Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Hughes

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

Non Notable wrestler, de-PROD-ed. Darrenhusted 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP The article is sourced and well-written, and Hangman Hughes has had a notable career in Puerto Rico. DanZero 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, the article is not well written, a slew of redlinks don't look good. Darrenhusted 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, With all the AfD's going on around here, can a slew of redlinks be anything but expected? --DanZero 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, there are always AfDs going on, and you'll find that yesterday nearly 30 wrestling articles were deleted through PRODs. The redlinks in this article are for articles no yet created not for those deleted, doesn't change the fact that the wrestler is not notable. Darrenhusted 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending better establishment of notability via non-trivial treatments in reliable independent sources. Which may well be available, judging by a brief web search. Adrian M. H. 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as the red links don't bode well. Bearian 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Arowhon

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

Non-notable summer camp. Is fairly old, but does not appear to be covered in reliable sources that would enable a decent, NPOV article to be written. (See [1] and [2]. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Its a summer camp. Kids go here to use summer camp facilities and do summer camp things. Unless information taken from reliable sources independant of the camp, its members/participants, or its supporting organisation(s) can be provided to show that this facility is far above and beyond all other summer camps per a series of WP:Notable incidents or events, it should be deleted. -- saberwyn 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a nice opinion, but do you have an argument based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Pasting a comment from one debate to another indicates a lack of objective assessment against the inclusion criteria. Adrian M. H. 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per ObiterDicta. Subject fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. A quick search showed the official website and a handful of trivial advertorial entries on related sites, and nothing of much use per WP:V. Adrian M. H. 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, small camp. Even the assertion of notability of alumni fails, with all those red links. Bearian 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Allison (referee)

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

I'm not sure if referees are notable or not, but I have my doubts here. Claims such as "In his seventeen years as a referee he controlled 463 matches in the Football and Premier Leagues, one of the highest ever figures." are weasel-worded and unsourced, and the article is totally devoid of wikilinks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, this was also a disputed prod. Forgot to mention that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe WP:BIO's athletes section extends to officials at the top level as well. With that said, I'm not certain I'm right about that. For the record, I'm the person who disputed the prod precisely because I think the uncertainty means there should be a discussion about it before a decision is reached. Edit to add: The article does claim some offline sources, but I agree it certainly could use improvement. Erechtheus 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Needs references. Callelinea 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for this specific article; undecided about the policy idea. In competitive team play an umpire or referee is likely notable, since much of the discussion about the match will be about him and his acts specifically (see Kerry Fraser, for instance and ad nauseam). I think someone who spent 17 years as a Premier League referee must have some name recognition and have been written about, and is likely far more notable than a guy who played one game (and therefore passes WP:BIO). My only qualm about saying that all referees are notable is that even the busiest referees in individual sports such as swimming and tennis are not written about and don't get the kind of third-party attention that someone like Allison or Fraser does. --Charlene 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Referees are about as prominent on the football pitch as the players. Since this is Premier League level, this person is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've done some tidying up, including introducing a source for some of the claims in the article..... ChrisTheDude 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think refereeing at the highest level makes him notable. I don't think the quality of the article comes into it. Dave101→talk  08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - refereed at the top level, notable GiantSnowman 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - of course referees are notable, and ex-Premier League status is almost an automatic vouchsafe. I would kindly suggest being more sure of WP:NOTABLE before nominating for AfD. The article can of course be developed and sourced further to give it a sense of quality. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Perfectly notable, and rather than just being nominated for deletion, sources could have been found just as ChrisTheDude did and the article improved. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - indeed, some work has now been done on the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:52, 30 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. --Coredesat 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infamous Records

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

Delete - disputed prod. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this subject. Otto4711 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:V; no reliable, third-party sources have been provided. The edit summary for the prod removal stated "Mobb Deep is notable". Ok, but WP:NOTINHERITED. --Geniac 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a record label and has plenty of artists just look at Mobb Deeps myspace profile it links to most of them.Tru Soulja 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Myspace profiles are not reliable sources. Otto4711 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This fails WP:N. The number of artists is irrelevant; as is MySpace. It seems unlikely ever to properly meet WP:V either, with a lack of non-trivial secondary sources [3]. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 30 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felicity Barrington

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

Article appears to be complete fiction, fails notability guidelines for bios, or a combination of the two. Google test turns up nothing, so is probably unverifiable also. Entertaining article, though. kotra 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There are 81 references to Felicity Barrington on Google. Of these 81 references, I have isolated fourteen separate people, none of them are notable and none of them seem to be the person that is mentioned in the article. Trusilver 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, "In December 2007...." I've never seen a bio violate WP:CRYSTAL before. Or shall we wait until then in case it's verifiable? --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (First time I have seen the prophecy tag.) However, even if everything described came true exactly as the article predicts, would the subject meet notability requirements? (Unless the subject thinks of patenting the "trebuche bungeeing" concept, which sounds like fun.) I think this is probably a speedy delete candidate FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Is that trebuchet bungeeing? Clarityfiend 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if possible, per all above comments. When an article starts discussing multiple future events as if they were the past, that should be a sign that it does not meet Wikipedia's needs, and in this case is a sign that the article is patent nonsense. --Metropolitan90 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete - what the? Kripto 01:40, 30 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. --Coredesat 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principal I Ltd

Principal I Ltd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertising without useful content Jfromcanada 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Delete', sizable but apparently unnotable regional IT firm. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable spam advertorial. Adrian M. H. 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per non. spam created by a single purpose account. Dimitrii 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. spam Magioladitis 09:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and that it's a small, non-notable company, without any other sources except its own site. Bearian

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantate

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

Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day; no references cited (the Language Construction Kit is a guide to how to make a conlang, it doesn't reference Cantate at all); listed as having one speaker, thus clearly fails the notability guidelines. PROD tag removed. Miskwito 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dewrad 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. You beat me to it, you bastard. --Miskwito 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't need to "delete as nominator". By writing the nomination and doing the legwork, it kind of implies that you stand for the article's deletion. -- saberwyn 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

not definately, we only presume that. he might have intended it to be merged into a page which deals with nonsense on the net! Mike33 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a merger is covered by WP:BOLD and does not require AFD if that is the intent (there are rare exceptions). It's generally unnecessary for the nominator to add "delete as nom" in AFD, although it seems to be the practice in a few other places like WP:RM. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. My bad, sorry. --Miskwito 00:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nominator says it all. Calgary 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - clear-cut WP:NFT case. --Haemo 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Big round of applause for gumption but its not the place. Mike33 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. unsourced, non-notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:01, 30 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. --Coredesat 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Johnston

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

This guy may well be notable, but the article's so POV it's unsalvageable; there's not a single sentence that doesn't scream his praises. It reads like a resume. If he's really won some of those awards, a complete rewrite may be in order, but I'd suggest deleting and starting over if someone wants to take it on. With independent sources. delldot talk 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless something specific is actually found. DGG 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced with no clear claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First paragraph appears to be a direct quote of here.[4] Searching the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences yeilds no hit for his supposed Emmy. The Freedom Foundation also does not list him, [5], nor does it appear to have a 'Thomas Jefferson' Award. The person appears to be real, his accomplishments do not. Edward321 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified, made up in one afternoon, autobiography. Bearian 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Oswego High School

Lake Oswego High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS criteria for notability. Will nominate more schools but at work right now. Tatonka79 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The WP:SCHOOLS page is a proposed policy that was never adopted, thus not relevant to an AfD nomination. Tatonka has made a number of nominations for schools to be deleted, apparently (to me) with little regard for the specifics of the school in question, and under some misconceptions about WP policies and guidelines. I oppose deletion, without having looked too deeply into this article; I am open to changing my position if someone can make a more compelling case for deletion. -Pete 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article could use editing to remove trivial material, but school itself is notable for its academics, athletics, and numerous famous alumni. --Sprkee 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by Sprkee. Many high schools will be notable, and in any version of that guideline, this would probably be notable. Does need sources, but it seems they would be found, given the alumni and the athletics. Sourceable is the criterion, not sourced. Some of those alumni have very impressive careers, but "Notable alumni" without a WP article should be removed.
• Keep per Pete and Sprkee as the article contains pretty interesting and detaild info about the history and other stuff about the school. However, I would suggest the editors to add some references in order to improve the quality.--JForget 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple notable alumni constitutes a strong claim of notability. Article will benefit from improved sourcing. Alansohn 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a strong supporter of giving every high school a Wikipedia article, but this article is decent enough to remain. I can even think of one famous alumna who isn't mentioned in the article. --Metropolitan90 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since all high schools are notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if there was nothing else to write, the navigational value of the alumni list would be a good enough reason to have an article. --fullcourt 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as Noroton says... -- DS1953 ^talk 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Salle High School (Oregon)

La Salle High School (Oregon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS criteria for notability. Tatonka79 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete This one seems borderline. The alumni need to be actually specified, and some sources found. DGG 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per DGG. If a rewrite of this article provides some more information, I will be willing to reexamine my position. Trusilver 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple sports championships and notable alumni, accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources, establish notability. Alansohn 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not live up to Wikipedia's standards. Of the four "notable alumni", two are not even notable enough to have their names mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the article does not even state what town the school is located in ("near Portland, Oregon" is not good enough). I would prefer to delete this and let somebody else start over later. --Metropolitan90 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that the article "does not live up to Wikipedia's standards" is not a reason to delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clackamas High School

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

Does not meet WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS criteria for notability. Tatonka79 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a large school that has a population of over 2200 students, so I don't see how this school is any less notable than an article about some small hick-town out in the country. This is a ridiculous argument.
• Keep. Notable high school serves several towns, has numerous athletic achievements. Based only on a cursory look; further claims to notability are likely present in this extensive article. Several Google searches reveal a strong presence in reliable sources: Clackamas Review search, Google News search, Google News archive search. -Pete 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Followup: I just added two citations, and formatted an existing citation, for some of the more specific claims to notability: the school's solar panels as an example for other schools to follow, and a national Teacher of the Year award (carrying a $25,000 prize) won by a teacher there. Also, as noted in a different AfD, WP:SCHOOLS is an outdated proposed policy - not appropriate for an AfD nomination. -Pete 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Then what is the current accepted policy? All the school notability lists I can find have been rejected. Surely there is some accepted criteria? Tatonka79 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, not to sound snarky, but: You're the nominator, so it's up to you to show us why this article should be deleted, thus it's up to you to find the criteria. If you can't find any, maybe it's time to rethink what appears to me to be a single-purpose campaign. Latr, Katr 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's the criteria I was using, but if one is to strike those down, then the burden is on them to provide the current criteria. Wikipedia talk:Schools seems to do a good job and is a current discussion. Most of these schools still would fail notability under these new proposals. Tatonka79 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Notability is the relevant guideline. As far as I know, there is no policy broad-brushing this issue, and rightly so; each case must be considered on its own merits, because schools and their reasons for notability vary so widely. The only school-related comment on Wikipedia:Notability is that they may be better merged with the article on the town they're in; but an AfD nomination is not the best way to accomplish a task like merging, because it can be more time-consuming than is reasonable for a 7-day process. I appreciate your inquiring about criteria; I hope you'll consider Katr's suggestion, and hold off on further strong action until you have a more thorough understanding of the standards. -Pete 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some serious editing to remove listcruft, but school is notable for academics, athletics, and its unique architecture. --Sprkee 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Academics and athletics are found in every school. Here's another discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Schools, which through these criteria, currently being discussed, most of these schools don't qualify. Tatonka79 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Tatonka, why are you insisting on Sprkee providing evidence, when I provided exactly the evidence you request just above? To re-frame that according to the as-yet unadopted proposal you now link: The school has won regional recognition for its architecture (as a leader in solar-panel installation.) In addition, a teacher won significant national recognition in 1997 (which does not technically meet that standard, but I contend it does in spirit.) Your insistence on our meeting multiple unadopted standards, when you have admittedly not studied them in-depth yourself, is becoming a drain on all of our time. -Pete 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia talk:Schools is the talk page of the deprecated guideline page already discussed, besides which, talk pages are not policy. Latr, Katr 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A rewrite is in order, but there is definite evidence that there's enough material here to prove notability. Trusilver 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide the evidence. Tatonka79 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep will be a good article,when trimmed as Sprkee suggests. This is of a quality that should be kept as a separate article--under any realistic interpretation of the guidelines. The sort of article to merge is one like the LaSalle High School. When the guidelines don't help enough, the way to judge is by consistent practice at these AfDs. Though precedents don't actually compel decisions , recent consistent discussions here are a good guide. DGG 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't see athletic or similar achievements. Provide something at a state or national level and that might be notable. Tatonka79 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article has substantial content, but desperately needs pruning and better sourcing. Alansohn 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable high school. --Liface 22:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Clackamas High School is perhaps one of the top 5 most notable landmarks of Clackamas County, Oregon with an expansive history and distinctive achitectural and technological developments. The artical does need some relevent updates and trims, but not deletion. Guerberj 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Guerberj (and also Noroton). -- DS1953 ^talk 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I agree with User:Noroton that high schools are inherently notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion." —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philomath High School

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

Fails to meet WP:N guidelines Tatonka79 22:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The school is the subject of the notable documentary Clear Cut: The Story of Philomath, Oregon. Latr, Katr 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For reason mentioned above, plus pop-culture fame for Tami Maida and subsequent Quarterback Princess movie. --Sprkee 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the information above, though it is fair to say that it is not even mentioned in the article as it stands. Based on [6], it wouldn't be notable.DGG 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep multiple film subject with a rather strong claim of notability. Alansohn 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely a keep now. Every high school that wants to be listed on Wikipedia needs to establish legitimate notability like this. Tatonka79 01:50, 29 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. --Coredesat 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Chemical Romance's Upcoming Fourth Studio Album

My Chemical Romance's Upcoming Fourth Studio Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Source doesn't work; MCR are currently touring; Gerard has stated that they will continue to tour until the end of 2008, then take a year off mcr616 Speak! 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete sort of falls under WP:CRYSTAL as not enough sources are confirming it, and the source was linked wrong, it's [7]. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when you have a title, a tracklist, and a specific release date for this theoretical album, with that information taken from sources independant of the band, or its members, label, producer, or associated organisation. -- saberwyn 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lacking independent corroboration, it's unverifiable--therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Darkspots 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: There is a link saying that they are making a new album, however, still not enough sources per WP:CRYSTAL.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just delete it I agree. Let's wait until something happens. Alex 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete really crystally. I mean, the Koh-i-Noor is less crystalline than this. Will ^(talk) 23:01, 30 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. --Coredesat 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm bonney

