT and, as already stated, Sherlock Holmes in other media exists for less trivial bits. Most of this is indiscriminate trivia. Besides, "Pop culture"? Incredibly tacky. María (críticame) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a fictional character's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The main Sherlock Holmes article is already quite long. It's reasonable and expected per WP:SUMMARY to split sections off into subarticles, such as this. Sherlock Holmes and pop culture is a notable enough topic that there are reliable sources available for this article. --Aude (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SUMMARY does not exempt articles created under its guideline from conforming to other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but perhaps rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture. There are plenty of reliables sources commenting on the phenomenon of Sherlock Holmes in popular culture that it deserves an article based on that commentary. Sure, the article in its current state is not the ideal Wikipedia article, but there is no reason it needs to be wiped and started all over; everything in the article is at least sourceable to primary sources. On the other hand, merging and redirecting to Sherlock Holmes in other media may be an acceptable compromise. DHowell 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• No topic "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements. Otto4711 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture as suggested above. --24.154.173.243 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have checked the edit histories of contributors and notice there are a fair number of new editors, with minimal edits, to this debate. If this occurs in future please indicate them with {{spa}}. User:Edtropolis is now indefinitely blocked. However, this is not a vote, and it is the weight of argument that must be considered. Although this seems a commendable subject, it is not, according to wikipedia's particular requirements, a notable commendable subject that can be shown as such with convincing verifiable sources. Although Bdushaw has put a coherent case, FrozenPurpleCube and B. Wolterding have pointed to considerations that outweigh it. There is no objection to valid information from this article being included in any other relevant articles. Tyrenius 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenPsion

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

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 04:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I, of course, object to the deletion of this article. We may be a small linux distribution (no pun intended), but we are hardly non-notable. We have a small but dedicated development group. Deletion of this article will also require editing the pages of all the Psion PDAs (Psion 5, NetBook, Series 7, etc.) to remove the OpenPsion wikilink. In my opinion, it is valuable having these links so that those having such PDAs know that the linux OS is available to them. This distribution is unique to Psions, but it is also well known among those who have linux on ARM devices. There is value here; don't delete. Bdushaw 05:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You seem to be arguing
  1. that dedication implies notability;
  2. that virtue implies notability (so that Wikipedia should advertise the product to Psion PDA users);
  3. that an article should be kept to spare editors and 'bots the trouble of removing a few links.

  —SlamDiego_←T 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about the logical dance you want. I say that anyone looking up the Psion PDAs on wikipedia may well like to know that linux can run on them - to say that this is "advertising a product" is one way to spin it, I suppose. I noted that the OpenPsion "distribution" has had a usefulness beyond Psions - it has been useful for most ARM PDAs. Why is it so important to delete the article? Where is the case that OpenPsion is "non-notable"? That seems an opinion and not an educated one. If it is a matter of developing the article some more I can do that, and encourage others to do the same. I noted on the wikipedia pages regarding linux distributions that there were few distributions designed for ARM cpus (and many linux distributions of less notablility than OpenPsion). I considered starting an article summarizing distributions for ARM cpus; OpenPsion would figure prominently there. It is a notable distribution for ARM cpus. Bdushaw 08:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than cast aspersions on my motivations (an uncivil, speculative personal attack), you should have just clarified your argument or replaced it a better one. —SlamDiego_←T 09:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Its late and I am prone to be annoyed just now; so sorry. Seems to me you were overly cute rather than constructive. That's how it was received anyways. "virtue implies notability"? Let me pause for several minutes while I try to figure that one out... Better to ask some direct questions to --B. Wolterding 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)constructively get to the bottom of the issue. (an uncivil, speculative personal attack) is cutting both ways here now. Bdushaw 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to be moved by the apology which it is immediately followed by an attempt not merely to excuse but to vindicate the personal attack. I was, in fact, very direct.

So let's try this again, roundabout: Although even now you haven't told us why it would be helpful to Psion PDA users to know about this product, you seem to believe that it is because the product has some sort of virtue. But Wikipedia doesn't ordinarily accept virtue as sufficient to imply notability; doing so moves Wikipedia into deeper, murkier waters of prescription.

