Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 9 November 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Wilton Parr

Gary Wilton Parr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources in article to back up meeting WP:BIO. Gsearch doesn't show notability in first 50+ ghits -- closest to notability is a small mention in a FT article and a passing mention in another business article. A7 Speedy was declined, so I assume a prod will be contested. Fabrictramp 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO --UnleashTheWolves 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An article that is simply a resume. However, there is an assertation of notability (of sort) and some ghits on Google News (Financial Times, New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg) to indicate notability[1]. I favour keep and doing further editorial work on this before making a decision on deletion. --Malcolmxl5 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - Well my line of thinking was that as a "deputy chairman" he's not really "notable" as per WP:BIO is he? I mean, ok he's a businessman, and there's some business articles where he's mentioned, but does that really make him note worthy?? --UnleashTheWolves 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply That's fair enough, UnleashTheWolves. We have slightly different viewpoints: yours is that he is not notable per WP:BIO while mine is, well, he is mentioned in some heavyweight publications, let's do a little more work on this before deciding to delete. Let's see what other people think, I'm happy to go with the consensus. --Malcolmxl5 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Any editing in lieu of deletion must emphasize the issue(s) for which the subject is notable for. Keep in mind of what wikipedia is not (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.) This does not mean Mr. Parr is not suited for Wikinews. If an editor is capable of proving this subject's notability I'm in favor of a keep. However, in order to satisfy WP:BIO standards the editor will need to cite those secondary news sources that establish an historicaly significant context. If Mr. Parr is notable as a "deputy chairman" than Bloomberg, WSJ, etc, would offer implicit reasons explaining why. Did he revolutionize "sell side" practice somehow, for example, as a Dean G. Witter? Was he involved in an historic SEC investigation, such as Ivan Boesky? Or is he even a pseudo-celebrity fixture in in the I-banking community, like John J. Mack? I'm very tempted to vote in favor of a Delete based on my thoguht that he's simply a NN. Malcolmxl5 were you suggesting the article be reworked, or were you also implying that you'd be willing to do the rewriting? True theory 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JONATHAN Go green! 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Keep I do not know what reasons the two above !voters may have had. But I see the articles in major international financial newspapers that consider his appointment to the present position worthy of coverage --and even a quotation, and I accept their definition of notability in the subject. DGG (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - most of the sources linked above only mention him in passing, but it seems to me there's just about enough out there to satisfy WP:RS. The article obviously needs improvement, though. Terraxos 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - looks like it should stay but be improved. DiegoGirl 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. nn. see my reply above. True theory 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because the article is poorly written is no justification to delete. Parr is an influential person who holds powerful positions. The article needs a lot of work. Kingturtle 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Malcolmxl5. John254 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Pigmanwhat?/trail 00:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Newborn

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

Singer, no sources cant find nothing on her i say delete Beck 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite clearly rubbish, I also vote delete --UnleashTheWolves 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - recommend CSD G1 as patent nonsense. In short, a hoax. Victoriagirl 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - if a singer had sold millions of records im sure we would have heard of her! Fab0u0lous 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ALSO i think this should be up for speedy deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab0u0lous (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete As vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Covello(musician)

Vincent Covello(musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic article composed in the main of unexplained links and website addresses. Assertion of notabilty appears to be based on singing and co-writing "BT's (Brian Transeau) break-out hit song from his IMA album, "Loving You More"." Fails WP:MUSIC. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no G hits, no news hits, apart from references to his track on BT album. --- tqbf 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, just needs to be fixed up, do a search for "Body Soul and Mind" they're a dance/electronica/pop duo, surely that makes him notable...but the article needs major cleanup. Also have a look over at Fawn (musician) for some info. --UnleashTheWolves 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Mention of Covello in the article for Fawn ("best known for her long blond braids, philanthropic work and song "Oneday" produced by BT") is limited to the following: "Fawn teamed up with recording artist, Vincent Covello (BT 'Loving You More' fame), and formed the group, Body, Soul and Mind which completed and released its debut album of the same title on Stonedef Records". I disagree that merely being a member of a dance/electronica/pop duo makes him notable... and add that relevant ghits for "Body, Soul and Mind" appear limited to YouTube, MySpace and other self-generated references. Again, fails WP:MUSIC. Victoriagirl 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - My apologies, the Fawn article also includes the following unreferenced claims: "Songs from the [Body, Soul and Mind] album have been featured on a variety of music compilations, prompting Body, Soul and Mind to release another album entitled "Soulscape Vol. I" (2007) in conjunction with celebrity chef Roman Hadrbolec's new cook book. Hadrbolec has been the chef for Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson,Cher, Paul Newman and Arnold Schwarzenegger to name a few. Fawn and Vincent traveled to Prague to perform at the Book/CD red carpet release party and pen a deal in the Czech Republic and Slovakia." My recommendation that the article be deleted remains. Victoriagirl 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No, being one half of "a dance/electronica/pop duo" does not make a person automatically notable. Unless reliable sources are provided, this person fails WP:V. Deor 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to say merge to "Body Soul and Mind" but we don't have an article on "Body Soul and Mind". Fails WP:MUSIC as a solo performer in my opinion as the hit single appears to be accredited to Brian Transeau not Vincent Covello. As an aside, I do not think that Fawn (musician) meets WP:MUSIC either and that should be AfD too. --Malcolmxl5 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I suppose you're all right, whilst in my opinion he is vaguely notable enough to have his own article, there is a huge lack of sources, and not much to write in it. So I guess I'll take that back and vote delete. *sigh* lol --UnleashTheWolves 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
... and so now there is, malcomxl5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fawn (musician). --- tqbf 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - does that really apply to a single, marginally-notable track by a single, moderately notable musician? I read "Composers and lyricists" as the Tin Pan Alley exception, not the "Stuff Like Vincent Covello's one track for BT" policy. --- tqbf 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and lack of evidence of notability. Terraxos 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did some copyediting. Turns out the song was a hit, and it turns out the song and the album and "DT" are already on Wikipedia. I hope all the above deletes read this, and consider changing their positions. Kingturtle 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
BT is quite well known (I have that album). His various non-notable collaborators --- not so much. --- tqbf 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I've added specific chart positions and a source (I knew that book would come in handy). I'll grant that his notability is not extensive, but the fact that the song charted does seem to qualify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Qst 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heller center