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

Not sure if this person meets WP:BIO. No outside links or references. KJS77 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete no sources or real information, doesn't really give much context, and judging by the creator being called Mbonney, may be an article about themselves--Jac16888 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I would have considered speedy on this. To say someone did some paintings and nothing more isn't enough of an assertion. He might be notable, but the article has to give some indication of it. DGG 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - likely vanity; subject totally non notable. Bigdaddy1981 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETE! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web blog or a message board for bands. 24.218.172.197 17:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:SOAP. Unverifiable, messy, rambling, soapbox of an autobiography. Bearian 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, nothing to merge. --Coredesat 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyatt Regency Phoenix

Hyatt Regency Phoenix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable hotel, not even mentioned in Hyatt Regency#Notable properties. Clarityfiend 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, see the next entry. Bearian 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. With few exception (the Hyatt Regency O'Hare is a remote possibility), individual locations for a hotel chain don't tend to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Pheonix.--JForget 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I presume you mean Phoenix, AZ, but what's there to merge? It's a hotel, and doesn't fit into the scope of the article I just linked to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 29 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. No external reliable sources have been provided and I did an additional news search in case anyone in the discussion had missed anything. All that there was were a few passing mentions. no original research and verifiability are not negotiable and there is no point in having a 1 line stub of the form "Hyatt Regency Birmingham is a large hotel in Birmingham." If someone can find significant sourcing that meets WP:RS they are welcome to recreate the article. JoshuaZ 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyatt Regency Birmingham

Hyatt Regency Birmingham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable hotel, like thousands of others. Clarityfiend 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as common and non-notable chain hotel. Bearian 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the Birmingham building is not notable although, you're saying non-notable hotel chain, euh Hyatt is one of the biggest international hotel chains.--JForget 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. If I had meant to say that the Hyatt Regency was a nn chain, I would have nominated that article. Clarityfiend 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian. Certainly a lovely building, but that doesn't make it notable, it just makes it aesthetically appealing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Birmingham article.--JForget 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not for the fact the fact that it is actually hotel, there are plenty of hotels in Birmingham which have articles, but for the building itself. It is a prominent landmark on Birmingham's skyline. - Erebus555 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as what seems to be a fairly noteworthy building. That's not to say that every Hyatt hotel should have an article, of course. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment needs more sources, though, to cover WP:V. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian. Its an abomination too, but I'm ignoring that in my "vote". Bigdaddy1981 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unforgettable by Frederick A. Babb

Unforgettable by Frederick A. Babb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unforgettable (romance novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable book. Article contains one sentence about the book and a plot summary. (Even if kept, it should be renamed to Unforgettable (romance novel).) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved. I'll try to relink the discussions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The "critical acclaim" appears to consist of an Amazon.com "top 500 reviewer". She liked it very much. No evidence of notability; spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A vanity press publication that has very little notice. Fails the criteria found in WP:BK. Victoriagirl 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have nominated Frederick A. Babb as an AfD. Victoriagirl 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Forgettable, in fact. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and also as unreferenced, unverifiable, advertising. Spam at its worst, it merely quotes a long paragraph from the text. Bearian 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip DeSimone

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

Egregious BLP violation, all information comes from court transcripts, making this OR. Corvus cornix 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing found in Google News Archive search. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of minor organized crime figures. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I consider court transcripts a possibly RS depending on what they say, but these are indictments, not convictions. The information in them is unproven, unless further information can be found.
• Delete Calling someone a criminal without evidence that they have been convicted of a crime is an egregious BLP violation. Court transcripts may be a RS that something is true, but they are not a RS that something is notable, or half my high school graduating class would pass WP:BIO. --Charlene 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 29 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. --Coredesat 04:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Flame to End All Flames

The Flame to End All Flames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

apparently unencyclopedic, no references, no category, no context Joshua Crowgey 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic, non-verifiable, possible Urban legend, definitely all the reasons made per the nom. Bearian 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a Usenet in-joke; and not a notable one, at that. If every Usenet joke had a Wikipedia page... --Haemo 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as utterly worthless unmitigated drivel from a forum. Adrian M. H. 21:21, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesux and Yellow Hat GNU/Linux

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

Yellow Hat GNU/Linux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Renominating these two articles from an earlier failed deletion. Both of these articles describe fictional Linux distributions. These were funny when they were first announced, but the joke was over long ago in both cases - Jesux hit Slashdot in 1999, and Yellow Hat was announced in 2003. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete/Smerge More importantly, these jokes both would be difficult to make a strong NOTE case for, neither is more than three or four sentences long, and both could be dealt with in two or three sentences total in Linux distribution and both are now adequately dealt with at Linux_distribution#Niche_distributions. MrZaius^talk 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both Fictional or not, they are not notable enough and are listed elsewhere. The fictional aspect just makes a bad case worse. They don't really warrant redirects. Adrian M. H. 21:25, 30 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 speedy keep. While I may not like professional wrestling all that much, I do know winning the WWF Championship shows notability. Non admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Anoa'i

This is being nominated for deletion because the subject arguably fails WP:BIO due to a lack of multiple non-trivial sources. There has been a huge back-and-forth controversy about reliable sources and several trolls feel it absolutely necessary to reinstate unsourced material at any cost, spitting in the face of our verifiability policies. Burntsauce 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, seriously BS, a former two time WWF Champion? Is this really the way to fight WP:BLP issues. Maybe if you talked to the project there wouldn't be such fierce opposition to your actions. Darrenhusted 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep You've got to be kidding me. Deleting the article of a person that is clearly notable just because a couple of anons keep readding the stuff you keep deleting? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide a rationale based in policy for inclusion of this article, as WP:ILIKEIT is generally discounted. If "the project" (known for vote-stacking) wants this article so badly, perhaps they can locate a reliable source or two. Burntsauce 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that it needs references, but this is going too far. He CLEARLY passes WP:BIO, please provide actual policy that says this article should be deleted other than "It lacks sources". Half of the articles on Wikipedia could be deleted because of that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Understand that this back-and-forth has been ongoing since March, April, May, and now the end of June 2007. If we cannot locate multiple non-trivial sources within that time, perhaps we should not have this article. Burntsauce 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WE? You haven't been helping in the location of sources at all, you've been blanking pages and then not notifying anyone so it is usually luck that anyone finds the victims of your handywork. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Scorpion0422, please try to WP:AGF and avoid strawman arguments here. Either the sources exist or they do not. I will happily withdraw my nomination if this article is corrected, but for now it most definitely fails several core policies and guidelines. Burntsauce 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The sources exist, and I have added some. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and the project are in the process of PROD-ing and AfD-ing the articles which are not worthy of space on Wikipedia. Darrenhusted 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Seriously needs references, the WWE is not a good reference for anything except for its Kayfabe storylines. Corvus cornix 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment then tags would be a better solution than AfD. Darrenhusted 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There you go, there are now two sources that pass WP:RS that are completely independant from the subject. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, so now this passes WP:A using WP:RS and is certianly not a WP:BLP issues anymore will the nom withdraw this AfD? Darrenhusted 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As can be seen by other wrestling articles, the sources for these articles exist. However it's hard, time consuming work sourcing so many (There are 31 separate roster categories alone) articles that span so many years, especially with people going out of their way to blank, then try to delete them. It certainly feels trollish.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable wrestler who once defeated Hulk Hogan and was a long time champion who participated in multiple main events. Those facts can easily be attributed by reliable sources if not now, eventually thus justifying keeping the article. MrMurph101 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Wow, this is just ridiculous. He appeared at multible WWF PPVs and TV Shows, even headlining a PPV. If Burnt is just going to keep nominating obviously notable articles, maybe his account should be blocked from editing wikipedia? Kris 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very Obvious Strong Keep Hmm...former WWF champion, I remember he was at WrestleMania IX and X, clearly a notable and widely-known person. A citation problem is just that--a problem. Unlike most articles that are deleted bacause appropriate citations do not exist, this article contains a good deal of factual and citeable information, it's just that it's lacking the appropriate citations. Tag it for that, but deleting it altogether is ridiculous. Calgary 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the point of reliable sources is to back up notability; notability can exist even if sources are currently lacking. Given the numerous books written about professional wrestling, I suggest someone heads to the library. Deletion is not clean-up -- you're looking for clean-up here. Or do some Googling:

  source

  source

  even news sources

  yet more

• Non-notable people don't get their deaths covered by stories in The Independent. --Haemo 22:55, 28 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. --Coredesat 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous born again christians

Famous born again christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unmanageable, subjective, and unverified list. NawlinWiki 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not even certain that "born-again Christians" would be a good category. Certainly it doesn't work as a WP:LIST. Shalom ^Hello 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as with most such lists, they are interesting but 1) incomplete at best 2) terribly biased to the present 3) impossible to maintain 4) not appropriate for an encyclopedia. In addition, the lack of any sources makes this an egregious WP:BLP violation. Bigdaddy1981 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Born-again Christian is an incredibly subjective term. Even if it wasn't, it falls under WP:NOT#DIR and is impossible to maintain per all the reasons already stated. Trusilver 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a Christian, but I agree with the statements above. I think this list is maintained elsewhere. God only knows who belongs on the list, literally. Mandsford 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced article that, in addition to Bigdaddy1981's comments, is also 5) terribly biased towards United States Protestants, 6) does not even state its criteria for inclusion (being known as born again and being born again are different matters), and 7) even if it were encyclopedic, does nothing that a category would not. In addition, without sources, one does not know which Michael Jones or Phillip Johnson is the supposed born-again Christian, which could be a massive BLP problem if one of the Michael Joneses or Phillip Johnsons were insulted by being referred to as 'born again'. --Charlene 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; for potentially huge lists, categories are better; I also question whether born again Christians is sufficiently definable or objective to have such a category; if kept "famous" should be removed, because if you aren't famous you shouldn't be listed anyway, and Christians capitalized per norms of spelling. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 09:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of post-hardcore bands

List of post-hardcore bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be superseded by Category:Post-hardcore groups. The page states it is only for bands with pages already that use the designation post-hardcore, so it serves no purpose beyond the category except as a battleground for anonymous IP wars. Chubbles 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced, OR, no text. Corvus cornix 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all lists of bands by genre - as OR. Punkmorten 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Category:Post-hardcore groups exists and the list does not have a red wikilink which will not really result in a lost of data--JForget 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:12, 29 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.

[edit] Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion

The result was DELETE/MERGE. I have userfied the article at User:Gwern/Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion. Would those interested in salvaging info, please use that page to merge content into the corresponding articles. While wikipedia is a unique medium, it shouldn't be simply a plot summary. I believe because WP:NOT specifically has this as an example makes the delete comments all the more persuasive. While it is acknowledged that editors did put time and effort into this article, I cannot deny that we are primarily an encyclopedia, and we must have concise, encyclopedic information. I believe an encyclopedia entry on a plot summary is an oxymoron. This was a very close call, but hopefully working to merge the content will be beneficial and examine bloat and how to be more concise in other articles that are admittedly too large. While content forking is an appropriate way to deal with large articles, I do not believe the specific solution here (forking out the plot summary) was the best solution. Finally, I can't ignore the source/verifiability issue here, and the reliance on a primary source in such depth. Critical commentary, secondary sources, and reviews are all great things when examining film/literature. But using the subject in question as the sole source for so long is problematic.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is just a plot summary. By design, it fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - As I recall, the main reason that this article was created was to keep the size of the main Neon Genesis Evangelion article from blowing out of control. You've raised a valid point, and it should be addressed, but I hesitate to simply delete the article outright. I'd say that this article could undergo a massive condensing and be merged back into the main article, but it's gonna take some work. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If you the main article will has length problems then merging is a bad idea. Jay32183 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As much as I love the series, and considering how deep the plot really is, it still sadly violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. If it's getting too big for the page, then trim it. NGE is no Lord of the Rings, so why does it need more space for a plot summary? --Haemo 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment are you sure about that? 70.55.86.129 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While NGE is not particularly long, its plot is infamously complex (mindscrew ending), as such this is an appropriate split-off page. Additionally, between the numerous sources available on the main Evangelion page it should be completely possible to write an encyclopedic article about the plot, its inspirations, context, and so on. --tjstrf talk 01:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If this page used sourced information to clarify the plot then I'd see keeping it. Just describing the plot doesn't work though. I know how complicated the anime gets, but this page is just a plot summary, it doesn't clarify things, or have any encyclopedic value. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Adding the information for the series to the main article increases it from 82KB to 90KB. Just a note. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge for now per WP:NOT. First half belongs in the main article; second half belongs in End of Evangelion (with perhaps a 1-2 paragraph summary on the main article). However, if out-of-universe information can be added, then the article can satisfy WP:N without issue. I'd rather not see it deleted, because as tj mentioned above, there is clear potential for a good article. How about moving some of the creation and reception information related to the plot here, and then expanding on those? That's the best option. — Deckiller 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of the information that's currently in the (really OR-ish and overdetailed for a main article) sections of the main Eva page regarding symbolism and the like could possibly be merged in with the plot summary for a better independant article, but I'm not sure what it would need to be titled exactly. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as per Deckiller and tjstrf's comments above. Also, see WP:FICT, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:NOT. Greg Jones II 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• NOT#PAPER is not a free pass for articles that violate policy. It does not matter how mnay times or in how many different AFDs you opine to keep on that basis, it is not, and it never will be, a get out of jail free card for articles that violate policy. It says right in NOT#PAPER However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done.... WP:SS is also not a free pass for articles that fail policy. WP:NOT#PLOT could not be any more explicit when it says that Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. Otto4711 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Clear indeed. Especially since this article has obvious potential to include out of universe information as well. --tjstrf talk 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think a plot summary is sufficiently notable and useful when it's for a highly influential multi-billion dollar anime series. But if it does get deleted, I'd appreciate it if a copy could be userfied for me to use when I get around to splitting up Neon Genesis Evangelion. --Gwern (contribs) 17:45 1 July 2007 (GMT)
  • Reply No it's not. It specifically violates WP policy :|
• Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Neon Genesis Evangelion. The sourced analysis parts (themes/meanings) can be merged, but most is just re-telling of the plot. --maclean 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question: would this be considered a derivative of copyrighted material? now being re-licensed as copyleft (GFDL)? --maclean 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know exactly what you're asking, but including plot summaries that are too detailed can be taken as copyright infringement because it serves as a replacement for the original work. Jay32183 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This article only exists as somebody cannot distill a plot. Alientraveller 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. An article should not exist simply because somebody can't summarize a plot into three or four paragraphs. The main article has already bypassed any sense of being small; eight additional kilobytes is not going to make a difference. ' 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into main article. The summery isn't particularly long and there are much better candidates for splitting then the plot summery. Inspiration and symbolism being one such example. --Farix (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge70.55.86.129 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Would linking to invidivual episode guide articles count as "Sourcing"?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No. Please look at WP:RS for what are considered reliable sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John C. Antonio