Unless you can show me how the issue of personal attacks ever was cutting both ways, I am removing myself from this discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would go further here and say that Linux is the only way for older Psion PDAs to be usable in the context of 2007 and beyond. Both the Psion 7 and netbook have a unique form-factor and as such are noteable devices in their own right. Stevedicks 09:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If that is so, how about adding a sentence or so at Psion? --B. Wolterding 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to state as well that deleting this page will keep us from contributing to the possibilities of continuing the life of these widespread Psion PDA's. I don't want to go into the advantages of the devices because it may cause a useless discussion. However, I do feel that wikipedia is a good source , also for 'non notable' things and should stay that way.

Victor

• Keep Quickie 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am, actually, a bit confused by the arguments given above. By common consensus, Wikipedia is not meant to describe everything that is interesting or useful. It is meant to cover everything that is notable. The notability criteria specify what "notability" means in this context: There must be independent sources which cover the topic. That might be press coverage (press, not blogs), or books describing this software in detail, or similar. Unless such sources are provided, the topic just fails the criteria. Don't take this as a personal attack: That's the way we deal with all topics here. Currently, I don't see that OpenPsion is notable; maybe it will be one day, and then it deserves an article. By the way, Bdushaw, your comments above suggest that you are one of the authors of the software. In this case, you may have a conflict of interest, and should be very careful about editing the article. --B. Wolterding 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. As per Bdushaw. I seem to find bad faith nominators as uncivilized. This article needs to be cleaned up though. It's still notable and Wikipedia's Bots doesn't have to do with removing links.--Edtropolis 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• it is perhaps a small, but unique Distro. And there aren't such few users that you could think... the 100th fork of debian without any big differents is perhaps unnotabily, but OpenPsion is the only Distro which works on the very widespread psions. Additionally, many people used the Psion as an entry for programming arm machines, for which this distro is still ideal. So: Keep -Mifritscher 13:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless any third-party reliable sources are provided to establish notability. Uniqueness is not an indicator of notability. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument either. 220.227.179.4 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm seeing a problem here, in that the people who want to keep this article are not recognizing why their arguments are not convincing. There is no bad faith here, since the nominator is quite rightly concerned that there are many minor Linux distributions with articles on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't Distrowatch. Not every Linux distro gets a page no questions ask. The fact is, this article has no third-party sources, no establishment of actual notability as per WP:ORG. I'm sure many of the users of this distro who have spoken here think the distro is useful to them, but if nobody else has noticed, is it really that important? Perhaps not. And really, accusing a person of bad faith in a case like this? It's not going to strengthen your argument, it's just going to convince me that you don't even realize you don't have that much of one. Seriously, the best way to get an article kept is to provide real sources, not to say the nominator is in bad faith when that's not clearly so at all. There are cases where it is a problem, certainly. This isn't one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I do likely have a conflict of interest. Nevertheless... I've taken a look at notability and I think I see what the issue is now, so the nomination for deletion may have a point. However, let me argue otherwise: the Psion PDAs are old and the linux distribution for them is non-commercial. We are/were not likely to get the sort of press coverage, articles written, etc. as formally required for notability; but in this case I'd ask for some slack. Other similar articles (GPE Palmtop Environment, Familiar Linux, OpenZaurus, OPIE user interface, Maemo, Qtopia; even the articles on the sundry Psion devices have no references...) suffer the same issue, but I don't think you could call them non-notable. A google search for "openpsion" (or "psilinux" the former name) produces endless hits, however; its just the usual material associated with opensource development - mail lists, web pages, etc. (There WERE several articles on linux on the newer NetBook Pro, a commercial device, but they seem to have disappeared now.) So (a) our fate is tied to an archaic PDA hardware; the distribution is uniquely Psion (but has proved useful for other ARM devices), (b) I argue that we should not be penalized (lack of references) for being non-commercial opensource, and, again, (c) there is still value here - anyone looking up Psion PDAs at this point is likely to want to know about a possible OS upgrade. I noted that one option was to merge the article into another more substantial one - that would be acceptable, but I couldn't say which article that would be (something like "linux on ARM devices"?) Bdushaw 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• And also... I note that Alan Cox was on our mailing list for some time until he bought a Nokia 770 (a commercial device with lots of references). Ergo, OpenPsion is a notable linux distribution.  :) Bdushaw 18:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me address the concerns you've expressed about these other articles. First off, it's pretty clear that the original nominator is going through and nominating several individual non-notable Linux distros. Take a look at Chealer's contribs. Do you seriously expect a nomination of every distro at once? That wouldn't be a good thing. It's obvious to me that a lot of them have been added without real thought or consideration of Wikipedia's principles. Probably no malice, but some thoughtlessness. Besides, this is an argument that's actually not highly respected, see WP:WAX for an explanation as to why, but it's basically, so what about those other articles, maybe they need to be deleted or improved as well. And giving your article some slack isn't a solution either. Yes, it is a handicap not being a major commercial distro, but is it worth compromising Wikipedia's principles of WP:V to cover your distro? And what about the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other similar groups? Yeah, letting people know things is important, but there are limits. If you want to publicize your distro, then I suggest finding other avenues first. I wouldn't object to a bit in the section on Psion computers, and if there's an applicable section of the broader Linux article, it might be worth including there.