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

This article is unreferenced and does not contain any links within Wikipedia. The information seems generally useful to know if you want to learn about the subject, but the formatting problems are very difficult to fix, and the tone is inconsistent with typical style on Wikipedia. A Google search did not reveal any evidence of a copyright violation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Has news coverage, appears to be a significant part of a major university. The tone of the article can be corrected. I can't find evidence of copyvio. --- tqbf 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The tone is wrong but editing can fix that. It appears to be a real place and a significant feature of the University of Colrado[3][4](In the yellow panel.. There appears to be news coverage[5]. It's been copied from somewhere, perhaps AfC, but like tqbf, I find no evidence of copyvio. I favour keeping the article, working on it and making a decision later on notability. --Malcolmxl5 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above --UnleashTheWolves 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article just needs work. :) JONATHAN Go green! 03:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - References not yet being in an article of a notable topic doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Add a "needs references" tag and clean it up. --Oakshade 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not believe the writing has the remotest chance of being original. Ref 4 states: "Note copyright which allows use for private scholarship and by university presses engaging in non-commercial publication." -- which of course is not acceptable at Wikipedia. If notable, stubbfy. DGG (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: that copyright refers to an image, not the text. --- tqbf 04:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. and a comment to user:shalom: your complaints regarding the article should have instead been covered in a Cleanup notice, or in the act of cleaning it up yourself :) . Lack of references is not justification for deletion, nor is lack of wiki-links, nor is poor writing, poor formatting, poor tone, nor poor style. I say this with all due respect :) The amount of time it took to nominate this article for deletion is probably equal to the amount of time it would take to clean it up :) Kingturtle 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Reasons given for retention appear to fail either WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:ILIKEIT parameters. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The FCC Song

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

No real life information, and I doubt one can be added. (just in case I'm watching the page.) All the article states is why one song was censored. This is a general encyclopedia, we don't need big details of one small song, unless it is very important. Censored in one episode isn't good enough. TheBlazikenMaster 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This is an example of the sort of information that tends to populate articles on Family Guy articles, especially episode articles. The intention here is to detail and explain everything that happens on-screen in a show that makes constant quick references, and the standard defense is that these explanations are valuable. I don't agree that these things belong on Wikipedia, but that is the defense for this article in its current form. (Another popular defense is the article will get better and the topic will become notable in the future, but I won't go there.) / edg ☺ ☭ 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a contributor to Family Guy articles myself, this serves no meaningful purpose on Wikipedia, it should just be mentioned in the article about the episode, it doesn't need its own article... Qst (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I, the Supreme Potentate, say: KEEP!. First I would ask: what harm is the article doing you by existing? Why do you care? Will you lose sleep over this article's existence? Is it infringing on your personal freedoms? Secondly: this most certainly is NOT an "in-universe" thing. This is about the COMPLETE AND TOTAL OPPOSITE -- this article is about something a real show did in real life, which dealt with real political and social issues, and had real consequences in the real legal system and real government. It was Emmy-worthy none-the-less. It deserves its own page. Piercetheorganist 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • We care because Wikipedia requires sources. If you are right, then for good time sakes proof it by sourcing. And don't use personal attacks, (like you did in the edit summary) they are harmful for offended editors, Wikipedia is supposed to be a helpful place. TheBlazikenMaster 23:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No article causes any harm. That's not why they get deleted. This is entirely original reserch and makes no point at all. It's just things that you'd automatically know by seeing the clip, needlessly separated from the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.194.123 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I wasn't meaning the article was harmful, I meant this edit summary. TheBlazikenMaster 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. You've got to be kidding. The actual individual episode of this show that this song is in is already in the WP. Let's create an article for each stanza of the song! --- tqbf 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, whilst I am a huge Family Guy fan, this belongs on the PTV episode page, not in it's own article, and it should be cut down somewhat. --UnleashTheWolves 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect back into the article about the Family Guy episode that this came from. I'm sure someone will write, "But the PTV article is too big already!" so I will add "Tough shit, get lost." Mandsford 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as ridiculously non-notable fancruft. Terraxos 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. This song is from an Emmy Award winning TV show. Kingturtle 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    By the way, there are 1000s of articles about particular songs. There is nothing wrong with such articles. Give this article a chance to grow. Kingturtle 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This reason is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TheBlazikenMaster 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately that's the problem, it can't grow. This was only used in ONE episode, the show might be notable but the song isn't. Please find reliable sources for the article, if you care about it so much. It doesn't have any, and probably never will. TheBlazikenMaster 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niallstown

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

Removed prod as had alread been proposed for deletion once before, bringing to AFD for discussion, reason for deletion was that the place does not exist, no reliable sources in article to show it exists Davewild 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, the only references I can find to it are the Wikipedia article. --UnleashTheWolves 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems to have begun life as a hoax[6]. Can't find a reliable ghit. The GPS co-ords throws up nothing other than it's supposingly on the N8.[7] The Irish Grid Reference is that for Abbeyleix.[8]. --Malcolmxl5 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in Aladdin. Tijuana Brass 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbutus (Aladdin)

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

Minor characters, only appeared in one or two episodes. No reliable sources cited to assert notability. May be merged to a list of minor characters if necessary.

shoy (words words) 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into either a minor characters article, or the article for the episode itself. --UnleashTheWolves 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per UnleashTheWolves. JuJube 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per UnleashTheWolves. Edward321 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soz (rapper)

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

Rapper with a very weak claim of notabilty, only one album which didn't chart, fails WP:MUSIC otherwise, prod removed Delete --This is a Secret account 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Appears not to meet WP:MUSIC. --Malcolmxl5 01:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete In Soz's defense, I would like to point out that the article asserts two albums (The Initiative & The Secret Agenda) and an EP. :) That said, there's still not a strong assertion of notability here and no verification of it. The releases do not seem to be on notable labels, and there's astonishingly little press about them, given the line-up of guest stars on his first album. I've spent some time google-trawling, looking for reliable sources, and there just don't seem to be any other than the slim ones already incorporated in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as I hate going through C:CSD and finding hundreds of bands, rappers, and other musicians who don't belong here, I disagree that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Specifically, I think he meets the first (mention in published works), possibly the fourth (touring), possibility the sixth (significant association with notable musicians), and arguably the eleventh (exposure). Only one needs to be met. Tijuana Brass 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: worthy of note, the policy does specify that "conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." That said, I'm not sure that the article does meet any of them. Specifically, criterion 1 indicates "multiple non-trivial published works". I don't see that criterion made. Billboard is a mirror of AMG. That leaves two: the San Mateo Daily Journal and a magazine article that is not verifiable. This doesn't strike me as "multiple non-trivial published works". Touring requires a national or international tour; there's no assertion of that (so possibly #4 means also possibly not—and regardless, it's not verified); 6th does not says "significant association with" but "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". #11—maybe—but it's lacking verification. And that's the most compelling problem. As WP:MUSIC says, "to meet Wikipedia:Attribution, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability". Where are the reliable sources? I can't find them, and I have spent a good bit of time looking. Unless somebody does, the article doesn't pass muster. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm ...after checking it over again, I've got to concede that I was wrong. I mistook the Billboard reference as an article, and after spending a little bit longer trying to verify some of the other claims, I'm coming up empty too. Delete it. Last time I try to defend a white rapper. Tijuana Brass 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all.

There is a consensus from this debate that the articles cannot exist alone, with the two options proposed being deleting all and merging. Unfortunately, it is not within our general procedure to merge large slabs of entirely unsourced text to a main article, and as such I find the comments supporting deletion over a merge as a result of this factor to be the one which is best versed in policy and contains sufficient support to execute.