John C. Antonio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No Ascertation of Notability, fails WP:NN Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a situation similar to the recurring problem of reality show contestants. You don't become famous for competing in an event, in general you become famous for winning an event. The events themselves are also low on the notability scale. Shalom ^Hello 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Shalom. Bearian 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:34, 29 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. --Coredesat 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lion King in popular culture

The Lion King in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a directory of entries only loosely associated by the passing mention of The Lion King. It is essentially trivia, which should be avoided. Much of the content in the article is based on original research, and the existing sources only mention the appearance in passing, instead of providing significant coverage, per notability standards, to cover the topic. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as loosely associated trivia. Useight 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I think maybe a handful of these may be relevant enough to hang onto, but then it wouldn't be enough to merit it's own wikipedia page.
• Delete. Laundry list of every time a line or theme from the movie appears somewhere else. One or two of the "appearances" may be significant, but they are significant to their resident work, not to The Lion King. -- saberwyn 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - indiscriminate list of thing which loosely connect to the Lion King. A "cameo" is not a cultural reference -- it's a cameo, and trivia to boot. --Haemo 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the Lion King article--JForget 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This trivia was removed from the Lion King article in January; no need to return it. None of it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. --Charlene 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & ample precedent; if there is anything worthwhile to merge to the article, it should already be there. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 29 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. This particular afd debate has no consensus. It appears the article has already been merged, which seems like a suitable editorial (as opposed to afd) decision. Peter 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Presidents by longevity

List of United States Presidents by longevity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I put this up a month ago, and it came back as no consensus. As such, I'm putting back up so maybe one could be reached this time. The list itself violates WP:NOT#STATS, and is redundant to List of United States Presidents by age, which is sortable. I'm not going to nominate the other lists in the previous AfD yet in case this again comes back as no consensus. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Useless and duplicate. ~EdBoy^[c] 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The work on creating a unified table is incomplete. Let the team working on the project decide when its time to delete them down to one copy. The sort function is still not working. Its treating the numerical sort as an alphanumerical sort still. Many kinks still need to be worked out. Sort on a numerical column and you will see its goes 2,000 1,000 100 900 800. And if you read [:WP:NOT#STATS]], It says that there should be no raw statistics without sufficient explanatory text, not that there should be no statistics. A reference work without statistics is useless. When the work is complete, there will be one table and all the explanatory text from all three articles. The completed master table needs to be compared to each of the other tables until the project is complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no proof of work. There were two contribs after the AfD tag was removed on the page, and no discussion to show that a merge is in progress. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Add-on Can you prove with a link that there is a discussion that has had comments added within the last seven days and not after the AfD was formed? Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this time around, there is no information presented in this list that is not also given under List of United States Presidents by age, which as has been stated is sortable and thus serves perefctly well as a "list by longevity". This list is redundant and not needed. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep could be an encyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been AfD'ed three times. If it could be one, it would be one by now because if an AfD is keep, there's usually a problem to work out (usually, not always). Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't there some sortable list of American presidential biographical data that this could be merged into or redirected to as redundant? -- saberwyn 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is, all are being merged, but the work requires modifications in the underlying software that sorts and displays the data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, List of United States Presidents by age Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Very well. Merge/redirect to the abovementioned article. -- saberwyn 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of United States Presidents by age. It's duplication of information that already exists. --Charlene 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete trivia per Wikipedia:Overlistification proposal Bulldog123 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Charlene. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Tentu 13:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). AndyJones 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Gosh, there's an active and productive effort on the talk pages of these articles to address this. So why drag it through AfD? Why not let the merge discussion run its course? And if you feel that List of United States Presidents by age is superior (and I do, I created it!) why not participate in the merge discussion? Just as a clarifier, I created LoUSPba as an attempt at compromise after the 2nd or 3rd AfD between people who felt a list only about longevity was not encyclopedic enough, and those that felt the information was encyclopedic. Given time (and support at merge discussions) I could create sortable tables for many longevity lists, and we'd have a compromise that would be satisfactory to everyone. The sortable tables are more complicated than you might expect, so it does take time, but if people identify other lists like this that could benefit from sortability, notify me on my talk and I'll add it to my to-do list. --JayHenry 05:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boho centers

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

Direct copy of a blog entry, with no useful references. The only ghit was the blog. While the concept relates to Lifestyle center (retail), I believe it could be mentioned there. Maybe. Acroterion _(talk) 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blog link is here [8] Acroterion _(talk) 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete totally non-encyclopedic Bigdaddy1981 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, almost {{db-nonsense}}-worthy. Not even worth a mention on lifestyle center (retail). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have to opt for a Strong delete, too. This really is unsalvageable spam with no tangible notability. Adrian M. H. 21:33, 30 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. Anas ^talk? 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful Disaster

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

Completely pointless disambiguation page - leads nowhere. If there were actually two songs named "Beautiful Disaster" that had valid Wikipedia entries, this might be merited, but keeping a disambiguation page to list two album tracks and an unknown single which have no pages of their own seems pointless. lone_twin 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as I beg to differ. Did a cleanup and made things better. Dalejenkins
• Keep as the songs are not noteworthy. I don't see how WP:MUSIC is met.Alun 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC). PLEASE NOTE I have changed my vote to keep after the comment immediately below. My checking up was sloppy and I didn't realise that they were singles. Poor form by me, sorry. I've left my original comment for comparison.
• Keep Actually, two of the three songs would be considered notable (the Clarkson one is the non-notable one). The McLaughlin one is his debut single, released to radio and with a video currently in rotation on VH1 etc. The 311 one was a decent-sized hit for them a few years ago. The Clarkson one is just an album track, so doesn't deserve its own article, but is fine as an entry on a disambiguation page. Seriously, if this were redirecting to one album's page, nobody would take it to RfD; however, it can't just redirect to one page because the page to which it should redirect is unclear, so disambiguation is the best option. GassyGuy 09:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Disambiguation of this multiply-used song title seems appropriate, since the songs were released by mainstream artists and two are singles. I have further improved the disambiguation page. --DavidK93 12:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 29 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking age

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

The article is about the legal tobacco smoking age in various countries. I have trying to clean up and wikify the article, but I also feel like it is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of information. The information could be useful, but maybe in an article with a different name or focus. This afd is not so much that I think this page definitely needs to be deleted, but that the article itself and its content could be used in a different, more effective manner. Clamster 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I think the page should be used and organized in a similar fashion to legal drinking age. Clamster 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see this being indiscriminant list at all. Notable legal characteristic of countries, and having an at-a-glance summary of the whole world works well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some rather serious cleanup, but this seems every bit as valid an article as legal drinking age and age of consent. You should probably remove the bits on laws regarding smoking, though, as those aren't really related. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with some massive need for work. I would recommend transforming this into a table rather than split off by sections, preferably sortable. I'm willing to work on that myself. There is a serious problem with sourcing, and I'd like to see the page moved to a slightly more intuitive title, such as Legal smoking age by country. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the article a little harder reveals a problem - this is less about minimum smoking ages as much as it is about smoking laws in general. Several of the entries do not list what the minimum age is at all, and the majority of the information seems more concerned with advertising regulations and bans rather than ages. I still think a sortable table by age is warranted, but I'm wondering if there's more that needs done here than just that. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Write up as an article about laws regarding smoking in general. Start off with your sortable age table, then delve into each nation's additional restrictions. Maybe. -- saberwyn 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable concept deserving of encyclopedic treatment; the current state of the article is not irreparable. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - lots of work needed, but should be kept I think. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Carlossuarez46. --EarthPerson 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Researchers and policy students will find it useful to have a comparison all in one place. Hu 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Robot Hall of Fame

The result was KEEP. Two word delete entries do not help raise consensus. Please try to raise more compelling arguments, or reference policy or something. Saying "non-noteable <sic> award" and "per above" are more in the spirit of voting than in the spirit of discussion, and I think most people want to move away from a sheer vote. Not only do the keeps outnumber the deletes, but their arguments are clearer and more compelling.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Robot Hall of Fame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non-noteable award. Dalejenkins 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ~EdBoy^[c] 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 150K GHits, over 100 Google News Archive Hits, and 4 interwiki links. Its the very definition of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article does need to be expanded, but there is verifiable information present in multiple sources independant of the organisation itself, which can be used for expansion. Keep. -- saberwyn 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Norton and Saberwyn. Carnegie-Mellon started this to draw attention to robotics, and as Norton points out, it's notable. Mandsford 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Cannot really cite a compelling reason to delete. Modestly notable. Adrian M. H. 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Robotics Institute, a division of the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. Presumably they are responsible for this coordinating this activity. (sdsds - talk) 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment We shouldn't do merges based on hunches. The website says "... ceremony conducted by Carnegie Mellon University's School of Computer Science in association with the Robotics Institute and the Entertainment Technology Center." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Kamala Das and Delete. History of the article has also been merged to take care of GFDL issues. utcursch | talk 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kamala das

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

duplicate article that has not been merged despite sufficient amount of time to do so. Taking here as a matter of form since my prod was contested. Postcard Cathy 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You can be bold and merge it yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge it or delete it. Obvious duplication. Bearian 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as the one who changed the prod to a merge tag. I probably should have already merged them, since it's pretty straightforward. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, this article has more content than Kamala Das. John Vandenberg 01:05, 30 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. —Kurykh 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Densa

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

References that establish WP:N and WP:V do not exist. Article fails both guidelines. AFDed over a month ago, result was "keep", but it was determined that the single reference from a reliable source only included a trivial passing mention. The "organization's" website is someone's personal Comcast homepage they got for using Comcast as their ISP. No improvement to article since May, therefore I don't think it CAN be improved as no reliable third-party sources exist. Not Notable. The Parsnip! 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP If it has survived two AFD's including one just a month or so ago, then obiviously people think it belongs here. I belong to Mensa and know from personal experience that the term has been around for more than 30 years and is often used in conversation among Mensans. Postcard Cathy 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus can change, you know. Just because it got voted Keep last time, doesn't mean it'll always be a keeper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, there're a couple sources, but per the previous discussion, it seems that sources have been few and far between. Therefore, I doubt its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the references added by User:Chubbles1212. Notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The (apparently fictional) group or meme flourished long before the internet came along. It has been mentioned in a humorous context in several articles in major newspapers. I have added back the reference section which the nominator removed from the article before launching this AFD, along with an article by Boxer in the New York Times (1999) which the nominator thought too trivial to prove notability (ok) but then deleted (not ok). Even a few words about something in a major newspaper establishes it is not a hoax, and shows that it has some some currency in the culture. I have added back an article by McGowan in the New York Times (1987) which the nominator deleted because he/she could not find it in the New York Times index. It shows up in Proquest.(Surprise: The New York Times index is not perfect). I added a mention in a Wall Street Journal article by Queenan (1989). Additionally, in the previous AFD, launched by the same nominator last month, UncleG pointed out the following references, quote "The Colorado Springs Gazette ("Mensa sound too tough? Densa may be more your style", 1994-09-22), The Miami Herald ("Are you Mensa or a Densa?", Don Shoemaker, 1983-10-12), and The Syracuse Herald-Journal ("Densa: The club for people who dare to be dense", Maryln Schwartz, 1983-09-13). " This shows that the stub article has plenty of sources not yet added, to allow expansion and improvement, even if these articles are not all handy to look at free on the internet. Edison 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Per nom.--Bryson 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per nom. Dalejenkins 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep per Edison. There's some sources. ~EdBoy^[c] 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs cleanup but has enough sources (NYT mentions especially) to pass notability. Chubbles 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read the sources; don't just vote and assume they're correct. All of the one's I've read—the Boxer piece especially—shows everything contrary to the article's ability to pass as notable. --CA387 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Added an interesting article from a Mensa journal describing the exact circumstances of the August 1974 initial appearance of "Densa- the low IQ organization" in the journal of the Boston Mensa group. They were an early meme, appearing as the subjects of a series of article widely reprinted in Mensa journals before spreading to college papers, with people creating their own quizzes, etc. and later creating websites and t-shirts. The idea of Densa was enjoyed both by folks in Mensa and by the rest of us. As a meme it may have been reinvented by people who had only heard the name, and those who generally thought "Mensa" and "IQ" were four letter words. Presently, 33 years later, see how pervasive a meme it still is. Googling "mensa densa" finds it mentioned in 56,000 hits. The inclusion of mensa is suggested to avoid the numerous occurrences of the Spanish word "densa". Edison 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Upon looking at the sources that Edison provided on the article's talk page ([9][10]), I'm even more convinced of Densa's lack of notability. Though these sources don't match up to WP:V standards, assuming that they're correct, "Densa" was created as a subject for various puzzles for the Boston area Mensa chapter: it isn't an actual organization. This certainly matches up with the other "sources" available for Densa, such as the Boxer article in the New York Times, where the mention of Densa is just as trivial (Boxer's article is a humor piece, not an actual article about anything. In it, Densa is mentioned once, and only fleetingly). If anyone wants to put a bit about Densa on Mensa International, feel free, but it certainly doesn't belong in its own article. Frankly, the people at Talk:Mensa International don't want it there, and I don't blame them. ---CA387 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep See below --CA387 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and format better. Well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since people seem to want to vote without bothering to actually read any of the sources, I've taken the liberty of posting the full text of the Boxer piece:

rm copvio

It appeared in the B section of the New York Times in the "Arts & Ideas/Cultural Desk" section. --CA387 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have you ever read WP:COPYVIO and are you familiar with the "fair use" concept when it comes to pasting entire copyrighted works into Wikipedia? That said, even a 2 sentence reference to something in a New York Times article from 1999 can be useful in showing it is not something someone made up in school yesterday, and for a meme, such articles over a period of many years show its endurance as a fictional organization. Edison 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was under the impression that was for article content, not things on talk pages. If it presents a significant problem, please remove it. However, as a common fictional organization parodying Mensa, I'm okay with it as a part of the Mensa article (a redirect was proposed by another user to the same extent in previous AfDs). --CA387 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a well-known parody, with years of newspaper references. How many times do we have to go through this? Clarityfiend 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I did a Lexis-Nexis search and found a bunch of articles that mention the organization; I added three more refs to the article. Chubbles 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and CA387. Elbowdrop 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't have to actually be funny, though I think it is; if so many good newspapers have articles--and over a 20 year period, it's important. DGG 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's just a joke created by another group, it doesn't meet any of the Wikipedia standards for notability. DreamGuy 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment how many press references do we need to dig up to establish notability? Chubbles 00:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability has only been established in relation to Mensa. Alone, nothing has been given to show that Densa merits its own article. --CA387 15:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I do not see anything in WP:N that says something has to be the only subject of a news story for the coverage to ocount toward satisfying notability. There are also several article where Densa is the primary subject, with Mensa along for the ride. Then there is the book which is only about Densa. Edison 22:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I haven't read the book, but we seem to have quite a number of sources now—certainly enough to justify this article. The prose of the article is much better than it was for the past two AfDs, as well (I've just done some WP:MOS editing, and clarified that the organization is fictional). I've been finding more and more that I'm playing devil's advocate rather than arguing a sturdy position, so I'm changing my vote. --CA387 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree it seems to be fictional, although we obviously cannot prove than there was never some group of people who met weekly at a bar and called it a "Densa chapter meeting." As a fictional organization or meme, this shows the need for a WP:MEME to supplement such guidelines as WP:ORG which hardly seems to fit fictional organizations. The rejected WP:MEME would need to be expanded to include pre-internet memes. And as for the 1987 McGowan article in the New York Times not showing up in a search of the NY Times index, as was asserted in the talk page of the article, I find it at [11], but I no longer have access to it and I do not recall how much was in it about Densa. Edison 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:5P "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" not a joke.Tstrobaugh 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Well-known jokes are encyclopedic. Chubbles 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

you're probably right, why isn't it under Category:Joke organizations?Tstrobaugh 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Wydner

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

This stems from a pattern of edits by
Dbp653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
207.160.210.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Brucewydner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log))
to insert material sourced by Bruce Wydner (with a COI - see WP:COI/N#Bruce Wydner) that puts Wydner in a pivotal (but previously unsung) role in the origins of machine translation (MT), Novell, WordPerfect and some kind of US military programs. Here's his own statement on grounds for inclusion: [12].

I've further just found these news archive items: Man accuses firms of stealing software and 'Bizarre' $10 billion suit dismissed where such claims were thrown out of court. This casts serious doubts on Wydner's notability and on the version of MT history posted here on his behalf. Per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for propagating claims of dubious reliability.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language technology. I am also nominating the following related page, which also writes Wydner into a central role in MT history (as well as blatantly advertising his book).

Weidner Communications Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Gordonofcartoon 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per above and as violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP. Bearian 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: given the pattern of contributions relevant to this and related articles, the fundamental requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:RS do not seem to be honored, acknowledged or applied. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that reasonably fair-minded and unbiased WP contributors will step forward to make this content suitable for inclusion in WP. dr.ef.tymac 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free medium for self-advertisement.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The 2003 Wydner vs Novell, WordPerfect et. all. law suit was dismissed on "statute of limitations" the court record became a generous gift of KNOWLEDGE as to the events surrounding the claims. dbp653

No legal inference intended at all: merely evidence that material via Mr Wydner is not the sole viewpoint on the subject, making it unreliable to use uncritically. Gordonofcartoon 12:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:45, 29 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 speedy keep; AFD isn't for proposing merges. --Coredesat 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The X Factor: Battle of the Stars

The X Factor: Battle of the Stars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As this is a one-season mini-series, it's safe to assume that this can be merged into The X Factor (TV series). Dalejenkins 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment; So propose a merge on the talk page, there's no need to nominate an article for deletion if you just want to merge it. Masaruemoto 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as nominator does not want the article to be deleted. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Notable. This also isn't "AfM" (articles for merge). Matthew 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Anas ^talk? 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akash Jagannathan

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

This is some kid who claims that he has played cricket for US under-15 team. Comes nowhere near the notability criteria for WP:CRIC which needs the player to have appeared in first class cricket or List A matches Tintin 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable. Reading the article, the kid does not suffer from an excess of modesty! JH (talk page) 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nom and Jhall1. The Parsnip! 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Sorry, kid, you are not there yet. Bearian 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7 (non-notable bio). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:39, 28 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, promotional. Sr13 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AJ's Playhouse

AJ's Playhouse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a local radio program, and while there are a few sources, they do not appear to be adequate to show notability. Prod (and prod2) removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet notability standards. Promotional. -- Merope 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - pretty blatantly advertising, no assertion of notability --Orange Mike 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article is about a local radio show and appears to be NN. --Stormbay 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as "notariety" (sic) does not mean notability. Bearian 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment; article has tripled in size since we commented if anyone wants to check it out...does't add to notability in my opinion. --Stormbay 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per some of the other delete votes. Advertising. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:45, 30 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; breach of important BLP concerns. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley's favourite books

Elvis Presley's favourite books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be nothing but a vague list of books from one bookstore, with a personal essay. The external links are one to the bookstore in question, another to an Amazon list which is mostly books about Elvis (which he probably didn't read, probably having been dead when they were published) and an interview with an Elvis hanger-on of some sort. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Suffers WP:POV, WP:OR, and on a side note, favorite is spelled incorrectly (not a reason for deletion, but I had to bring it up -- since he was American, should be using American spelling) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sheesh. JJL 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and if possible forget you ever read it. Uncited, trivial, POV, and cringe-worthy. Not all reasons for deletion, but there's they don't help persuade otherwise..
• Delete as I'm sure Elvis would be turning in his grave at the mere thought of such tripe. Dalejenkins 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom.--Bryson 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Based on what I know of Elvis, I'd be extremely surprised if these were really his favourite books. However, that's not why I'm voting to delete. This sort of indiscriminant list is covered by WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This one can close early, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as it's getting kinda cold in here. This is 100% original research in the form of a bad essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as total bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 03:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Sheesh. --Charlene 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all. 'Nuff said.--JayJasper 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• This AFD has left the building Delete! Lugnuts 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm going to make an article entitled "Trusilver's favo(u)rite books". Is that cool with everyone? But seriously... as much as I hate actually justifying why this needs to be deleted, It is completely uncited, and an A+ candidate for WP:OR.Trusilver 06:09, 30 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 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highland Village (Houston)

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

Deletion based on the notion that malls are not inherently notable - There are no features about this mall that sets it above malls. Its the only mall in Texas that houses a Donald J Pliner, but I dont think just that gives it any notability Corpx 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable mall. It's just a high-end strip mall, home to some frou-frou boutiques. It gets a few mentions in reliable sources, but said mentions are all trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis of the information here. The lists are non-encyclopedic, the tone is that of a press release. But if it's been there for 50 years it might actually be notable & there might well be sources. The article has to talk about it though. No prejudice against recreation of an acceptable sourced article. DGG 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I tried to find sources and came up with nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. No prejudice if that changes in the future. Adrian M. H. 21:46, 30 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. No original research is more important than notability. There is no evidence presented in this debate that these articles aren't original research, unverifiable with secondary sources. There is also a lack of consensus that these articles (as opposed to the main program page) are actually notable at all. Peter 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3-2-1 Blast Off!

3-2-1 Blast Off! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable per WP:EPISODE, I am not redirecting because someone did before me and his redirect was reverted. So I don't want to make the decision on my own, and start an edit war. Jackaranga 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I have noticed administrators have contributed to several of these articles, so I prefer a wider opinion please, rather than removing their contributions myself. Jackaranga 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, none contain any references:

A Lobster Bake? Oh Buoy! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

B.L.T. For Breakfast? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cats? I Thought You Said Kites! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Don't Put the Kart Before the Sea Lion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Good Dancing and Bad Teeth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Grandma Ruffman's Recipe for Success (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

How To Get Out Your Inner Hip Hop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm OK, You're Okra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's Raining Cats and Dogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mush If By Land, Mush Mush If By Sea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reducing The Calories and Cats In Your Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Relaxin' with Ruff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Roughing It With Ruff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruff Ruffman Breaks the Mold (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruff Ruffman Spaces Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruff's Bowling Is Going Downhill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruff's Case of Blues in the Brain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruffs Big Break (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Saturday Night with a Slight Fever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Scat Cat, Scat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Send in the Clowns (FETCH!) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Still More Mush If By Land, Mush Mush If By Sea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tape Loops and Loop-the-Loops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

That Doesn't Float My Boat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Dogcathalon Finale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Mystery of DogTopia and Catlantis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Mystery of the Missing Thing in the Haunted Castle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Small Fork Is For Dessert (Unless You're A Dolphin) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This Old... Lemonade Stand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To Bee or Not to Bee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tryin' Chef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ye Olde Colonial Episode (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yippie Tie Yie Yay, Get Along Little Doggies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

You Lucky Dog (Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

and also

Category:FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jackaranga 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how to bundle a category for deletion into an afd like this, can someone please help. Jackaranga 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article establishes it's an episode of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, therefore it's notable. Matthew 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete They don't fit the notability criteria of WP:EPISODE or WP:N and for a show like this, there is no way to improve them. There is a process that you can use in the future instead of going with an AfD. And a side note to Matthew, please, please stop saying that. You know what notability is on this site, and if you really dispute it that much, you really should take it up at WP:N. TTN 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major children's show on a major network. Needs expansion, but no reason to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to the show article, as per WP:EPISODE. Totally OR, no valid sources, probably won't be any. Corvus cornix 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Maybe someone should change WP:EPISODE, because it is causing much confusion, especially the phrase that says :

It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.

In the case of these articles there are no sources, let alone "secondary sources". I really don't understand, on one hand Andrew Lenahan, is saying not only should we keep these articles but also expand them. And on the other hand there was the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes thing, where everyone keeps reverting the redirects back and forth, I'm so confused. Can the administrators here please explain to me simply (and on WP:EPISODE) if possible whether or not it is OK to have each individual episode like this. If you look at Category:ER_episodes you will see there are only 3 episodes listed, even though ER is much better known that this TV series. I would be very grateful for a clear explanation, it is one of these things I don't understand about wikipedia, sometimes the rules seem perfectly clear but it turns out they meant something else, and only apply to certain articles. Sorry for this rant I'm just very confused now. Maybe if someone could write a list of series that are entitled to an article for each episode, I can avoid mistakenly nominating them for deletion.Jackaranga 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Add one more:

CSI Ruff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jackaranga 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep These are a very important collection of articles. Besides, I don't see the American Dragon: Jake Long episodes articles being deleted and their plots are like what, 25 words? [13] And those articles don't have a reference! RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because someone hasn't gotten around to nominating episodes from other shows for deletion, has no bearing on the discussion of this set of episodes. Please explain what makes anything on Wikipedia "important". Corvus cornix 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Matthew. - Presidentman 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is not going to be possible to make many, or any, of these articles pass WP:V or WP:EPISODE and they are not notable by WP's definition. The episodes are outlined in the series article, which is where they belong.Adrian M. H. 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into tables, one table per season, linked to the main article, just like its done on other TV show articles. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, notability is not transitive. The show may very well be immensely notable. That doesn't mean the individual episodes are. I think we're falling into a severe case of accute ilikeitis. — Coren ^(talk) 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Show is notable, individual episodes are not. Whispering 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erik A Williams

Erik A Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't find evidence that this person meets the notability guideline; he has appeared in several films, but apparently in very minor roles, and my googling didn't reveal any independent sources, though someone else may find something I've missed. Previous AfD resulted in deletion FisherQueen (Talk) 17:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleteper nom. The guy is an extra in second-rate movies, so are a thousand other people that fail to meet WP:BIO as well. Trusilver 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. On a side note, though this is not solely a reason to delete, but it appears the main editor of the page is Erik Williams himself --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's certainly an additional piece of evidence in support of deletion as that it also suggests WP:COI issues. Trusilver 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I sincerely do not want to seem like a jerk but this is seriously ridiculous! I should not have to prove the validity of my being notable to ANYONE nor should anyone else. I realize that the policy of Wikipedia is to keep people from creating vanity pages but I certainly have notable credits on notable productions and no one has thought it necessary to put my page up for deletion until just recently when the D.P. for All Night Production Studios attempted to submit a page for that (perfectly legitimate and notable) company. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove that I'm "worthy" of being on wiki but I'll try to throw some things at you here: 1) The film "Abbey of Thelema" (in which I have a supporting role) has an appearance by Ron Jeremy as well. 2) I have a lead as the part of Max in the film "Gameheads" which is now running the national festival circuit (no you won't be able to find it via a google search yet because it's yet to premiere but will very soon and all over the place). 3) Although it was only a part as an extra, I do indeed appear in the party scene in Bruce's mansion in "The Dark Knight." I don't suppose you consider that film to be "second rate" do you? The credit is not yet on IMDB because Warner Bros. wishes to keep the main cast up without extras until closer to the release date. 4) You know who Jason Mewes is don't you? Sure you do. But if you look at his IMDB credits, you'll notice that although he is very notable, all the films he's been in have been "cult films." So if you're using that as your criteria, than either I am perfectly legit or Jason Mewes is most certainly not legit. Thanks for reading.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Reply The notability guidelines are here, which explain how we decide which actors we need articles about on the encyclopedia. You and Jason Mewes are both actors in a limited number of cult films. Jason Mewes is notable because many independent nontrivial sources have written about him. If you're as notable as he is, then you have also had independent nontrivial sources who have written about you-- this would be a perfect time to link us to those articles, because that's what is needed to show notability. But the right thing to do would be to allow the article to be deleted, and wait for one of your fans to write an article about you instead; writing an article about yourself is a violation of the conflict of interest guideline. I think I'm pretty awesome, but I would never write an article here about myself; I'll wait until there are enough independent sources for one of my many admirers to write one about me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Per FisherQueen's original nomination, there are no independent sources that assert notability. And you are right that you shouldn't have to defend your own notability because you shouldn't be doing it to begin with. The fact that you have made more than half of the substantive entries into the article is itself proof of a WP:COI problem. Trusilver 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply.I personally know Erik A Williams and he is a very reputable actor who, whether you believe it or not, has been in a great number of movies and has had a wide variety of roles. The fact that Erik A Williams has his own Imdb (Internet Movie Database) page makes me wonder how you have the right to delete him out of Wikipedia. If you are suggesting that this page was written by Erik himself, maybe you as an editor and administrator should have taken a better look at this when it was created. I find it a little ironic that his page came up for a possible deletion when he was mentioned in the creation of a film page. I seriously hope that this is not a biased, upcoming encyclopedia, for I think that if word made its way around about this, many people would be skeptical about creating a page for something that may or may not be true.