Finally, no, the presence of even as personally a notable person as Cox isn't proof of this distro's notability. I'm sure he belongs to a lot of mailing lists and does a lot of things. It'd be one thing if he wrote a book or article on the distro, or gave an interview, but it's doubtful that a primary source in this case would be acceptable as proof of notability. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You are basically right. My argument was that the other articles I listed are indeed notable - Familiar linux, Maemo are well known - but seem to fall into the same category as openpsion with lack of references. There is more to the story here than the strictly defined notability; I am searching for where that boundary is. I referred not to all the other articles in wikipedia with similar problems, but to articles that are very similar in nature to OpenPsion. Articles referring to linux on ARM devices. Because they are all opensource with informal development, they all lack solid references; I don't think such references exist. So what do we do about that? It seems unreasonable to delete all these articles, as they would be eventually under the criteria suggested here. Bdushaw 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article on psion is basically about the history of the Psion company; it sure seems to me that a discussion of OpenPsion linux does not really belong there. One option would be to include a few more sentences on each of the Psion PDA pages, but that seems rather redundant (some of the PDA pages can be combined, e.g. netbook and Series 7). What about creating the Linux on ARM Devices article, and merging Familiar linux, openzaurus, openpsion, maemo, etc. into one larger article? Then redirect openpsion, openzaurus, etc. to it. How about that? Bdushaw 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the smiley face (:)) that was tongue-in-cheek. Bdushaw 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if they are notable or not, but if they aren't referenced, that IS a problem. It seems quite reasonable to me to delete them if they can't be sourced, as it's much more unreasonable to keep them when they aren't sourced. That's more of a problem than anything else. The issue of covering Linux on Arm devices is another issue, but it would probably be best to discuss it with the Linux Wikiproject and probably take it as a spin-off from the Linux kernel portability and supported architectures page. Which itself needs improvement, but that's another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that Chealer has recently gone through most of the distribution articles at Comparison_of_Linux_distributions with various fixes. Most of those articles are completely unsourced stubs, hence would qualify as non-notable. So why does OpenPsion get the special treatment? Given the plethora of linux distributions (and articles about them), OpenPsion is at least uniquely identified with Psion devices. As I say, there is a larger issue here; Wikipedia does not seem likely to tolerate the deletion of 90% of the articles on linux distributions... But P.S. I see that many of these articles are indeed up for deletion. Bdushaw 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I was just about to point out to you, Chealer has indeed nominated many of those articles for deletion, so there's really no special treatment going on here. This article will be held to the same standards as any other. As for how it'll be received, it doesn't seem to have attracted much protest. FrozenPurpleCube 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again... I've just been going over the Wikipedia policies for deletion and notability. I would first like to point out that when this article was first nominated for deletion, that it would have been helpful to state more clearly the reasons why. About half of this discussion above could have been avoided if we had had a more specific starting point; not all of us are versed in what "notable" means to Wikipedians (we should be, true, but you know...). I also point out that there was been no attempt to fix or correct the article before nominating for deletion, per policy. Before deleting, a preferred option is to merge, and indeed a consensus above seems to be to merge - where I don't know yet, but we would have been better off having a merge discussion prior to the delete discussion. Nor was there a warning about notability posted ahead of time. The process in nominating this article for deletion has been flawed, alas. I