That being said, if someone really wants to merge these articles and can show me enough reliable sources to back up at least a substantial portion of the data, I'll undelete and allow them to complete a merge. In any case, merely rewriting what would have been the merged list may be easier, so please consider that before requesting. Daniel 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garden of Evil (Aladdin)

Garden of Evil (Aladdin) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No real world notability asserted, as required by WP:EPISODE. Seems to be entirely original research. Author kept creating similar articles despite a request to refrain.

  • Also nominated:
  • The Vapor Chase (Aladdin TV Series‎)
  • Never Say Nefir (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Do the Rat Thing (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Much Abu About Something (Aladdin TV Series)
  • My Fair Aladdin (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Getting the Bugs Out (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Bad Mood Rising (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Air Feather Friends (Aladdin TV Series)
  • To Cure a Thief (Aladdin TV Series)

shoy (words words) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable, and just a plot recap. mattbuck 22:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not going to claim that there is any relevance to a kid's television show from the early 1990s. But there are countless other shows that I've never even heard of that have their own lists and summaries all over Wikipedia. Even ones like Family Guy and Seinfeld are only notable for being popular or creating modern turn-of-phrases. Individually their episodes are no more important, yet many have long, detailed, moment-to-moment summaries with tedious trivia sections. I tried to set mine apart by summarizing only what was relevant to the plot(integrating triva on only two occasions) and noting all real-world references. I would've put them in one long list of plot summaries, but I thought that, at 86 episodes, that would get far too long. (Tako8Yaki 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
    • Reply - We should argue for an article on its own merits, not on "so and so is an article, so so should this". Personally, I find that Family Guy is much more notable than disney's Aladdin. An 86 item list would be fine. If you think it's too long, split into sub-articles with 1/2 of the eps in 1, the other half in the other mattbuck 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply - Family Guy as a Series is more notable, but most of its individual episodes are not. Many of its summaries are equivalent to this one and they stay up, so I think that this one should stay up.(Tako8Yaki 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
        • Reply - I don't agree with their existence either, but that's a discussion for another time. mattbuck 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: That's essentially an "other stuff exists" argument. shoy (words words) 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Disney has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Merge with Aladdin (TV series). --θnce θn this island Speak! 00:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all One of the downsides of Wikipedia is that its tolerance, for individual articles about individual episodes of a TV series, has led to an expectation that an online encyclopedia SHOULD have individual articles about individual episodes of a TV series. Episode summaries are the ultimate in "original research", of course... there actually has been someone who watched "Garden of Evil", recalled the details about what Aladdin and Jasmine and Abu and Iago did, and reviewed a tape "just to make sure". I remember nearly every detail of every Gilligan episode I ever watched as a kid... but stuff like that never did, and never should, belong in an encyclopedia. Mandsford 02:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a List of Aladdin episodes-type list. JuJube 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. WP:N and WP:RS. Phil Bridger 14:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or redirect to Aladdin (TV series) or to a new List of Aladdin episodes. This is not original research, as the policy specifically allows making purely descriptive claims about primary sources. However there are plot summary and notability concerns, which need not be addressed with deletion of content, but by adding context and secondary sourcing respectively, and the episode guideline recommends merging or redirecting problem articles rather than deleting them, as the content in the edit history could be useful if sufficient real-world information and secondary sources are found. DHowell 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Wikipedia has the capacity for all sorts of articles. I don't know anything about the topic of this article, but I still support its existence. There is nothing wrong with episode summaries. I'm sorry, but the notion that Gilligan's Island episodes "never should belong in an encyclopedia" is fully unwikipedian. Kingturtle 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all because I doubt that there is enough out-of-universe information to write decent articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. The only sources provided here are articles by the subject, which does not establish notability. Being "known" among a gaming community does not either, especially when it is mentioned as speculation rather than a verifiable fact. Tijuana Brass 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Gottlieb

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

non-notable individual Arthur 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: WikiProject Games has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I skimmed the previous AFD (link in box at right), so I understand why people think he's notable, but reliable sources are missing. I can see that he wrote some articles, but who can demonstrate that articles have been written about him, which is a standard notability criterion? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, Rabbi Mark Gottlieb was once the principal of my high school, but he's not the same person as the subject of this article. I find the coincidence amusing. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable external sources are provided. I think the article rather gives away the non-notability with "Within the community of enthusiasts of the game, he is a well-known...". Phil Bridger 14:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Biased Keep - I think we should keep it, but I'm only saying that because I wrote a lot of the article. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I know of the guy, but I don't really think he's notable outside of Magic: the Gathering. Having said that, neither is Mark Rosewater, Matt Cavotta, Randy Buehler, or the whole of Category:Magic: The Gathering players (yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Perhaps merging them all into a List of Wizards of the Coast employees would be the best way of handling this situation? Terraxos 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, Magicthegathering.com would be the best place to merge all those articles, since it mentions most of them already. Terraxos 18:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see that notability has been established, but kudos to Cooljeanius for honesty! Eixo 18:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — reasons for retention do not adequately address points made by those arguing for deletion. Consensus reflects this. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolt Risk

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

Obscure, non-notable book. The sole book from an otherwise non-notable author, Bolt Risk currently has an Amazon.com sales rank of over #1.2 million, and "Bolt Risk" + "Ann Wood" garners only 135 Google hits [[9]], led by this Wikipedia article, followed closely by the publisher's website, the Amazon.com link and the author's Myspace page. Peculiarly enough, the newspaper reviews claimed by the publisher do not appear among the Google hits. Moreover, the article sneaks in a bio of the author. Finally, this article was created by an SPA and represents that editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and remainder. Only perfunctory reviews (such as Kirkus) found on Google News Archive search, falling short of WP:BK. I did think that Leapfrog Press is potentially notable (one of the founders is Marge Piercy). --Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE: I closed this AfD as delete, but apparently whilst I was doing so, User:Noroton was research some references and additional cited reviews (see [10]). That would have caused me to relist given much new info, but a poor article, and so I have restored, reopened and relisted this article. Please add further comments below this point. Splash - tk 21:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even though there were added refs, this is still a non-notable book. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete may have got a few good reviews, but it was still a big flop commercially and is therefore non-notable. Pulp it. RMHED 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added information from several reviews, which I think show this article meets WP:BK. The publisher's Web site also has reprinted an interview from the Provincetown Banner with the author, although I can't find that online (not surprising for a small weekly).Noroton 22:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notices from Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Kirkus do not establish notability. since they will notice almost anything. I can't confirm the Washington Post review independlently of the publisher's Web site, even though I am a subscriber to the WP site and archive. Deor 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to be reviewed by the Washington Post. Kingturtle 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
*Comment: Would you care to provide us with a verifiable link (or failing that, a date and page ref) to that review? At this point, I doubt it exists, and outright challenge the assertion.  RGTraynor  08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Being reviewed by the post doesn't give notability. DELETEBalloonman 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect Fester and Ailin' to Features of The Podge and Rodge Show, allowing for a merge from the history if desired. All other articles mentioned in this malformed nomination are either redirected already or are not tagged for deletion. Sandstein (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fester and Ailin'

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

There are also three main articles on the show

and there are other miscellaneous articles such as

  • A Scare at Bedtime which is a combination of a list of dozens of red links embedded in yet another version of the Podge and Rodge article.