Multiple, independent, nontrivial sources are the way we verify that information in articles is true. Without such sources, we can't verify that articles are accurate. That's why we don't have articles which don't include reference to multiple, independent, nontrivial sources. That's what keeps us unbiased. You, on the other hand, have not made a single edit which wasn't focused on promoting yourself or your friends. That makes you very deeply biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just having an IMDb listing is not proof of notability; heck, even I have an IMDb listing! and I'm certainly not notable enough for an article. --Orange Mike 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply An individual is most certainly capable of writing something from any viewpoint he or she chooses. Check out a novel sometime. That viewpoint can and in this case is unbiased. I really do not like this type of Orwellian oppression that you folks are using.Bethaltohistorian 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)bethaltohistorian

It sounds like you are not arguing that Erik Williams meets the criteria at WP:BIO, but instead, you are arguing that the criteria themselves are not right, and should be revised. If you want to work on revising the criteria, you should do that on the discussion page at the notability guideline page, not here, where we're just applying the criteria as it now is to an article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1)I have added a link to an article in the Alton Telegraph about "Gameheads" and myself. 2)FisherQueen, I understand that you are trying to defend the policies of Wiki but seriously, don't you dare start circling around our discussion here with easy, , vague, blaise statements like "If you want to work on revising the criteria, you should do that on the discussion page...etc." You and me both know this isn't about the what wiki should or shouldn't change. It's about denying people the right to have their work on here just because they're not Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman. I'm sorry but that's bullsh** and you know it!(Talk) 17:50 28 June 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the link. Erik Williams is only mentioned once, very incidentally, quite late in the article. Has anyone ever written an article about Erik Williams? Are there two or three articles that have Williams as their primary subject? Do you seriously think that Tom Cruise wrote the article about himself- or that he's pleased with what it says? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added two more links: 1 from the producer/co-director of Abbey of Thelema and my publicity page on my IMDB profile.

Those are both PR, not writing from independent sources. Has any newspaper or magazine on the planet ever written an article about you? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many newspaper articles that I have been the subject of from all over the place but only the two that are listed on my publicity page on my IMDB profile have had links online. The one for The Telegraph is the only one that still currently exists online. If you go to my IMDB profile, though, you will see the proof of the article in the Centralia Sentinel dated April 20, 2007 by Monica Seals.

Now we're talking. Even if your sources aren't available online, I've seen people upload scanned versions to verify notability. You'll need more than just the one, but if there are many, many articles, just choose the two or three that best explain why you're an important and significant actor to scan, stick them on free web space somewhere, and link here to it. I understand that'll probably take you a day or two, and that's fine; nobody's going to close this tonight, I think. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the news articles I have are at my permanent address in Centralia, IL and I cannot retrieve them until at least the first week of next month because I am currently on location in Edwardsville, IL filming the indie feature "Jealousy."

• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin note that this editor has made the same comment on every article nominated for deletion on the 28th. Plus, with the fact that he was making one comment every minute or so, it suggests he wasn't reading the article and the afd's before making the comment. but rather basing it only on an inclusionary agenda which is counterproductive to reaching consensus. His last edit was two minutes before this one... I'm a fast reader but I can't read an article , check references, read the AfD and do everything neccessary to make a qualified decision on an AfD in ten times that much time.Trusilver 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am wondering why this warning of deletion came up after his name was mentioned on the failure to launch a page for a film. ANPS Cinematographer 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer

Reply. Just because an article about someone who is entirely non-notable managed to avoid detection for a while doesn't mean he gains de facto notability. I was wondering why I have noticed two new accounts formed in the last 12 hours whose entire purpose "just happens" to be to argue about this AfD. Trusilver 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, See Also WP:FISHING. There are hundreds of articles here at Wikipedia that don't meet relevant policies and guidelines but nobody has gotten around to reviewing them yet.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Aside from the major conflict of interest, I see no non-trivial independent third-party sources yet, and the subject simply does not pass WP:BIO. Having an IMDB page connotes absolutely, positively, NO assertion of notability whatsoever. The third key grip on a 1932 movie will have an IMDB entry. Actors whose only credits are "Man in Car" have IMDB entries. People with no credits at all have IMDB entries. --Charlene 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Charlene. According to IMDb, the subject has had only one of his movies released yet, and that one went direct to video without a general commercial release. His only other credits in released projects are one episode of a television comedy and an appearance on a talk show. He may have a lot of movies coming in the future, but either those films are not established as notable yet, or he is only an extra in them (as is the case for The Dark Knight), or possibly both. The reason he has an IMDb page but should not have a Wikipedia page yet is that the IMDb and Wikipedia are different types of works with different criteria for inclusion, as explained by Charlene. --Metropolitan90 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What is missing here is multiple, non-trivial coverage of the subject per our biographical article inclusion guidelines. I'd wager a guess that the subject has a very good chance of meeting the guidelines in the future, but right now this article is premature per said guideline.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

KEEP If you think that he is on his way to becoming eligible, you might as well leave him and forget this stupid headache. If you delete the article, it will eventually just come back. Don't be stupid. If he's not famous yet, someday everyone will know the name Erik A Williams! Twfora 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user's only contributions have been to a deleted article about the company producing Williams's current film. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If I was Erik A Williams, I would not be worried about having an account on Wikipedia. While in school, I was given the task to write a number of research papers all with NOTABLE sources in my Works Cited page. The criteria for this was to use books, encyclopedias, and the internet. The one thing that I found was that everyone one of my teachers would not allow other students or myself to use .com sites or Wikipedia because it was not NOTABLE enough. So when administrators try to argue whether or not each individual entry is NOTABLE enough or not, maybe they should instead look at the reason and/or reasons why they themselves are not NOTABLE enough to be considered relevant for sources of important writings.ANPS Cinematographer 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer

Comment. I find it fascinating that four of the user names that have taken part in this AfD have had absolutely no contribution to Wikipedia except for promoting this non-notable actor and two of them seem to have been created for the sole purpose of objecting. I certainly wonder why that is. Trusilver 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I find it facscinating that you, Trusilver, have nothing better to do than bash me and the people trying to help me. Whether some just created a profile or not, there are people coming to my aid which is quite the opposite of "smelling of a problem." I have friends, colleagues, and peers in the industry who are willing to defend me because they have no doubt that I am more than "notable." I am not trying to be vain, I am not trying to simply "get my way" or anything of the sort. Some things are justifiable simply because they are what they are. I am important and deserving of a wiki entry whether I have one credit or a million "non-notable" credits. The fact that I have people coming to my aid should prove that. This is not simply my opinion. It is an immovable fact, beyond policy, by-laws, or terms of service. It is right and just and far beyond what any of you can argue, discuss, or fight about. I hope each and every one of you know what it is to feel insignificant, to know that your life means diddly squat to every other person on the planet. Only then can you understand what I'm talking about. If you think you've experienced that, think again, because to know that feeling is to stop arguing to have me off wiki and to let me have my page the way it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? I was going to try and defend E. Williams after I saw his post on myspace asking his friends to help save his Wikipedia page, but after reading all these arguments, I'm afraid I now have to disagree. Your acting like the admins. of Wikipedia are personally attacking you or something. I mean, look sure you've done a lot of stuff and I know you're trying to make it all, so go DO THAT instead of spending all this time and energy with this stupid argument. This is not a personal attack against you, you are not some kind of martyr, this wikipedia page is not going to make you a better actor or advance your career, it is just another thing for you to list on your resume. Big deal. Is your self-esteem so low that you need verification from a stupid website to validate your existence as a person or an actor? If so, them maybe THAT's something you should work on. If you want to be "notable", then go out and SHOW them you are, rather than whining and trying to convince them you are. Come on Erik, you're better than that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Runrabbit (talk • contribs)

He is "notable" now, look at the Hollywood Reporter Production Charts. "Jealousy" is there, and he is one of the two main actors. Look also at the two other articles cited at the bottom of his page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.31.4 (talk)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on sourcing Reviews from hometown papers are not exactly reliable sources for articles like this; notes or passing comments in articles are not significant either. This isn't the rule for this article alone, it's the rule for every article. I recognize that people with many smaller roles may not get large notices, but it is necessary to show that someone authoritative enough to get published in a reliable source does think that you are important and says something to show it.DGG 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Wow...Whoever wrote the article about Erik making himself notable makes me laugh..I think he or she should go back and read what they wrote. You are trying to tell Erik to go make himself notable, yet it is obvious that he already is. Also, I never saw that posting of Erik's so-called " cry for help" and so yea, maybe I am just a third-party person coming to defend someone who I believe should be given the chance to be on this site. No, Erik's life and career does not depend on this page but then again what does it hurt if it's on here. The purpose, as I thought it was, is to build up an account of more things in more categories than any other encyclopedia out there. If all these administrators seek out and take off pages they don't see as "Notable," then what are the chances of building up the information. Erik is not the biggest deal in the world but neither are you and therefore I do not believe you have the right to take him off if you are no better than he is. First rule...don't judge others!!! Another thing, if you really want to build up your information stockpile, I would consider being a little nicer because when people, such as Erik, do make it big in the world and start having things written about him, I think that he will remember what he went through and deny others the ability to post something about him on your site. Like the saying, "what goes around comes around" and if you don't watch yourself, this may come around and bite you later on. Just a word of wisdom. ANPS Cinematographer 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer

To those of you who have fought against me, thank you, I have now possibly lost two friends because of your ignorance. To those of you who have fought alongside me, thank you, for you do not realize how honorable you have been. My final thought is this: I'm done fighting. Delete me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Right now, I'm going to quote rule 12 of the Simplified Ruleset:

Ignore all rules - rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. When a rule seems wrong, and it prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, ignore it.Bethaltohistorian 08:49, 30 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 Nomination Withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)

[edit] The Woodlands Mall

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

Up for deletion based on the notion that malls, unlike high schools, are not inherently notable. Also, being "one of the largest" malls in a city does not give it any more notability than any other building that might be "one of the largest" of its kind in a given city Corpx 17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. 40,300 ghits, but it doesn't cite anything and is a substub. If anyone and expand it and establish notability, weak keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rewrite made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No valid assertion of notability Lurker 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dalejenkins 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I rewrote the article, adding much more information. It's still a stub, but notability is now established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The size of a mall should not be criteria for inclusion. This would mean any building above <arbitrary size> would be notable among the buildings in the same category. Any police station bigger than __-sqft would be notable and any firehouse that houses more than __ firetrucks would be notable or any jail that has more than ___ cells would be notable. I think the inclusion criteria for malls should be based more on History/ultimate size (biggest in the state/nation)/attractions and similiar factors. Corpx 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think you may have put that comment in the wrong place. Personally, I agree with you, that malls of a certain size aren't inherently notable -- but I believe that the article now sufficiently states notability beyond square footage (e.g. first Vans store in Houston, children's museum, 1.4 mile waterway in outdoor section, etc. etc.). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the stores/officies a mall houses should be a reason to consider a mall notable. However, I think having the waterway of that kind makes it unique and sets it apart from other malls. Thanks for expanding the article. I'll withdraw this nomination tomorrow, so anyone who wants to leave comments can do so. Corpx 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think the bar for auto-notability is super-regional, either way, TenPound's rewrite fits. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete: Most of the actual news coverage of the existence of the mall seems to be endless repetitions of press releases. Is there anything else to say?--Pleasantville 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Of course, neither malls nor high schools are intrinsically notable. To a certain extent notability of malls does correlate with size--the largest ones are likely to have the most public attention and consequently notable events & features and acceptable sources. This is over the bar. DGG 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you; however, this is not one of the largest malls in the nation. Corpx 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think he's aware of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:02, 29 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. Wizardman 16:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolson's Cafe

Nicolson's Cafe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable and unsourced cafe. JK Rowling wrote some of a book there once, big deal. Dalejenkins 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Aside from the JK Rowling reference, this place is no more notable than the gas station down the street from my house. Trusilver 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete places that have some tangential connection with somebody notable doing a little bit of notable thing there doesn't necessarily become notable. If they turn the place into a museum for JK Rowling, and lots of WP:RSes cover that, come back. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support The lack of references is a serious problem, (surely easy to fix) but the cafe itself is considerably more notable than a great deal that escapes deletion eslewhere in this encyclopedia. I don't think writing Harry Potter is simply 'a little bit of notable thing' even for non-fans. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This Cafe was quite notable in Edinburgh for it's connection with Rowling. I've seen it mentioned in a few articles about her. See this article from The Scotsman. Leithp 12:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm sure that there's a gas station off the freeway that J.K. Rowling once took a leak at. Is it notable? Because that's the only thing which gives this place any notability at all. It is an absolutely unremarkable place. Trusilver 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was a petrol station toilet where someone wrote one of the best selling books of all time, then yeah, it would be notable. Leithp 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Being serious though, I would happily change my position to support if she had written the majority of the story there. The truth is though that this is a business which doesn't even exist anymore where J.K. Rowling wrote an unspecified part of her first book. There are masses of authors that wrote their first book in poverty and I really enjoy reading the stories about them, but that doesn't mean that the place she wrote part of her first book warrants anything other than a mention in her own article. Trusilver 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Unless sources are added to show it received truely remorkable attention as a result of Rowling's work there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. -- Leithp 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into J. K. Rowling or Harry Potter. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep For its connection to a very notable series of books Lurker (talk · contribs) 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - umpteen cafes lay claim to HP, including the Elephant House. --MacRusgail 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to HP connection. The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Herald write about the connection. [14] [15]--Oakshade 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't warrant its own article. The cafes with HP connections are already mentioned in other articles. Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Chosson