think I will post a message to Chealer asking him to include a better description of his reasons for nominating articles for deletion; a simple cut and paste blurb would suffice. Lastly, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, I noted "Programming languages are notable if somewhat widely used; Google is a reasonable test", and in other places where the number of google hits was accepted as a reason to justify notability. Openpsion gets 992 google hits; Psilinux 502 hits - does that then make it notable? Let's keep the article for now and work to merge it to an as-yet-undetermined more appropriate place. Bdushaw 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, the mere counting of Google hits does not establish notability. Rather, this "Google test" is discouraged as an argument in deletion discussions. --B. Wolterding 11:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a longer, more explicit articulation of the concerns would have been helpful. I try to at least link to the relevant policy page myself, but I suspect Chealer just decided to be brief because there are a fair number of these distros to go through. May be a case of a bit of haste in the face of a long and tedious task. Perhaps not ideal, but I'm not going to worry about it too much. If you want to suggest a more expansive description in the nomination, that's fine with me. Nor is it actually required to try to "fix" an article before nominating it. The steps in "Before nominating an AfD" are to consider, which I think if you're familiar with the work Chealer has done on nominating these articles (which started some while ago actually), is something I'm comfortable accepting was done. Certainly, it's worth looking for sources, and I hope Chealer did that, but I see no reason to assume this nomination was sufficiently flawed as to warrant any action being taken. Could it have been done better? I suppose, but nothing major was done wrong. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And no, I don't see a consensus to merge, nor do I see a reason to keep this article. Sorry, but you've not produced any third party sources, and the content of the article is such that IF it was determined that there was an appropriate place to put it, it'd be easy enough to recreate from scratch. Also the concept of a raw google-test has fallen into disfavor. Very few people will be swayed by them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But hey, I do understand your concerns, and I'd like to commend you on your civility and reasonableness. A lot of times an editor of an article can get quite irate over a nomination, but you haven't done that. I hope I've explained things a bit better for you, and you understand the situation more clearly. If not, drop me a line on my talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am annoyed again, I am afraid. Chealer states that he is now done with his comprehensive review. He has left many, many articles on linux distributions that do not satisfy the criteria of notability as we have discussed above. I was with you all, and read the documentation, and listened to you, and thought I understood your position. Partly this was so that I could understand the policies of Wikipedia better. Those arguing for the deletion of the article stuck to policy, which is the proper thing to do. But now it comes to pass that indeed there was other, unstated criteria to determine notability - which seems mostly arbitrary. Chealer states on his Talk page: Bdushaw, the approach to correct the article is not useful when the issue is notability. There's nothing that can be done to the article that will increase the topic's notability. Which tells me that (a) the decision was preordained, and (b) the decision has been subjective. If there is to be a policy it has to be uniformly applied. If there are to be criteria for notability beyond what is stated in the Wikipedia policy pages, then they need to be stated. The decision to put this article up for deletion was NOT based on the strict notability criteria, but on someone's opinion. I am partly annoyed here not so much for the OpenPsion page, but as a matter of policy, procedure, and fairness. Chealer apparently has no intention of putting the articles: GPE Palmtop Environment, Familiar Linux, OpenZaurus, OPIE user interface, Maemo, Qtopia up for deletion - Why? What is the policy? What is it that deems those pages notable, but OpenPsion not notable? The notability argument seems to be one of convenience to support an opinion.