There are about five more articles which should either be deleted or merged into a single Podge and Rodge article. (Sarah777 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

  • Strong keep, these are parodies of Foster & Allen, two people well-known in Ireland for dressing up as leprauchauns and shaming the nation live on British television. They have featured primarily in A Scare at Bedtime but also in early editions of The Podge and Rodge Show. It could do with a bit of work though and maybe some referencing. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: Note that the person who put the AfD tag on the article didn't give a reason here. This should be closed unless she can come back to explain why she thinks it should be deleted. Corvus cornix 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Splash - tk 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There should not be a myriad of short articles about a single subject. It's better to consolidate and merge into the main article. lk 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've an open mind about whether the "main" articles should be merged; not really being a TV person I've only seen snatches of R'n'P and didn't realise they were such cultural or cultish treasures! (At least by some folks reckoning) (Sarah777 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Merge, to main R'n'P article.--Vintagekits 11:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

into R'n'P main articles. (Sarah777 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

  • Merge to Features of The Podge and Rodge Show, per consensus at previous AfD. Terraxos 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with a redirect. Don't need an AFD to do it. --kingboyk 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, at least, so default to keep. Merging and redirecting this article does not require deletion and can be done independently of this AfD if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

Controversies of Rudy Giuliani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wasted Time R has been bringing this article in line with many other biographical articles. Controversy articles are bad in practice, violating WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Wasted Time also made an excelent point in that FA articles such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt do not have associated articles like this. It needs to be pointed out that articles like this turn into dumping grounds for negative material of dubious relvance and none of the material has been "deleted" or will be deleted if this AfD is successfull ... Wasted Time R has moved the material into related non attack articles.