The result was DELETE has already been sent to the transwiki queue at wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or translation tool, and an article on Jewish views of marriage is more encyclopedic than a single sentence/dictionary definition on a foreign language term.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is not a Hebrew/English dictionary. Chesdovi 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--DLand^TALK 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Transwikify - so tagged. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Is a transwiki even appropriate for this entry? As a Hebrew word, its main entry in Wiktionary should be in the Hebrew alphabet. I couldn't find a clear explanation of Wiktionary's policy on this. --Metropolitan90 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Expand. There are special laws concerning a Chosson in halacha, which should be mentioned in this article. If not, then the article is merely translating a dictionary term and should only be transwikied or deleted. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bridegroom on the en wp, Hatan on the he wp, 'Chosson' can go to the yi wp. --Shuki 07:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Expand per Rachak --Shuliavrumi 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect - What little there is belongs in Jewish views of marriage—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as already transwikied. theProject 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no content.--Sefringle^Talk 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Elipongo GabrielF 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no content and this is not a ditionary. --Jayrav 03:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ResCom

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

Another WP:WALL like PSU organization. The computer support organization of a university is not notable of its own encyclopedia entry The Evil Spartan 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as non-notable. I reject the blanket assertion that "the computer support organization of a university is not notable" but this article does not present any real evidence establishing that this particular organization is notable. --ElKevbo 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per ElKevbo. Perhaps this article deserves a bilp in the Pennsylvania State University article, but there is nothing here that established notability by itself. Trusilver 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- every college has such a system. Otherwise, merge with the parent article. Bearian 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:11, 30 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 as a POV fork/original synthesis. --Coredesat 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling

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

This article was created by Libertycookies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) after extensive discussions at J. K. Rowling, in which most of the content is already there and other content was deleted on the basis of violation of WP:OR. The article was previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_and_influences_of_J.K._Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork and merge any useful content to J. K. Rowling as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per Jossi. Utterly obvious WP:OR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything on this article is well cited and from legitimate sources. user: Jossi is advocating for the deletion of this material for unknown personal reasons. user:Jossi originally claimed this was a POV fork, apparantly on the mistaken belief that it is meant to confuse people with the biography J. K. Rowling. A main article link has been added to redirect any people searching for the more general biography. This article is merely a longer article on Rowling's influence and activism than would be appropriate in the main biography. user:Jossi has also engaged in an intimidation campaign to suppress information on Rowling's liberal views and activism suggesting that this may be politically motivated. The content user: Jossi claims as WP:OR is well documented and from legitimate sources indicating that his OR claim has no basis in fact. An indication of user:Jossi's bias is shown in his attempt to compare Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling with the new article Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling which has no WP:OR and is NPOV, and has been well received by unbiased editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycookies (talk • contribs)

• Retain article as it is a more concise summary of all of J. K. Rowling's well documented political activities and moral writings. As everything is well sourced, there is no damage by keeping the information available for other editors to build upon., Add link in main article to Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling, Remind User:Jossi of his responsibilities as an admin to remain unbiased. Libertycookies 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and redirect then protect POV fork, OR, major WP:OWN issues. It's a personal blog post on Wikimedia servers. Lurker 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rename to Influence of, activism is not releavnt as a title, SqueakBox 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Libertycookies appears to be indulging in canvassing. I thought people should know Lurker 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be quite an understatement. Libertycookies has canvassed all over the place: KnowledgeOfSelf, Jreferee, Andysoh, Bigdaddy1981, SqueakBox, Tony1, Etcetc, yet another blatant violation of the rules. Aula^TPN 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that seems a little out of the time sequence. But to clarify it is roughly the same amount of Canvassing by Seren back when he rallied folks originally. No telling if he ever got email working to be more covert in canvassing. Aula, you seem to have a personal vendetta. Get over it and just discuss the content. Libertycookies 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, hence my being here, SqueakBox 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem Lurker, just to clarify, I learned the technique from user:Serendipodous who recruited user:Jossi and other commenters to rally against my content based on their definition of OR and POV. Doesn't look like the process is frowned upon, just controversial, but I think we should have a fair debate. You okay with that, or should only the negative position be allowed to canvass?Libertycookies 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with people asking admins for help, which is what Serendipodous actually did Lurker 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are okay with 1 of the solicits, but you don't like the majority of his calls for backup. Libertycookies 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What calls for backup? The only one engaging in WP:CANVASS is you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Serendipodous merely asked for support in policing the unsourced edits you were making to the main article in order to keep it compliant with WP:BLP Aula^TPN 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Only clarifying the slander. Anytime you wish to stop spinning the prior actions it would be appreciated. Libertycookies 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, the calls for backup are the ones that AulaTPN is attempting to defend. I think he contacted you as well because he found you to be sympathetic to his views. Check your talk page if you don't remember. Libertycookies 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Libertycookies, it might not be a bad idea to take a step back and breathe. Your comments are unconstructive and are borderline personal attacks. Wikipedia functions on consensus, not on intimidation or grandstanding. There is no need for rhetoric or soapboxing on either side, the system will work as it's supposed to. Trusilver 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt this time. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for JK Rowling to spout off her numerous political opinions. And by the way Libertycookies, the only person I see that is being deliberately POV is you. Trusilver 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Jossi appears to be trying to keep impartial comments on the deletion of this article by deleting links to the article from the main page. Makes the whole POV Fork seem less credible. Libertycookies 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it this time as you can well see. I did so because it violates so many policies and has no place being associated with article. Again, try not to make ad hominem attacks and also try not to assume you can read the motives behind other people's actions. Aula^TPN 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete & Protect. This is Libertycookies (talk · contribs) second attempt to circumvent consensus. Last time resulted in a blatant circumvention of AfD as the user merged the content into the main J. K. Rowling article, hence my vote for protection. Material is almost entirely OR, violates WP:BLP and is a blatant attempt at quote-mining and POV pushing. Aula^TPN 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, looking at this user's contribs, the account seems to be virtually a single purpose account, only making edits which relate to the supposed political & social influences of J. K. Rowling as per the user's research. Aula^TPN 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No doubt about it in my mind, this is clearly OR. Blueboar 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Clear attempt at circumventing previous article deletion and consensus to remove similar content on J.K. Rowling. Also violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete & protect -- reposting of previously deleted content, violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. If this article is deleted, as it should be, Libertycookies needs to be sternly warned to adhere to our content policies and to stop POV-forking. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per Jossi. Other well-known artists support many causes, and their activist activities are included in their main bios. I see no reason this case should be different. The most notable examples should be merged into the Rowling bio. -Jmh123 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The unencyclopedic part is the WOMBAT tests; the remained is sourced. I see no BLP issues--it describes where she stands on public issues basedon her own public statements. DGG 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WOMBAT removed and added to talk. There are other sources and quotes that describe her politics in the books which would be less contentious. Libertycookies 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The content that is well sourced is already incorporated at J. K. Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- for all the reasons the previous version of this article was deleted. This is an attempt to fork off material from the main page because it has been rejected there. Unacceptable. --Haemo 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge a little of what is in this section into J.K. Rowling and delete the rest. The first half of the article is not encyclopaedic (nor relevant to the title). Some of the second half is over-detailed: not everything done by a notable person becomes noteworthy. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Main article already covers this topic well, no need for a POV fork. CWC 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The "Christianity" section has been merged with Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series and the "Human rights and civil rights" section has been merged with Works analogous to Harry Potter. Apart from that, the only section in this article that isn't in the main article (aside from the WOMBATs, which everyone seems to agree should be deleted) is "Maggie's Centres for cancer patients", and that could be merged with "Other donations" or given its own subsection in Charities. Serendipodous 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As Serendipodous and Jossi point out, little if any of this material is OR. The article merely consolidates related material that is spread out on several differant articles and sections to allow the reader to make cohesive sense of the topic. It is my intention to go into greater detail, with approved quotes and hopefully other editor contributions, than would be appropriate in the main article, which should be a more cursory look at her influence.

Rowling's influence as a writer is significantly greater than other writers due to her widespread popularity, which is why the significance of the books should be acknowledged.Libertycookies 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But virtually all this info is already in various articles so why is this article necessary? Serendipodous 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

An equally valid question is why is it necessary to delete it and keep the information scattered and diffuse? Being in favor of making things easy for the reader who is interested in Rowling's influence and activism, I think it should be consolidated.

Also since the material is sometimes contentious, I think the talk should be moved from the main J. K. Rowling site to an article dedicated to the subject. Stamp the whole article as in dispute if you must, but why is it necessary to limit discussion and snuff it out immediately? Libertycookies 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. It's an encyclopedia. One person's take on JK Rowling's career (yours) isn't a valid topic for an article. You could write it in a magazine, or a blog, or a news piece, or an editorial, but not here.

Plus you make a number of odd and flat out contradictory claims. Your line "There is a lot of politics in Harry Potter" is sourced by Rowling saying "There is a certain amount of political stuff in there. But I also feel that every reader will bring his own agenda to the book. People who send their children to boarding schools seem to feel that I'm on their side. I'm not. Practicing wiccans think I'm also a witch. I'm not." In other words, there is very little overt politics in the books, and people will read their own politics into her work. Which, by the way, appears to be exactly what you have done. Serendipodous 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - with some editorial Comments: If any encyclopedic material remains in the POV-Fork that does not appear in the Main J.K. Rowling article, then merge that information back in. The original consensus back at the J.K. Rowling talk page called for LibertyCookies to produce a simple paragraph or two of some basic sourced material regarding Rowling's notable and documented political leanings. That permissive mandated that any such material must NOT contain any sort of POV, Original Research, point-making or, in particular, Argument Synthesis. But the material inevitably consisted of mostly synthesis and point-making, eg: Rowling is or was in some way associated with a Person or other Entity, or read their work, or contributed to it, or wrote about it, (etc.), and such Person or Entity is a known or suspected to be associated with some political affiliation "X" or "Y" , therefore (implicitely) Rowling is also "X" and "Y". It may well be that Rowling is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Fascist/Leftist/Laborist/Environmentalist/Satanist/Whatever, and if so and it can be sourced, then state that and be done with it. One paragraph and done. There is absolutely no cause for producing a laundry list of indirect tie-ins between Rowling and her alleged political leanings or sympathies, via her associations. Find a reliable source that quotes Rowling as saying "Yes I am a Socialist and contribute to the Green Party" or whatever, and then leave it. Done. Keep it simple and it will be accepted as encyclopedic. Dragging it out with 12 paragraphs of possible links between Rowling and "X" and "Y" and therefore Rowling = "XY" is unacceptable. And attempting to use her tongue-in-cheek "in-(HP)-universe" WOMBAT quiz, which she posted for amusement on her web site, as "evidence" of her political leanings, is really just sad. It is the sort of thing that is leading the nearly-snow drive to stamp this thing out once and for all. That said, I believe there is room for a paragraph or two in Rowling's article about her documented politics and beliefs. There is no need for an article which constituted a POV Fork. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, claiming to understand why Rowling posted the WOMBAT test is your POV. The test merely showed that the books have political content in them, and the article did not attempt to analyze what, if any, real world analogies exist. The article didn't claim any tie ins with any of her charities or activities to her politics, and if any Right wing associations exist they should certainly be added. Libertycookies 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I would agree that we can post a simple list (in the Main J.K. Rowling article), carefully avoiding any POV commentary and OR synthesis about her possible motivations, of the Causes that Rowling specifically mentions support for on her web site or elsewhere. This list could include: Thinness ("For Girls Only"), One-parent families, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Scotland, Amnesty International, Cage Beds, Missing Madeline McCann, Children's Voice campaign, even bullied children and perhaps Thin Girls and Fat Boys if you want to go there. I'm sure there are additional published reliable sources for other causes she has advocated, which can then be added to the list. When compeleted, I think a bullet-pointed list, without editorial comment, of the 10 or 12 causes she has expressed support for would be sufficient to cover that. The second paragraph can be a quote or two where Rowling clearly expresses her political leanings and religious beliefs as expressed in her interviews or elsewhere. That should be sufficient for documenting her activism and personal politics, in my view. You have to understand this problem was kicked off with previous commentary that expressed or implied things like "Rowling supports Anarchy in her books and elsewhere", based on: 1) the OOtP movie poster says "The Revolution Begins", and 2) the Hogwarts Students took matters into their own hands in terms of DADA training (etc.) when Dumbledore's "benevolent dictatorship" as Headmaster is circumvented and replaced by Umbridge's "non-benevolant and fascist dictatorship" or whatever. Everything since has descended and snowballed from that sort of nonsense. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions, and I agree that my prior article was way over the top and warranted deletion. I realize that there is a certain amount of prejudice against my contributions because of my prior mistakes. I am hopeful that more people will get over the ad hominem attacks and debate the current material not the contributor. Libertycookies 12:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Concede majority rules, delete it. I'll add the content that is unique to the main article. Thanks to the few people who noted the content wasn't all OR and was well sourced. Wag of the finger at those who engaged in ad hominem attacks and apologies for following suit. Libertycookies 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wag of the finger...? Normally I don't go in for troll-feeding but you're the one making personal attacks and the fact that you can still make such comments and make claims such as in your response to T-dot just shows how little you understand/care about what wikipedia is about and what the editing community are trying to do. Other editors and I have given you links to all the relevant policies countless times but I'm starting to seriously doubt whether you've even bothered to read any of them? Aula^TPN 23:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for WP:OR, plus for WP:N, Rowling's political opinions not in themselves being notable for an article. — BillC ^talk 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyi, from the Telegraph review of the new Order of the Phoenix movie: "It is hard not to look for hidden meanings as the fight turns political. Harry knows Voldemort is back, but the Minister of Magic blindly insists that he isn't. Subservient media obediently echo ministerial spin against Harry."[16] Libertycookies 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean this stuff desrves its own article, though Lurker 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Uninteresting and unnecessary articles should be allowed to die from neglect and lack of interest, not by abortion. Libertycookies 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, things just don't work that way when WP:BLP is involved. Aula^TPN 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. ArchStanton 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork--Sefringle^Talk 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by an amused reader: there's section on how she successfully pressed government of the Czech Republic against caged beds in mental institutions. While this is true it is only half of truth: the decision was widely ridiculed in the country (like whether some child book writer is our new ruler), the minister who made it soon lost his place, the decision itself was partly reverted, president of the country sent R. complaning letter, few months ago R., visiting the Czech Rep., apologised for the pressure. The complete story feels like a comedy by someone very talented, the current short section is painting only one-side of it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phroth