Going back to basic principles, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Is the OpenPsion article encyclopedic? Bdushaw 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Chealer is just tired of doing the task, and not an assumption that the remaining articles meet any standards or not. Not having seen any statement by anybody on them, I decline to assume anything. I don't know about Chealer's words, I'm not sure what is being said there, it honestly doesn't quite make sense to me. (Though I don't read anything into it, it just seems unclear). I think what it means is the problem is not in the contents of the article, but with the lack of third-party sources. But I could be wrong, so perhaps you should ask for a clarification. If you feel those other distros might well need to be deleted, feel free to nominate them yourself. Or heck, I will. FrozenPurpleCube 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to beat up anyone really, but I do want to have a consistent policy. It seems so very arbitrary - note that Chealer has recent edit history on Familiar Linux...its not like he didn't have time to look at it. (Nominating such articles as Familiar Linux and Maemo for deletion will likely create a firestorm...!! But, yes, they should be sourced.) Anyways, I have scrounged around and listed several references to the article now. Per my comment above, most of the references occur at times when there is a commercial involvment (Calcaria.net or Psion's recent look at linux). Also adding to the "notability" criteria (WP:CORP) is that OpenPsion now has a 9 year lifespan and is certainly international, if ethereal, in character.

AFD is arbitrary, because it's run by human beings, not machines, and there's little chance of a systematic coverage of any subject. (In fact, this is generally applicable to Wikipedia as well) If you want to nominate the other articles for the same reason, then more power to you, but I wouldn't assume anything about it not being done by Chealer. It's inconsistent sure, but only because we're human beings. And it's more a question of practice than policy. I think you'll rarely say "But we don't need sources for this" getting much support anywhere. And speaking of your sources, I'm not seeing much coverage of "OpenPsion" in them, but rather "Psion's involvement with Linux" which is a slightly different (though related subject). Which might support a merger to the article on Psion and coverage there, but I'm not convinced that this particular distro is notable from it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

References 6-9 are as you say. The others are not. Calcaria.net is where OpenPsion started, then we were Psilinux, then we were OpenPsion - this is the same organization. Other references to linux on psion link to OpenPsion. These references are honest; they are the sorts of things you've been insisting on, but now you are dismissing them? Bdushaw 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying they are unacceptable, and I am not dismissing them out of hand, I'm looking at them and seeing that they aren't quite about this subject. Or they have other problems. Note how I said "not much" which is different from "not any" . I'll review them all directly for you. Source 1 is more about the reaction of Microsoft to competition with Linux on Bluetooth. Yes, PSION is mentioned, and the Calcaria Linux7K project *but* the focus of the article is not primarily on it. Source 2 is practically a duplicate of the first one, just abbreviated. Source 3 is a list of speakers at a symposium. An article on the speaker at the symposium would be acceptable. A primary source like that is not demonstrative of anything. Source 4 is a brief news blurb on a site of uncertain provenance. Not a great source. Source 5 is a personal webpage, which makes it self-published source. Not to mention, it's primarily a review of the hardware with a brief sentence of "It can run Linux". None of these sources are really that great. The ZDNET ones are the best, since they are from a reliable source, but I still don't see the focus being sufficiently OpenPSION (whatever the name), though I do agree they do cover the subject in part. I would certainly be willing to use them in an article on Linux on Mobile devices, or even a section of the PSION article discussing Linux on their devices, but I'm just not convinced that they establish the separate notability of OpenPSION very well. They're better than nothing, but they aren't quite enough to convince me. FrozenPurpleCube 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to agree, but I appreciate your patience and efforts in the matter. Bdushaw 06:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I haven't even voted yet (so it appears on the voting talley table, even though deletion discussions are not a poll). Bdushaw 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Its signficant as essentially the only software left for Psion, and also in the broader context of the Psion/Symbian/Linux will-they won't they history. Could be folded into the Psion article perhaps but it seems worth keeping AlanCox 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - For all the reasons given above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.223.66 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The arguments for keeping are all based on substituting a kewlness for notability. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unless someone can point me towards another project that has a working version of Linux on these devices, this project is novel enough to warrent its own article. Many people I know only purchase devices like this that have good Linux support. And the article has reliable sources. John Vandenberg 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have created a new category for "linux on PDAs" (not quite sure how to give the link for that here; see the bottom of the page for OpenPsion). Per the discussions concerning sourcing and notability above, the articles in the category show a sad, sad state of affairs. I've given some words at the top of the category to encourage development of references and notability; but I am unsure of Wikipedia policy about putting text at the top of a category. Cheers, Bdushaw 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What you want to do is Category:Linux on PDAs. basically just add a : before the category. FrozenPurpleCube 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A lot of references have been added since the AfD was opened. I browsed through them, and just wanted to note that in my point of view they are not sufficient to establish notability. Many are self-published sources in some respect; and most of them do not even contain the term "OpenPsion". In fact, I found that term only in #2, in a link. --B. Wolterding 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: In my opinion notability means also that is worthwhile to notice. That is exactly what this article 'OpenPsion' is aiming at.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lnx4Win