[ A note about notification of this AfD, per WP:Canvassing recommendations to be transparent. User:Dogru144 has been doing some canvassing, which is fine by me — I'm hoping this decision gets as broad a response as possible. I have notified the editors who participated in the dismantling discussion here about the AfD, including at least one who opposed the dismantling, and also the ones who were in a very recent discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton about why Giuliani had a controversies section and Clinton didn't, as I had told them the Giuliani one was now being dismantled, when in fact it will now be decided here. At User:Wasted Time R/can2 you can see where I tried to put together a longer list of editors who've been involved in this general debate in the past ... except that it's hard to go through all the talk archives to find everybody, and there are other discussions on this that I'm not aware of, and I'm not sure this would fit the bounds of WP:Canvassing anyway, so only the ones marked with 'c' in the list have I notified. Wasted Time R 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) ]
  • Keep. This article is appropriate. "Controversies of ..." is an acceptable article subject. It seems that editors found it too uncomfortable that there was a single spot with unpleasant, embarrassing material on Rudy Giuliani. This article had been blanked by [[User:Wasted Time R. This is an inappropriate manner of addresssing anxiety with this page. Dogru144 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that editors are "too uncomfortable that there was a single spot with unpleasant, embarrassing material on Rudy Giuliani" shows an extreme lack of good faith, and isnt likely to win you many friends or influence people around here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an absurd accusation that Dogru44 makes about an editor who has labored tirelessly on Hillary Rodham Clinton and associated articles, managing to integrate a seemingly unending supply of controversies large and small about her, into her main article and subarticles, in addition to the other good works he's given to the HRC articles. To suggest that his applying the same method to Giuliani is somehow politically motivated - pro-Giuliani - would actually be funny, if it weren't so insulting t him and the other editors who support the dismantling of controversy articles.Tvoz |talk 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete While the article is properly sourced, and Dougrul makes some good points, I believe TDC makes better ones. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The full state of this article from five days ago can be seen at [11]: a mass of entries, some internal duplicates, some external duplicates, some incoherent, some uncited, some not "controversies" in any sense, and a fair amount of legitimate material underneath it all. Per Talk:Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Time_To_Hillarize_this_article_and_dismantle_it, I documented item by item how I pruned out the illegitimate or inappropriate material. That left roughly the article that Dogru144 is trying to restore now. I then dismantled, disbursed, and integrated the legitimate contents into the appropriate mainline text sections of the Giuliani main article, daughter articles, and other Giuliani related articles. This is documented, item by item, in Talk:Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Actual_dismantling. I then redirected this article to the main article, but left this Talk page unredirected, so people could see a record of what had been done. Talk:Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Terminating_of_page_is_vandalism then contains further discussions of all this. My motivation in all this is that I believe that such Controversies sections or articles are counter to WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism; that as pointed out above, FA articles on political figures do not have them; and that I have seen numerous complaints and comments on various Talk pages that about half of 2008 presidential candidates' articles have them (including Giuliani until now, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee) and half do not (including Giuliani now, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Paul), and what nefarious WP biases must be at play to produce this difference. While I think random editing choices rather than biases have been at play, the current inconsistent state of candidates' articles is indeed embarrassing for Wikipedia. The solution is obvious: dismantle, disburse, and integrate those Controversies pages or sections that still exist. Contrary to what Dogru144 states, I am not driven in this by any political agenda; some time ago I previously dismantled and disbursed the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies page — see Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Proposal_to_dismantle_this_article where I documented what I did just as I have here — and have very recently been working on the John McCain article with an eye towards doing the same there. Dogru144 has charged me with "blanking", but I have not, as no legitimate material critical of Giuliani has been removed from Wikipedia; rather, it has been located where it belongs, in the articles that supply the context for the criticism. People who like Controversies articles tend to be people who, as Dogru144 states, want "a single spot with unpleasant, embarrassing material on [person X]"; but it is not Wikipedia's purpose or role to supply such a spot. All of the legitimate "unpleasant, embarrasing material" on Giuliani is still in Wikipedia, but you now you have to read it within the context of Giuliani's life, actions, and accomplishments, good or bad. That's what WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, WP:Criticism, and WP:BLP call for. Wasted Time R 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just a political hatchet job. Wasted Time makes an excellent case for its deletion. Nick mallory 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Almost all materials are repeated in the main Giuliani article. This article should only exist if there are so many factual properly sourced controversies about a person that it would not fit into the main page. lk 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete Wasted Time R already did most of the merging, but the notable contents of the article should be moved into either the main Rudy Giuliani or an appropriate sub-article and this article needs to be sent to the dustbin of Wikipedia's history. Controversy sections and articles are signs of very lazy and poor editing techniques. Controversy sections are used by critics of the subject as a dumping ground for every potentially negative thing about the subject, whether they are notable or not, to give undue weight to the negative aspects of the subject, while controversy articles initially started out as a section, so have the dumping ground aspect, but were generally created as a content fork that are used by proponents of the subject to expunge the main article of the negative aspects of the subject. All in all, I would like to see this discussion expanded to include the merger and deletion of all "Controversies of" articles as I have yet to find one that is not a content fork and that can not be worked into either the main article or sub-articles. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
One clarification: I believe all of the merging has already been done, so that all that needs to be done here is the delete. It wasn't all merged into the main article, as lk suggests earlier above; much was merged into subarticles such as Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008. Wasted Time R 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
One echoing: I also would like to see this discussion and decision pertain to, and serve as a precedent for, all "Controversies of ..." articles, and certainly for those of candidates in the 2008 election. The arguments being made here are not Giuliani-specific, and like Bobblehead I haven't seen any cases where this kind of dismantling couldn't be done. Wasted Time R 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete [edit conflict with Bobblehead] Separate articles and sections for controversies are magnets for POV edits; they quickly become dumping grounds for any and all real or imagined controversies, giving them all equal weight which clearly they do not all deserve. This was abundantly clear on Hillary Rodham Clinton's controversy section and then separate page, which Wasted did a masterful job of dismantling, while carefully assigning each item that was noteworthy to an appropriate place in the main article, notes, or sub-article. Doing this for Giuliani significantly improved that article, and Wasted Time R should be thanked for the efforts he's put into this important improvement of Wikipedia articles about political figures. Tvoz |talk 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete - Generally opposed to "controversies" forks of BLPs. - Crockspot 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim, merge, redirect to main bio. Looks like it was WP:POVFORKed from the main article due to serious issues with undue weight. shoy (words words) 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A reason that Wasted Time makes for deleting the Giuliani controversy section is that some articles have it and other articles do not have it. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. I am disturbed by Wasted Time's decision to 'Memory Hole' sourced material in the name of NPOV. An article "Controversies of ...." provides a pattern of organizing information. Jmegill 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In the case of the Giuliani dismantling, the "memory hole" recommendations were made by TDC, but in many of those cases I disagreed with TDC's recommendation and did keep and move the items. In the case of the Hillary Clinton dismantling, the "memory hole" recommendations were made by me for items that were too weakly sourced to pass WP:BLP muster or too trivial for inclusion in one of the other articles. If you have any individual objections to specific decisions that were made in either of these cases, I will be happy to discuss them with you. Wasted Time R 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. For glaringly obvious reasons, stated above and elsewhere, ad infinitum. --Eleemosynary 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Jmegill --Tdl1060 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect or just keep. If it's all sourced and balanced, there's nothing wrong with having this. I actually searched for this article a few weeks ago after seeing Fox News mention "Giuliani's past controversies" without actually saying what they were. Crazysuit 05:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, as POV fork. All of the sourced material has been added to appropriate articles, without creating issues of undue weight or creating enormous articles. Thanks should be extended to Wasted Time R for his work at eliminating POV forks on BOTH sides of the spectrum, as evidenced by his work at Hillary Clinton. Horologium t-c 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A clear POV fork. Phil Bridger 15:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - If the controversy is notable, it belongs in the main article. If not, it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I prefer it as it is now, than as it was (because such a good job was done in the dismanteling), but feel that an index page with a list of {{main}} is probably the most beneficial to Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with an index of a Giuliani's controversies. People wanting to know the potentially shady practices he is involved (for muckraking or whatever other reason) should be permitted to do so without knowing everything about the Giuliani.EvanCarroll 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment IOW, you want a POV fork. If the controversies section threatened to dominate the article (similar to the situation with Ward Churchill), such an article might make sense (see Ward Churchill misconduct issues, which is about the same size as the main biography, and is an example of a legitimate fork used to eliminate undue weight concerns). However, that is not the case here (or, for that matter, in any of the other presidential candidates who have or had similar articles). What you are asking is that the article be maintained simply on ideological principles; that is not the way Wikipedia works. Horologium t-c 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Do explain how an index which is what I'm suggesting has any bearing on POV. You summarize the perceived controversy, and then link to the article which details it... I think both WP:UNDUE and WP:POV are being abused here. What I perceive as the problem is the Main Article (MA) is always a detailed listing of all of the successes that are used to establish WP:NOTABILITY and then history seems to show the article retrospectively adds the other side for balance. This leaves the MA with only criticisms that pertain to the positives of the MA. The real tragedy here is that weight is largely determined by party-propaganda and that you're applying weight to both attributed factual assertions and viewpoints. The fact of the matter is Rudy is friends with and employs a shady priest Placa which has been covered by various media outlets. Now, if you don't want that on a criticisms page then please tell me how that can be worked into the MA or why it is right to use WP:UNDUE to kill off the connection to Rudy. EvanCarroll 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And the connection to Placa is covered in Giuliani Partners, which is linked from the introduction to Rudy Giuliani and in a subsection of its own further down in the article, and in lurid depth at Alan Placa, which is also linked to in a footnote (#146) of the Giuliani page and through the Giuliani Partners article. I would suggest you read Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Proposal_to_dismantle_this_article, where Wasted Time R carefully picked through the train wreck of allegations against HRC and determined where each belonged; some were broken off into new articles, some were merged into the main article, some were merged into other already-extant articles, and some were deleted as non-notable. FWIW, the signal-to-noise ratio is higher here, as few of the issues are getting nuked due to inadequate sourcing. Just as the link to Placa is not covered in depth in Giuliani's article, discussions of HRC's book deals and fundraising controversies are addressed in seperate articles, rather than the main article. It's not killing off the link, it's putting it into appropriate context. BTW, thank you for reminding me once again why I tend to avoid political topics here on Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, POV garbage.--Southern Texas 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Be civil, not everyone believes Rudy Giuliani is an American hero who as "America's Mayor" united a city and a country at its darkest moment. He is the personification of leadership and is the most qualified individual to be the next president of the United States. (User page of User:Southern Texas) EvanCarroll 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -It should be again noted that there is proper protocol. Taking an individual initiative and exporting material to disparate other articles, while an arduous undertaking, is violation AfD protocol. And furthermore, blanking the article constitutes vandalism. I recognize that using that last word is incendiary, but blanking an article prior to following WP protocol is uncivil and is jumping the gun. Re WTR's comparisons to historical figures, e.g. T. Roosevelt, R. Reagan Sr. and so on, these figures are not current figures as the current candidates. On the principle of consistency, I have no objection to preservation of Controversies articles on other presidential candidates. Clinton and Gravel, especially, on the Democratic aisle come to mind. Dogru144 05:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you should change either the "Keep" up top or this "Strong Keep" to "Comment" - you should only express your opinion one time with Keep or Delete, but can add additional comments. Tvoz |talk 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty. I would also like to disclose that I became aware of this AfD due to Dogru's canvassing. I spotted one of his posts on a page that I have watchlisted. Sometimes, canvassing backfires. - Crockspot 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I think his actions are well covered by WP:BOLD and find nothing wrong with them; furthermore, I encourage the contributions. This should be straighted up at the WP policy level. Either Criticisms of... should be allowed, or they shouldn't, but there should be a concrete qualifier for them. EvanCarroll 06:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per user:Horologium and others. I should note that I was asked to check out this AfD.Yilloslime (t) 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep: As the top GOP Potus contender, his numerous controversial behaviors deserve close scrutiny, especially with regard to his association with post 9/11 EPA incompetencies and the hasty removal of crime scene evidence from the WTC.[12] Ombudsman 22:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite with sources Articles about controversies involving public figures are a matter of WP:BLP but they also can be notable as well: source it or it gets deleted. There is no deadline, but this should be sourced and using reliable sources. --Solumeiras talk 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The issue with this article has nothing to do with sourcing (it's for the most part well-sourced); it was nominated for deletion after most of the information was merged into other related articles, and an editor objected to a redirect to Rudy Giuliani. It's not a sourcing issue, it's a redundancy issue. Horologium t-c 22:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There do exist some non-identical parallels to the article under discussion: Criticism of George W. Bush and Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies.
    Yellowdesk 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - 'Controversy' articles should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and relevant (as, I would argue, the George W. Bush one is), and in this case most of the material has already been merged into the Rudy Giuliani article. I say delete it, as Hillary Clinton controversies has been, and can we make Al Gore controversies next on the list? Terraxos 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect But not delete, so that any editor can import all this data back into the main Rudy article. Not needed as a fork (yet). • Lawrence Cohen 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In my view all legitimate data already has been imported into the main and sub Rudy articles. At this point, leaving it as a redirect (what I originally intended) will just make it a reversion magnet. An actual deletion would serve as a stronger message that we don't want such a page coming back. Wasted Time R 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't object. Protected redirect in case someone tries to remake it? Or too soon for that? • Lawrence Cohen 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A protected redirect would be the best idea. It retains the history (for those who have accused others of trying to sanitize the issue), yet prevents recreation of a PoV fork. By protecting the redirect, it sends an even stronger message that we don't want to see such a page again. The only stronger message would be a delete/salt. Horologium t-c 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If Hillary or Rudy were to become President, then would it be acceptable to have a Controversy or Criticism page? These already exist for George W Bush, namely, Criticism of George W. Bush and Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies I think trying to reach a permanent solution on this via a protected redirect is a bad idea. My position is that politicians - by being politicians- necessarily attract criticism and controversy. Not allowing a structure for this criticism whitewashes the past and makes it harder for the reader to understand what the politician is about. Jmegill 05:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If HRC or Giuliani were to become president, it would definitely become acceptable to have a criticism page. However, right now, they are only candidates, and much of the activity on the controversy pages is simply partisan nonsense. Eliminating a controversy page does not "whitewash the past", as you assert; it simply requires one to actually read through the articles to view the criticism in its proper context, rather than scan through a laundry list of grievances (both real and imagined) ginned up to score cheap political points. Horologium t-c 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me as if you attempted to redefine the acceptance of a Criticism of... through your own subjective lens. I would suggest moving this debate to a more proper place to dispute policy. I have nothing wrong with GW Bush's criticism page, and I find it for useful for the same reason I found this one useful. Some people don't want to sift through a laundry list of neutral articles to find out what someone has fumbled. Such a utility does not to me seem to offend WP:UNDUE. With that said, I like having the information in the respective articles, and think that as is the Criticism of... is better off with a series of {{main}}s. EvanCarroll 06:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I see the need for a "Controversies of"/"Criticism of" section/page for a sitting president either. From the spot checking I have done, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the only presidents' articles who have one. The other presidents' articles manage without, and I can assure you that Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson and FDR and LBJ and Nixon and Reagan and many others took quite the number of controversial actions and had quite the amount of public criticism at times. Think about biographies of presidents or other politicians you have read ... do any of them suddenly stop the narrative and have a whole chapter or group of chapters titled "Controversy" or "Criticism"? No. They deal with such material as it comes up in the historical narratives or analytical discussions within the work. So what makes Bill and W different? Simply another variant of WP:Recentism: WP editors see them as figures to be described through the prism of current political debate, rather than through the prism of historical description. That's not an especially good reason. Wasted Time R 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge useful content and delete - per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore controversies. No more bongos 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I strongly oppose the merging of Controversies articles/sections into the main body of the article while deleting the section/article itself. Neither do I support the fact that such has already been done to the Hillary Clinton article. Ethereal 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge useful content and delete - I was skimming the main article and was surprised to see ALL controversy removed. It is absurd to break this off from the main article. bov 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Later comment -- Better to merge and KEEP, actually. We shouldn't lose all this information on someone in this prominent position, but it should not be completely off the main page. bov 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
See below regarding "all controversy removed" remark. Wasted Time R 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete same as previous user. Arthur 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -I have backerased my second Keep statement, following a message on my talk page. I should have gone straight to the comment. Let's just keep our attention to what happened to the article:

Time Waste R gutted the article, sending the content to different locations. His edits left the article in a blank state. Thus, I called his actions blanking. As I said above:

this brings to mind another presiddent's testimony: This summons to mind: it depends what "is" is.

{User:Bov]]'s testimony suggests that the meger path is a backhanded approach to whitewashing, via having controversy removed from the article.Dogru144 05:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits left the article in a redirected state and the contents still in Wikipedia, which is not what is normally meant by "blanking". But I agree, let's not get into a Clintonian parsing battle.
As for Bov's "all controversy removed" comment, I am quite puzzled. When I look at the current main article, I see plenty of controversy and criticism: "Harold Giuliani had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing; after his release he served as a Mafia enforcer", "Giuliani did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War ... MacMahon wrote a letter to Giuliani's draft board," "Giuliani testified in defense of the federal government's "detention posture" regarding the internment of over 2,000 Haitian asylum-seekers who had entered the country illegally.", "Critics of Giuliani claim he arranged public arrests of people, then dropped charges for lack of evidence on high-profile cases rather than going to trial. ... irreparably damaged their reputations.", "The extent to which his policies deserve the credit is disputed, however.", "Giuliani forced Bratton out of his position after two years, in what was generally seen as a battle of two large egos in which Giuliani was not tolerant of Bratton's celebrity.", "Giuliani's term also saw allegations of civil rights abuses and other police misconduct. There were police shootings of unarmed suspects, and the scandals surrounding the sexual torture of Abner Louima and the killings of Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond.", "Giuliani was criticized for embracing illegal immigrants.", "In 2000, Giuliani appointed 34-year-old Russell Harding, the son of Liberal Party of New York leader and longtime Giuliani mentor Raymond Harding, ... Harding pled guilty to defrauding the Housing Development Corporation and to possession of child pornography.", "Giuliani was a longtime backer of Bernard Kerik,... Kerik pled guilty to corruption charges dating from his Corrections days.", I could go on and on. There's plenty more dealing with 9/11 preparedness and aftermath, Giuliani Partners, the whole gory story of his personal life, and so on. I think Bov either 1) just scanned the table of contents for the words "controversy" or "criticism" and didn't find them, which is exactly by design (you have to read the article!); or 2) is looking for a different level of material, which I can guess at from Bov's edit history but which indeed should not be found here. Wasted Time R 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. this is a valid topic, and has been researched extensively, with over 100 notes. the article is too large to merge into Rudy Giuliani. Kingturtle 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The thing is, it already has been merged into the main article as discussed at the top of this page. Furthermore, I think everyone agrees "this is a valid topic" for wikipedia, the question (which most keep !votes including this one have failed to address) is where in WP should this material live—in it's own article, or in the main Guiliani article. Yilloslime (t) 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • With this sort of POV-fork, I think the most preferable option is to merge the content, where appropriate, into the proper articles - bearing in mind giving the criticisms their proper weight in the article. Or, if all appropriate content has already been merged, simply delete. Pastordavid 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Pastordavid, that's exactly right. All of the material already has been merged into the main article and subarticles and given appropriate weight. So perhaps your comment should be noted as "delete". Tvoz |talk 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kingturtle and perhaps rename as Criticism of Rudy Giuliani.Biophys 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kingturtle and Ethereal - worst case scenario merge most of the info (if not all) Giuliani's article but certainly/absolutely no delete.JForget 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral IMHO all of these controversy articles should be deleted. I think they are POVforks and should be merged into the main article or into a neutral article. That being said, I've noticed that there is a precident for keeping them.Balloonman 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Template Construct