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

This is a non-notable magazine that is published at Penn State. While I think it's a lovely and funny magazine, it's published by a non-notable fraternity (well, perhaps notable, but not of a Wikipedia entry) - it's a magazine we only see bi-annually. The Evil Spartan 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete student activity at a single school. The opening sentence "Phroth is one of over 600 recognized student organizations at the University Park campus..." Sort of illustrates how unreasonable it would be for all such student groups to have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above comment. Nothing notable about it. Adrian M. H. 22:30, 30 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 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navajo jewelry

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

Reads like an advert. Was previously speedily deleted as spam. There is nothing about this reposted article to suggest any different intention to the original deleted article. I Suggest deletion and protection Lurker 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam created by spa Ntourism. -- RHaworth 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ad, but allow for recreation, there is most definitely an article with this title waiting to be written. Corvus cornix 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The only thing that is stopping this article from being complete adspam is an external link to a commercial site. Trusilver 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and agree that we should not salt this, as the same title can easily apply to a different, legitimate subject matter. Adrian M. H. 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but agree with Corvus cornix and Adrian M. H. on recreation with legitimate (non-ad) info. Oregongirl0407 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete - sockpuppet's hoax page.-Wafulz 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speechless / The Morning Zoo

Speechless / The Morning Zoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoax article about an episode of Naruto that doesn't exist. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:58, 28 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 per (1) DGG's argument, which most everyone seems to accept; and (2) the improvements to the article since it was nominated. Non-admin closure because it's not controversial and we have a backlog today. Shalom ^Hello 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clément Gosselin

Clément_Gosselin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete. Subject is not more notable than any other of 20,000 revolutionary soldiers. If him, why not the whole officer corps? Interesting bio, but looks like somebody's ancestor. In other words, this is s genealogy page for somebody.Student7 11:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep yes, he was somebody's ancestor, as are most historical figures who didn't die in childhood. But the suspicious-looking link to the family web page is actually to a transcript of the entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biiogrtaphy So the main source for this is Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which we have accepted before as evidence of notability, as with those for other countries. (I admit that their standards seem a little more flexible than the oxford DNB) Based on their article,"Thus from the summer of 1778 until the summer of 1780 Gosselin returned secretly to the colony a number of times, spreading the rumour that an invasion by the Congressional armies was imminent and that this time they would be accompanied by French regiments.." He seems to have been a notable spy. The article, in apparently machine-translated French, does not really show the notability clearly. (It leaves to a footnote that he figured in a major CBC series)DGG
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. I liked the article. Callelinea 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because you like something doesn't mean we should have an article on it. So you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP First of all thank you Callelinea and DGG for your support :-). As for Morgan and Student7, I totally agree with you that I'm not objective. But I let people correct me and I don't argue when they do. The 2nd Canadian Regiment article was done by an Army Captain currently in Irak, others people are investigating french canadian in the West during the revolution. Comments I get are that this is interesting. I totally agree that my pages are not perfect yet and that I need your help. And if you keep this one page I will put all information about his spy activity. This spy action was important because it made the British stayed in quebec fearing an attack. Clément was also a founding member of the Order of Cincinati with Steuben. So he was not an ordinary soldier. Clément repport was ask by congress and sent to Georges Washington, he did not just spread rumor (even if those action did a lot to worried Haldimand) but he also provided many information on the state of the British in the North (we still have is repport in the Washington paper). They also built a military road to worried the British in the North. As for point of view I agree that this regiment is hard to name. Were they american, canadian, french ? He was much more then just a spy, he was a recruting agent for 2 regiment in Quebec. Contributing to Saratoga and Brandywine actions. for the Family bio it's true that the link is a copy, I'll remove it if you keep the article. Coming into Quebec when you are notoriously not welcome is the stuff that James Bond was doing :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etienne2007 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Officer of no particular distinction. Even as a spy, he isn't notable. Spreading rumors? Not exactly James Bond or Mata Hari. Clarityfiend 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am willing to concede that inclusion in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography = Sufficiently notable for people of Gosselin's vintage - heck, people with some selection criteria selected him to write about and wrote about him nearly 200 years after he died, this is more than a flash in the pan (or media spotlight were this guy just dead and the "scandal" of his career splashed across the press). Carlossuarez46 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Dictionary of Canadian Biography is relatively select in whom it features. This man is notable enough that scholars are writing about him 200 years after he died, which makes me think he passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 05:42, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shannon Perrine

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

I'm not satisfied that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. The article does make two claims of notability; namely, that Perrine is "part of the team" that helped her station win some awards. However, without knowing her precise involvement, it's not possible to say whether her role was at all notable. Apart from the awards, there's no evidence that she's the subject of multiple, independent published works. Finally, this article was created and authored entirely by a WP:SPA who is likely Perrine herself (see Image:Final Perrine Shannon .jpg for the admission) which leads one to suspect WP:COI issues. —Psychonaut 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it does assert notability, and she appears to be notable, although a fan (relative by affinity?) seems to be editing the article. However, all WP:POV and WP:COI statements must be removed ASAP. See also at WP:COIN for further discussion. Bearian 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Assertions of notability" are not grounds for keeping, merely for not speedy deleting. Corvus cornix 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, you are correct! Bearian 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. Videmus Omnia 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete it asserts notability clearly enough, but as Corvus says, that's just the condition for avoiding speedy, not for keeping the article. Her role at WTEA may possibly have been significant for the award, since she was an anchor at the time. (Amid all the irrelevant stuff abut her ancestors, the article does not mention the actual award--from the Murrow web site [17] , it was the 2004 National award for Continuing Coverage,TV large market: WTAE-TV, Pittsburgh: "Hepatitis Outbreak.")
• Weak KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please discuss the merits of this article. Corvus cornix 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even her article on WTEA's site doesn't assert any notability. Clarityfiend 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete local talking heads are rarely notable, she's no exception. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am the author of this article, and I am not Ms. Perrine. I am not a fan or relative either. This article is simply my first foray into wikipedia authorship. I gathered the information by corresponding with Ms. Perrine, and I also got the picture from her. If I have mischaracterized the ownership of the picture, I am happy to correct that. As for meeting Wikipedia:Notability, I am trying to assemble that additional information at this time. Gmanhoobie 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 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 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandhan

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

There is no indication why this group should pass WP:MUSIC ; in particular, I did not find any albums they released, or tours they had. PROD was contested in June 06 with comment: "prod wasn't mentioned in edit summary + Google results in English/Latin alphabet may not be enough to establish non-notability of a Bengali band". I tried to address this concern by involving WikiProject India, but this did not turn up any relevant data either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I did a google search and found no evidence that the band exists in the first sixty hits. This link [18] doesn't really seem like the same band. The article doesn't mention any discography but "Reiki Music for Healing" doesn't seem like the work of these guys--the article would have us believe that they like to rock. I think Uppland's argument in removing the prod (mentioned above, in the nom) only makes sense up to a certain point--articles have to be verifiable and this one doesn't offer any sources. Darkspots 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Darkspots 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I found the same paucity of relevant results, and it certainly fails WP:MUSIC based on available information. Adrian M. H. 22:46, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealist groups

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

Not an article, but a list. The external links section is a link farm, and there are concerns about the notability of some of the groups with Wikipedia articles. The article is getting edit warring by rival artists, if you can believe that. (I know, edit warring is not a valid rationale for deletion.) Whatever useful purpose this article/list serves can be accomplished by creating Category:Surrealist groups. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree 100% with --Akhilleus. The article serves no purpose except as a link farm and an opportunity for Eric W.Bragg, who is Wikipedia user TEXTURE SAVANT to promote his friends in surrealist groups that are non-notable and whose articles were already voted for deletion by an overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. I do not want to engage in an edit war with Eric W.Bragg, (TEXTURE SAVANT), he has his own website, SURREALCOCONUT.COM to promote his friends. Wikipedia is NOT the place for online promotion. These are blogs, not notable groups, just more promotion. Delete.Madsurrealist 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Madsurrealist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

• Delete If a new article is created Category:Surrealist groups with these important links, then I am okay with deleting the present article. Akhilleus, if you bother to check these links, you will learn that they are to valid websites for current surrealist groups. Not a linkfarm.

Let it be known that this user Madsurrealist is really another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who was also busted recently for having a multitude of sockpuppets a few months ago (Classicjupiter2) Here is the proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2

Madsurrealist/Classicjupiter2/Keith Wigdor has fought all along for the removal of these groups just because he couldn't have his own vanity article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

IF KEITH WIGDOR CAN'T HAVE HIS OWN NAME AND WEBSITE MENTIONED IN WIKIPEDIA, THEN NOBODY ELSE CAN EITHER. Such is Wigdor's infantile mindset.

Therefore, Keith Wigdor's motive is entirely self-serving and nothing but a case of sour grapes.--TextureSavant 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please discuss the merits of this article, not the motivations of the person nominating it. It will be up to those who participate in this discussion to decide whether the article merits retention. Making personal attacks just damages your cause. Explain why the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An article about surrealist groups might have at least a fighting chance, but one that's just a list of external links? No way. Covered in WP:NOT a web guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Penguinate. (Er, delete.) Already covered by Category:Surrealist groups. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zetawoof. Saganaki- 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Surrealism#Surrealist groups and anything that should be ext-linked to Surrealism#External links. Then redirect to either the 1st merge-target or the category. Seems obvious. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and m:Mergism. --Quiddity 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The real surrealist groups of 1930s would be interesting, the current linsking is just spam. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on some of the links and they don't even work. Some sites have been removed offline.Madsurrealist 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abi Nixon

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

Article about minor character in a series who has yet to make her debut. I PRODded the article but the tag was removed without discussion. I believe the information should be merged into The Bill article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Article has been renamed. I have ProDded the renamed article so suggest this AfD is halted. Not sure if I should simply delete this whole section - advice please? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The re-named article has been deleted. Precious Roy 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee heritage groups

Cherokee heritage groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Spin-off article (POV Fork?) from debate at Talk:Cherokee, but no evidence that such thing exists. 0 ghits. Non-notable organizations of this type seem to have websites, such as this Cherokee heritage msn group. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a second nomination, previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Heritage Groups.

At the articles talk page, we can read that the article was formed based on the following statement:

"There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation (the one based here in Tahlequah, at the W.W. Keeler Tribal Complex).

"Only three are federally recognized, but the other groups run the gamut of intent. Some are basically heritage groups – people who have family with Cherokee heritage who are interested in the language and culture, and we certainly encourage that," said Miller. "But the problem is when you have groups that call themselves ‘nation,’ or ‘band,’ or ‘tribe,’ because that implies governance."

Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or de-POV. This sure looks like a POV fork, and as such I lean towards deletion. On the other hand, the subject of persons/groups who identify as Cherokee but are not recognized as such by the Cherokee Nation or the U.S. government seems like a valid encyclopedic topic, so if it's possible to make this an NPOV article, spun out from Cherokee in compliance with summary style (and perhaps with a different title like Cherokee identity), then I could be persuaded that it should be kept. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee identity was deleted as a POV Fork of this a couple days ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee identity. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would preclude the creation of a new Cherokee identity that wasn't a POV fork. It looks like the ongoing mediation at Talk:Cherokee is probably the best place to determine whether there should be a sub-article on this topic, and what the contents and titles of those articles should be. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a ways into the process of creating just such a page, and agree that there's no conflict between the pages, or need for POV forking. The old article could hardly even be assailed as original research; it was so devoid of sourcing or verifiability that you'd never be able to tell what was original. But it need not be that way. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article is Original Research claiming non-Indians are indians. Nominator refuses to comply with the terms of a previously decided arbitration. This article was created to attempt to provide a place for these types of materials to exist. Since the nominator has stated they will continue to oppose adherence with Wikipedia Policies and Federal Laws in this area, and continues to place unverifiable original research into our project claiming non-Indians are Indians, deletion and removal of all such materials seems the best course. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - You are accusing the person who nominated the article of acting in bad faith despite your own support of the nomination, which is rather baffling. Are you aiming your WP:ABF at the intended target? But if you do think he or she is disregarding an arbitration decision that governs this discussion, can you provide a link to that arbitration case so we can all get a better idea of how we might be constrained in our possible courses of action? Article seems to be relatively well-sourced, so any original research problems are not endemic. It also seems to be pretty careful about not making its own claims that "non-Indians are Indians", but rather describing the claims that the groups themselves are making, along with describing any opposition to those claims. You seem to be objecting to a different article than the one under discussion, if one takes your comments at face value; or perhaps you are simply using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the above argument is an attempt to show that a particular ethnic identity does not have any foundation in fact. But it there are people who claim such identity, and there are sources for people making such claims,, then the subject is notable. The question of the validity of the claims is an editing question. The very quotation used in the nom. shows the notability. "There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation" Miller apparently doesn't think all of them--or perhaps any of them -- genuine, but that doesn't affect the importance of the subject.DGG 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The above comment demonstrates complete and total ignorance of Native American History and the laws associated with Indians. Cherokee Identity is a political and not racial distinction and always has been. Even even someone claims Cherokee ancestry, they must be able to prove it. If they are not members of a tribe, then there are no rolls from which to trace ancestry. People who have watched too many Hollywood movies have this mistaken perception. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - While this may be true, it is an argument for a different article. Cherokee heritage groups themselves aren't notable. People of Cherokee heritage who are not a part of federally recognized tribes may be encyclopedic, as Akhilleus suggests, but they do not take part in groups of this sort in notable numbers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per reasons of DGG above. -SESmith 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The Cherokee Nation spokesman uses the term "heritage groups", so the article title seems pretty NPOV to me. Plus, it's a pretty effective way of describing groups who identify themselves with a Cherokee heritage without implying that they have gained federal recognition. Although individual groups might not be notable themselves, it is surely a notable fact that there are so many groups that align themselves with Cherokee heritage despite lacking federal recognition. I think it's very useful for Wikipedia to describe these groups in the aggregate, the nature of their claims to Cherokee heritage, and the legal, political, financial, and cultural ramifications of such claims. The article is not a true POV fork because it treats a more specific subject (the various groups and their claims on Cherokee heritage) rather than simply representing a different view of the same subject (Cherokee). Cherokee heritage groups, for instance, does not discuss general Cherokee history, the language, or famous Cherokees. The only significant overlap is on the question of recognition, but that's what I'd expect from what's essentially a spinoff from the main Cherokee article, as that's the natural point for it to spin off. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is the most accurate appraisal I have seen so far. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested deletion based on the premise that these groups are not notable, even in aggregate (where are the reliable sources talking about them, or is Miller the only one?). I have suggested the creation of an article along the lines of DGG's comment or moving this article to a broader title, and I respect that this suggestion has not been widely accepted for legal reasons. Most of the content of this article comes from a subsection of Cherokee that was written with that article (about all people claiming to be Cherokee who aren't recognized) in mind, thus the sources are talking about something different than the article title.