Lnx4Win (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability to come. Chealer 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, seems not to meet notability criteria. Carlosguitar 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linuxheart

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

Notability to come. Chealer 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - subject is WP:NN and article provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as of June 2007, this article fails notability criteria. Carlosguitar 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Windows XP and Mac OS X v10.4

Comparison of Windows XP and Mac OS X v10.4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article, in its various forms, has never been coherent and encyclopedic. Its content, for some months, has just been a spurious metric (some dudes, using their own arbitrary taxonomy which isn't even sketched in the article, gave 557 points to XP and 586 points to OS X 10.4). The article survived previous nominations on the theory that someone might make something worthwhile of the article, but no one has, even after goalposts were put on the discussion page. If some party ever does create a decent article, they can do it out of mainspace, then show it to an admin before relaunch. In the meantime, it's time to save the users. —TheGhostOfAdrianMineha 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no hope of ever becoming encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I don't have anything against comparison pages per se, comparing just two individual OS versions is not appropriate for Wikipedia. That sets up the wrong tone. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whilst it should no doubt be possible to create a good Windows/MacOS comparison -- Comparison of Windows and Linux, whilst not flawless, is a perfect example of what to strive for -- the current article as it stands has no reason to exist. The only content is a description of XvsXP.com, and the article title for some reason focuses on one version of Mac OS and and old version of Windows. If our eventual aim if the page was kept would be to rewrite the content from scratch (based on the Windows v Linux article) and move the page to the correct (versionless) title, we might as well just delete this page and create the new article from scratch. -- simxp (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Yep, it had it's chance. But nobody has made any attempt to improve the article (it needs sources, notability, cleanup), so it has to be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — not developed enough and (in prose form) not the kind of article we need on Wikipedia (a table might be acceptable). Either way, if someone really wants to write an article on this subject they would probably be best starting anew. Cedars 02:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. -/- Warren 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, It isn't likely that this will become encyclopedic. Miss Minerva 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, wow. this is worthless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.99.182 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. No information here worth keeping. A single website's analysis of these operating systems does not warrant an encyclopedic entry. Someguy1221 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, comparing apples and oranges doesn't make for an encyclopedia article. --Android Mouse 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Bad faith nomination, nominator as been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user JB196 (with no prejudice to re-nomination) SirFozzie 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Impact Wrestling

Major Impact Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No references that appear in third party publications which are independent of the subject. Importance as a company questioned. Do not think it passes guidelines of WP:CORP. ----La Parka Your Car 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Seems notable, as like other international wrestling organizations.--Edtropolis 15:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment What seems notable about it? Also, it is not an international wrestling organization; it is a locally-run, run-of-the-mill organization that runs little bitty shows solely in Australia, so its not international.----La Parka Your Car 15:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything to show what makes this organization notable. TJ Spyke 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep without prejudice to renomination Nominator blocked as sockpuppet of banned editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bad faith nom JB196, 'nuff said. — Moe ε 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roderick Brookes

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

Neither Roderick Brookes nor Pro Wrestling Warriors are notable. Very very very few Google hits that are not from Wikipedia, wikia, or web forums. [27] - Pro Wrestling Warriors appears to be some sort of fantasy wrestling site. [28] - fiction.Corvus cornix 03:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As a reminder to all participants, please sign your comments with ~~~~. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Roderick Brookes is an amazing wrestler, big in the indies, I hear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuyAMountain (talk • contribs).

because everyone knows if it doesnt show up on google, it doesn't exist? ... :/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.208.92 (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:RS and provide multiple reliable sources for him. And please explain why all of the references to him are fictional. Corvus cornix 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

there's No Cure for Google Addiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.208.92 (talk • contribs).