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

While aspects of the Warhammer 40,000 universe are notable, this article about a fictional technology is not. The article cites no reliable sources attesting to the subjects real-world notability — and, indeed, a search turns up no such sources. This article cannot be appropriately sourced, and should either be deleted or merged with some other profitable "Warhammer technology" article. A previous procedural deletion was contested without comment by another user, whose sole contributions appear to be contesting procedural deletions, so I've brought this to AfD. Haemo 20:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - not even notable within the 40k universe. mattbuck 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom, per mattbuck Jame§ugrono 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously inappropriate. Natalie 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. While there may be truth to the argument that being a "fringe" publication makes finding third-party references difficult, that does not mean that verifiability can be overridden. The few sources mentioned - along with the Blacklisted site itself, which can be found at the Internet Archive - do not meet the criteria of reliable sources, unfortunately, whereas other hacking-related articles are able to point to references that do (e.g. Cult of the Dead Cow, L0pht). Until such time that these sources can be found, this article can't be considered to be more than speculative memory. Tijuana Brass 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisted! 411

Blacklisted! 411 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sourcing. Stub content. Tagged for cleanup and sources w/ no improvements for several months. Spent 20 minutes looking for sources, found blog pages, zine catalogs, but no news coverage or cites in reliable sources. Prepared to be wrong about this (I know this zine actually exists), but I think I'm right and this doesn't belong in WP. If not, it should be trivial to fix. --- tqbf 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Would speedy delete but I don't think there's a category for not-notable magazines. --Malcolmxl5 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is very notable within the circle of hacking as the only other printed hacking magazine on store shelves besides 2600. Their web site disappeared earlier this year, so it is difficult to verify. I think that they are relevant in a historic context at this time. Many notable hackers and articles were published in this magazine and I think a record of its history (and controversy) is worth keeping. Bad Monk3y 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment the previous comment is from the original author of the article.--- tqbf 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I will not argue that the article requires a complete overhaul. However, it cannot be said that this magazine was not notable. Magazines of no notability do not secure international distribution deals. This one did. In fact us here in Ottawa (Canada) could pick up our issues of this American publication at a regular local magazine shop. Furthermore, if you were to ask any old school hacker, of the like that attends HOPE/Notacon conferences and the like, more often than not they would be aware of this magazine. So while the quality of the article should be in question, the notability of the subject matter most certainly should not.--ISeal 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (Continuing from the Above...) A secondary issue are the apparent lack of sources. This criticism is inherently invalid. This magazine is part of a fringe culture. As such, it falls outside the scope of regular mainstream magazines, newspapers, and journals. It doesn't matter how important it is, it's not something that would be picked up by your mainstream media. You won't get traditional sources to cite. The issues here are no different than covering, say, a fringe punk rock magazine of the eighties. Furthermore, this is before the age where online independent journalism picked up. To require citations is to fall prey to what I refer to "imbecile beaurocracy", where destructive actions are carried out on the pure basis of an adherence to an impossible standard. --ISeal 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment this user has almost no edits prior to the AfD. --- tqbf 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment response to previous two arguments - notability is established with reliable secondary sources, not with anecdotes about "old school hackers". One argument brought up punk zines: compare news hits for MRR with Blacklisted!. --- tqbf 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Above Comment On the above basis, you will find insufficient substantiation to justify articles on pretty much all of pre web-journalism fringe culture. Simply said, not everything out there has been cited by mainstream media, and this is especially true of fringe culture. I do find it puzzling however that you yourself would admit to having heard of this magazine, only to deny the notion of its popularity through this deletion request. And oh yes: this article was one of the first things that grabbed my attention. Feel free to discredit me on that point however much you wish. --ISeal 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"Fringiness" doesn't trump WP:VER, WP:RS, or WP:N. I think "Blacklisted" is just hacker-cruft. ISeal, since you're new here, you may want to evaluate your arguments against WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSA, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and, in particular, WP:LOCALFAME. RSnake's blog is notable to web hackers, but doesn't meet WP:N. --- tqbf 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Even if it's a fringe magazine, it should be possible to provide some reliable sources if it is in any way notable. That does not seem to be the case here. Terraxos 17:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is no doubt that it needs to be cleaned up but I do believe that "Blacklisted! 411" is notable. It is mentioned by Def Con's web page with the text "Blacklisted 411 has become not only one of the oldest of the hacker quarterlies available today, but has positioned itself as the top selling print magazine in its market." [13] Does anyone know of where we could get the actual circulation numbers? It's rumored to have a circulation of 100k per quarter but of course I would like to see a reference that states that. I understand the concern and importance of meeting the letter of WP:NOT but I also strongly believe in WP:IGNORE. Inclusion of this article adds to the substance of Wikipedia, though not in it's current state, and it should be allowed to persist. I would be more then happy to expand upon it in the immediate future should it please consensus. Robert Stone, Jr. 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, uh, seeing as how the zine no longer exists, I'm going to suggest that the Def Con web site is not exactly a reliable source. --- tqbf 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Valid. Kingturtle 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Robert Stone's source is a more-than-a-year-old paid advertisement; it is not an actual Def Con endorsement of Blacklisted. --- tqbf 17:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Cape

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

Keep: as creator of article I assert notability and moved article from PROD to AfD for wider discussion. Maplewooddrive 19:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete sad that this fellow passed away, and while I'm sure he was a nice guy, Wikipedia is very specifically not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed that it's sad, but also not notable. mattbuck 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not claim any substantial notability. —dustmite 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the tone is inappropriate, but this (from the article) isn't just a pro forma obit, it's a reliable secondary source that overtly establishes notability. --- tqbf 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I'm sold. Delete. --- tqbf 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Donegal Today is hardly a great tome of publishing. It's a local paper - they do obits about lots of people who aren't truly notable. mattbuck 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Newspapers (even local ones: the Donegal Democrat is in WP) tend to publish obits as 550 word news stories when there is a claim for notability. Here, that seems to mean:
  1. Being a columnist for a local newspaper
  2. Founding a successful chain of health food stores
  3. Organizing a large Irish health food conference
Conceded: this person is, at best, marginally notable. The article is too big and has unencyclopedic tone. Not sure it's a no-brainer delete though. --- tqbf 01:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing about this person's life makes him sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Terraxos 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think an obituary in a local newspaper is enough to establish notability; neither The Telegraph nor The Guardian (who are both big on obits) carried one. Also, even though he founded a chain of stores and organised a conference, neither of these two seem to be notable enough for their own articles. Eixo 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable to me. DiegoGirl 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject is clearly notable, although references should be added. Tijuana Brass 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khazar Ibrahim