The POV part comes in because of this limited scope. The reason the limited scope is accepted, and not the larger one, is that there is a Cherokee Nation spokesman who has talked about "heritage groups." However, this is the only source that talks about the limited scope, all of the other sources talk about the larger population of Cherokee who are not recognized. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG and alanyst.--JayJasper 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 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 per clear consensus and WP:SNOWBALL. Talk page also deleted. -- Karada 22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pork salcho

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

This appears to be a joke. Google searching (web, book) yields nothing to indicate this is a dish with the notability given in this article. It also appears that a previous article by the same title was speedily deleted. Evil1987 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Served in many mexican countries? Correct me if I'm wrong but last I counted there was only one Mexican country. Anyway, as the nom states, there is no evidence of notability for this dish, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Total nonsense. StudierMalMarburg 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing on Google, WP:NOT a cookbook even if this is true. NawlinWiki 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as said above, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, assuming the meal exists. Acalamari 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bearian 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very real dish. I serve them all the time at work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PorkSalcho (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. It's an absolutely hilarious article, but it most definitely is a hoax. Absolutely zero hits on google, and no dictionary reference to salacho. Trusilver 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparent hoax by single purpose account whose only edit other than to this article and this AfD was a lame sex-related vandalism of an article on an underaged girl. --Charlene 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- no evidence any such thing exists. -- Karada 10:23, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moorpark airsoft

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

The entire page is incoherent, unreferenced, spammy, non-notable original research. It's an article - get this - about an Internet messageboard about a airsoft/paintball club, or something similar. Strong delete as failing WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, etc.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. In fact, this page is bordering on complete bollocks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete; is a vanity page for an internet forum, a non-notable one at that. LiamUK 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable webforum. NawlinWiki 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any notablity for it. Acalamari 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable; very few ghits. John Vandenberg 01:25, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bradach Racing, Inc.

Bradach Racing, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

POV article with probable spam/self-promotion intententions. Doesn't really say if this group is noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 2007/06/27 16:46:11

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete poorly written attempt at vanispamcruftisementBigdaddy1981 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the interests of transparancy I make the following Comment --- this article and its sister article were both created by single use accounts - Thelms and Poolecharlotte - I strongly suspect vanity and/or sockpuppetry. Bigdaddy1981 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:25, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kashif Memon

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

Non-notable dancer who auditioned for America's Got Talent. Right now, I don't think this man should have an article just yet. I feel the same way about the article about The Duttons. When these two acts are actually finalists or something, then they can have an article. But not now.

• Delete - Non-notable performer and no credible points of refrence (spelled wrong) to back up the article. Fanficgurl 5:21 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree. Right now it is just some guy that has been on TV. Hasn't done anything notable. Not only that, but it is blatant advertising to vote for the guy.--Kranar drogin 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete low notability, no external coverage & plenty of OR. — Scientizzle 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly Bradach

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

POV article with probable spam/self-promotion intententions. Doesn't really say if this person is notable. Also appears to be cut and pasted from here

• Delete both. Self-promotion, not notable (what differentiates this from thousands of other short-track racing outfits?), sounds like a news release. Realkyhick 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both --- poorly written attempt at vanispamcruftisement.Bigdaddy1981 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the interests of transparancy I make the following Comment --- this article and its sister article were both created by single use accounts - Thelms and Poolecharlotte - I strongly suspect vanity and/or sockpuppetry. Bigdaddy1981 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also WP:COI, WP:SPA. Bearian 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 72.204.22.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing this entry from the Articles for deletion page, and has removed the AfD tag from the Kimberly Bradach article itself. Corvus cornix 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cougar vision

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

No reliable sources provided that would help establish notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is an in-school television station. It's notable within the walls of the school, nowhere else. If it really uses true (expensive) DTV equipment, it might be notable, but if it's digital over IP, I believe there's a place called YouTube that's done it before. Acroterion _(talk) 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - schoolcruft suitable for Myspace not wikipedia Bigdaddy1981 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 30 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. --Coredesat 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nursing diagnoses

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

Unsourced list of "diagnoses" that are vague in the extreme. Seem to have originated from NANDA (but not sourced to any official document). Surplanted by Category:Nursing diagnoses. Delete. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While I personally identify with Dr. Wolff's characterization of the nursing diagnoses as "vague in the extreme" (the whole point of NANDA is to make nurses feel like they're doing something unique, something that is outside the strictly objective medical realm), this list is still an important article to have, considering NANDA's impact. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced properly, but still should stay.--DLand^TALK 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no useful context here, and to say the list is confusing to the average reader would be an understatement. There's no stated inclusion criteria either. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say whether or not a list would be warranted at all, so cleanup might be an option, but given the current state of the article the only suggestion I can make is to delete. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Nursing diagnosis and clean up. Clarityfiend 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/merge I'm not sure if the content is encyclopedic, but it is certainly not appropriate for a separate article.DGG 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I firmly believe that what nurses do is unique and vital to good healthcare - but this is just a long, unsourced list of diagnoses, many of which are nebulous and ill-defined - as has been said above. Nmg20 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Nursing Diagnosis and clean up. This list is an important resource to nurses who create care plans for specific patient problems. The list is of only those specific diagnoses recognized by NANDA. While the idea of nursing diagnoses may be unpopular and underutilized in the clinical setting, they serve as an important tool in the academic setting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Foiltape (talk • contribs)
• Delete. This is an extremely confusing list of things that don't seem to mesh in any useful way with medicine as most of us know it. If it is to stay, some way of putting it in context is needed. --Markbenjamin 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I would advise against merging given the lack of context. Anyone who can provide context is free to recreate. Further, per the second comment above me, I truly hope that no nurses use Wikipedia to help create patient care plans. Someguy1221 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is, as noted above, not only a vague and unencyclopedic list of nursing 'diagnoses', but it is completely unexplanatory-ie the interested reader can not understand any more about these 'diagnoses' (which look to me more like UK NHS nursing 'risk assessments') after reading the page than from coming to it fresh. In addition it looks very much like it was copied off a nursing educational curriculum or somesuch. Totally useless.FelixFelix ^talk 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Griffin's Daughter

Griffin's Daughter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability, aside from a single quote from a review. As it is just released by a brand-new author, it doesn't appear that notability can be established, at least not yet. Strongly suspect that it is a promotional piece -- the editor is contributing articles only to this subject. -- Merope 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also adding Leslie Ann Moore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). -- Merope 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsourced, Unverifiable, smacks of Recentism. Article creator appears to an SPA that has been spamming new articles related to some not particularly notable publishing company. DarkSaber2k 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish significance. Jay32183 20:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with comment as above, so below. I also suggest looking into the contributions of the author of this article. Many of them, including Avari Press (which is being considered for deletion) revolve around that very small press. I think this might be rampant advertising and COI.--Ispy1981 20:05, 30 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. Some weird cross of trivia, original research and a dictionary definition. Maybe wiktionary would take it.-Wafulz 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown envelope

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article exists solely to define a term. EyeSerene^TALK 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's an envelope and it's brown; there's not much more to say. --kingboyk 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and lack of real notability. Darkspots 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Words fail me on this one... Next week's article: White envelope. Trusilver 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the above. Acalamari 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article uses a connotation that is useful: " It is used in and known in government, business and popular culture as a means to deliver concealed material - bribe money, secret papers or any sort of "under the table" transfer." It is more than a definition. I read a statement on another site about an issue being a "brown envelope" issue which I did not undertand until I came to wikipedia. Thanks.— Rotallad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Of course brown envelopes are used to deliver concealed material, generally the only other option is a white envelope which, being white, aren't as concealing as brown envelopes. And you needed a Wikipedia article to tell you that? I've never heard of a "brown envelope issue" either, I think you made that up. Masaruemoto 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; useless. Masaruemoto 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; it can be expanded.GalacticExplorer 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, rename to brown kraft envelope and do more work on the article. I have added more information about the correct name, at least in the US, for these. Brown kraft envelopes are a specific class of envelopes. They are made from paper that uses the Kraft process, hence the more correct name of brown kraft envelope. In some ways using brown is redundant, however kraft envelopes are now available in other colors, so maybe that is not entirely correct. I'd get some references but I'm rather busy right now. However, a simple search in any US office supply catalog for kraft envelope will bring up numerous matches. Vegaswikian 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  comment - I'm sorry, I'm just unsure where you are trying to go with this. Are your intentions to expand this to other office supplies as well? We can have an article for black bic pens, and black papermate pens and then also the blue bic pens. I'm sorry, but is there really anything that could be placed in this article change you are proposing that either isn't already in Kraft process or could be put in that article? If I'm missing something then say it, I would be happy to change this to a 'keep' position if there was anything here to warrant an article. Right now there's not. Trusilver 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel pitch tape

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

An unreferenced fan piece about a never-aired 6 minute TV clip. (WP:NOT) kingboyk 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:N. Alternatively redirect and merge into Angel (TV series). MartinDK 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't whip out the "c" word often, but this, my friends, is cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of references. I would back the merge proposal if this were referenced material. Darkspots 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:20, 28 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. --Coredesat 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis

One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't find any references to Dr. Malik being associated with the "one gene, one polypeptide" hypothesis, or extending it to "one gene, one amino acid" -- furthermore, I can't find any references to Dr. Malik as a biologist. Google isnt everything, I could be looking in the wrong places though. ArglebargleIV 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The author who created this page was given a notice by removing content from the article he or she created. It doesn't look a good idea to warn the author for fixing his or her own information from the article he or she just started. (Although the warning probably had a reason, he or she removed the tags after all.) About the article, it has even 4 tags of how it lacks the quality of being in Wikipedia, (Noticing that the nominator created the tags.) and the title doesn't really explain a lot about the information in this article. I'd suggest a delete, and if some verifyable information appears, it would be better to use another title anyway. ~Iceshark7 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As the article itself says, "It was first proposed through the famous work of biochemists, Tatum and Beadle," This article is about Malek's unusual rewordings, which seem to be unnoticed. He's real enough, an animal geneticist with 9 papers in PubMed eg [PMID: 15109052], none apparently notable. There could be an article on the subject, which is a notable concept, but the first step would be to remove this one. DGG 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. While the hypothesis may deserve an article, this is not an article about the hypothesis. Dan Gluck 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the arguments above. There's also the slight fact that it's wrong. Someguy1221 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It may be a language barrier issue, but the parts of this that refer to Malek's work sound like scientific nonsense to me. In my opinion, if the topic is going to be covered, it should be under the title "One gene - one enzyme", with significant reference to Beadle & Tatum, some explanation of the molecular basis later discovered, then something about splicing. I can't find this book "Mutations and Beyond", I can't find a single web page mentioning this, without any references I must suspect this stuff associated here with Malek is a fabrication, hoax or OR. It's suspicious that the creator of the article contains the name "Mina". Even if Malek has said something on this subject, it seems to be an individual's rewording and extremely far from being notable. Madeleine 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to one gene one protein hypothesis or one gene one enzyme hypothesis per notability or notability. The validity of the hypothesis is irrelevant considering its historical importance. The text needs serious cleaning up though. Debivort 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The main issue here is the complete lack of confirmable sourcing for any of this. A hypothesis being invalid is relevant when there's no hard evidence that what is written is an accurate portrayal of the theory's evolution. While the theory may be a notable precursor to modern understanding of genetics, this can only be properly written through the use of reliable sources. Someguy1221 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, and so we biologists will--probably the best name is the original: one gene one protein, as it's that formulation which won the Nobel prize. First step, as I think we all agree, is clearing out this one. DGG 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Green

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

This player never played at a professional level (external link in the article states "he did not break into the first team for the Canaries") and therefore does not satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. Prod was contested (by an admin, no less) ChrisTheDude 12:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article says that he is a former professional footballer and played for Norwich City F.C. the article for which says that it is a professional team which played in The Football League 2007-08. You listed it on prod saying "This player has never played at a professional level" and there was no mention that you disputed the fact of the article, only that you found it not notable. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One of the external links in the article states that he never played for Norwich City and that he only ever appeared for their Youth team. Therefore, where "the article says that he is a former professional footballer and played for Norwich City F.C." it is factually incorrect as he has never played at a professional level and he is therefore not notable as he has never played in a fully professional league. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the player never played at a professional level, he does not meet notability requirements. The article appears to have been created by someone who knows him (see his userpage). Seems to me an obvious candidate for deletion.--EH74DK 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No pro appearances.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability. --Angelo 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)