Like I said, provide references. Corvus cornix 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Roderick Brookes. Because the Fourth Wall Wasn't Enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.208.92 (talk • contribs).

• Strong delete. Per the edit box reminder, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This article provides no reliable sources. It hovers right near speedy deletion criterion A7 in my mind, since an assertion of notability ought to be backed up with sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• This should be a speedy delete. It's a direct copy from a wikia page that pertains to fictional fantasy wrestling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC).
  • The problem is, Wikia is likely under GFDL also, so it's not copyvio, and works of fiction are not inherently a cause for speedy deletion. That said, what's the link to the Wikia page? —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No Cure for Deletion! --69.149.118.24 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I found the pages for both Brookes and PWW at the eWrestling Encyclopedia. Note that buried at the bottom of the PWW article, it admits that PWW is a work of fiction. My recommendation of a strong delete stands. I now clarify that this is a non-notable character in a non-notable game world/fiction realm. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. E-feds and e-wrestlers are not notable. -- Oakster  Talk  12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Oakster. Nikki311 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of St Andrews Liberty Club

University of St Andrews Liberty Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't believe this club meets WP:ORG. No significant third-party coverage that I could find. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. huji—TALK 03:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment it is part of a category about clubs and societies at that university (which I have visited before on two occasions), and the category has just two total articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete student group at a single school, and no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with University of St. Andrews.--Edtropolis 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Edtroplis, it is not notable enough to be put in a separate article, but enough to be mention in the UNIVERSITY's article--JForget 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can find sources for it, that might be worthwhile, though I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please don't merge this with the university page. The university will have hundreds of student societies - a recently created one with 100 members isn't that significant. If we start mentioning all of these in the university article, it will be a frightful mess. Either keep this, delete it, or merge it into some article on St Andrew's University student societies. I don't care, just not the main article.--Sandy Donald 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless third-party sources mentioning the society can be found Lurker 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - and also note Globalisation Institute related article.--MacRusgail 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merged within G-Shock - Nabla 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby-G

Baby-G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable product. ~ Wikihermit 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I got about 1.4 million Google hits, and it is a real product, but I'm not sure if it's notable. Astrovega 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did a Google search before nominating, but I saw no real notability. ~ Wikihermit 00:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should be merged with G-Shock, else very very weak keep. Definitely a notable watch design, influential and iconic, but a bunch of articles about each of its little sub-designs and offshoots seems a bit much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with G-Shock as it has not enough information to be presented as a separate article. huji—TALK 03:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - ... and regarding notability, the only reviews or ratings I've found so far are these and this. huji—TALK 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with G-Shock, even if more information is assembled. Inclusion is great, but the tree shouldn't have leaves. —SlamDiego_←T 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Note that it is part of a list of models with other Wikipedia entries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Shock#Models.2FSeries. Guroadrunner 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. As per ↑.--Edtropolis 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All World Final Fantasy

All World Final Fantasy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No third-party, non-trivial sources to establish the notability of this website (per WP:N and WP:WEB). hbdragon88 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems like a decent amount of work has been put into this article (although that alone doesn't make an article fabulous). The writing is coherent and gets to the point. Earthere 05:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Earthere
• Delete per nom. No effort has been made to show the subject satisfies notability per WP:WEB, no reliable sources cited. And do we honestly need a history of ever "version" the site has existed under? -- Kesh 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. As for the assertation that the article "gets to the point", I disagree: the whole article is chock-full of nuggets like "AWFF vs X111 vs FFMO - A failed attempt by FFXFan to engage three forums in an online battle on the PC game Unreal Tournament." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Cordless Larry 21:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — "Well-written" and "time" are not reasons for inclusion. The article doesn't have any media coverage whatsoever, and it doesn't follow the criteria at WP:WEB. *Cremepuff222* 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 03:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per previously stated reasons. Fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:V. DarkSaber2k 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of secondary sources, independent verifiability. Wickethewok 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Devoid of any secondary source establishing its notability. Kariteh 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Sr13 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People's Congress of Kurdistan

People's Congress of Kurdistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)