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

I deleted this article after an expired PROD period of 5 days; I have been approached by the first author of the article indicating that they contest the PROD. The period expiry was recent, so I thought it appropriate to restore the article and bring it here. The person who nominated the article for deletion via PROD stated: "sub-stub, and only questionably notable: is he the only spokesman, on what issues, who covers him, etc. Also not what we need by way of blp; we don't even know when or where he was born". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see 2,400 hits on Google. Mind you this is just the English spelling and not the Azerbaijani or Cyrillic spelling - both are used in Azerbaijan. Being a spokes person behalf of a Government makes a person inherently notable for at least holding this high level governmental post - consider Tony Snow. I created the article over a redlink while I was working on Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari in hopes someone else would eventually expand it. An anon did make 2 edits for example introducing the date of birth and some educational history. Article only lasted about a week and needs more time in my view to develop. -- Cat chi? 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cat. Let's be careful to avoid systemic bias. Phil Bridger 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid. Kingturtle 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was redirect to List of House characters. Tijuana Brass 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remy Hadley

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

non notable fictional character Sdf123000 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Redirect as Icestorm815's sensible suggestion below - not notable in the Wiki sense .... or in any sense really. Springnuts 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect The character plays a small role on the show right now, so there is no need for a individual page. The character is already listed here , so why not just redirect? Icestorm815 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT to List of House characters. If she grows enough in importance to get coverage in secondary sources, she can get her own article back. —Quasirandom 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. There's nothing here that's not already on the destination page, no need for this stub. --Maelwys 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of House characters.Delete - Her name has not yet even been officially revealed on the show (even though some fans claim it has) and the only sources provided are a blog and a Wikipedia article about an episode from 2 seasons prior to the character's first appearance on the show (which has no information about the character at all). (Note: I changed my vote from Redirect to Delete because the evidence for Remy Hadley being Thirteen's real name is weak at best; we shouldn't redirect this page as it may turn out that Remy Hadley isn't even the character's real name.) --Hnsampat 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs a cleanup. Tijuana Brass 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vangteh

Vangteh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Has been deleted NN / unref / nonsense / hoax 4 times since 31 Oct 2007, but at 13:59, 8 November 2007 User:Khumpita has listed claimed references in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Vangteh. In summary, Vangteh seems to be claimed to be a (WP:NN?) petty kingdom that existed in Burma before British times. The odd style is likely because his first language is not English but Burmese. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 10 recommended undelete and AfD. Anthony Appleyard 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the references, by footnote number:
1. All 3 are just GPS data confirming some place called "Vangte" is listed as a place in Burma. The database gives 6 million places total.
2. All 3 of these are Wikipedia articles, which are not reliable sources.
3. Just a map/GPS data
5. Does not mention Vangte
6. Wikipedia article (see #2)
19. Trivial mention on a Geocities page
  • So... I don't know. It gives some print references which I can't look at. The referencing is not that good. But there's also a language barrier here. I guess the question boils down to whether the place really exists or not... any of the other references are just an editorial matter, the article should only be deleted if we can show the place isn't really a village in Burma. The GPS data seems to suggest it is. Is that enough? --W.marsh 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it appears to be a populated place in Chin State, a region of Myanmar, but the article needs a painstaking and exhaustive going over to sort out what is verifiable and what is not (and should be removed) and to bring it up to encyclopedic standard. --Malcolmxl5 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The spelling "Vangte" may be more common, but it looks to certainly exist. Google searches here or [14] bring up hits of low quality but they all seem to refer to the same place. E.g. Thang Ngin who was a Baptist missionary to Tedim Township in Chin state is stated to have founded a church there in 1945.[15]. Eluchil404 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Info. I have tried to disentangle the text where long <ref>...</ref> footnotes were inside sentences. I have moved most of the footnote matter into the text. I have added section headings. Anthony Appleyard 10:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Vangteh#History of this page for an edit history of page Vangteh including deletes and undeletes. Anthony Appleyard 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - as per Eluchil404. It doesn't seem to be a hoax on the face of it, as suggested at deletion review, but it does seem to get a arguably low hit frequency, and the area does seem to be notable in the sources provided at Google. (Links already provided above). Rudget zŋ 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and stub - most of the article is an unreferenced, meandering essay. andy 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
CommentI agree with Andy's suggestion to stub the article. While the place would seem to exist, most of the text appears to be unverifiable and original research. --Malcolmxl5 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as long as it is improved upon. DiegoGirl 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Alone 5: Son Of Kevin

Home Alone 5: Son Of Kevin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed from this hoaxy, crystalballey, obviously false, complelete-waste-of-AFD-space article. Since I couldn't find a speedy reason...here it is. UsaSatsui 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete What a waste of process. —Animum (a rag man) 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You know, while I usually subscribe to WP:PII, I completely agree here. My kingdom for a "Duh" speedy category. --UsaSatsui 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, ugh. —dustmite 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While it could, technically be true, Wikipedia is about verifiability. Useight 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a crystal ball, but a snow ball. Let's close this out. Mandsford 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Oh dear, this is clearly a hoax, and a snowball at that. And if it were actually a movie coming out in 2008, there would definitely be some information somehow relating to it in some capacity somewhere. But there's not. Because it's a hoax. Calgary 19:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There should be a speedy reason to cover things like this. JohnCD 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm gonna assume good faith on the part of the author, whose edits don't indicate a hoaxmonger. He probably just heard it from someone who is. JuJube 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Time to look into my crystal ball.... Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as hoax/cb arguments already given. I think IMDb would know it. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Snowball please! --Malcolmxl5 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • BALEETED! I mean, delete. Speculative nonsense. Hellbus 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Fails to assert notability. Tijuana Brass 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiki

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

And another wiki with no independent sources, no evidence of innovation, significance or market share. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Hiki was major wiki software for japanese website.--Sdf123000 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Out of thousands of wikis, this one does not assert its notability. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep:
    • Pro: An English Google News Archive search for "hiki+wiki" turns up 18 Japanese news items after filtering out spurious Swahili and Hawaiian hits. While I don't read Japanese, some of the sites are clearly notable media sites: ITmedia, CNET Japan, BroadBand Watch.
    • Con:A Google web search for English web pages containing hiki+wiki turns up just 370 hits
    • Con:The Japanese version of this article also lacks any refs besides Hiki's own web site
--A. B. (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Six of the top seven articles (the six in Japanese) are reprints or slight alterations of an Alpslab press release that only mentions Hiki once in passing - it's not the topic of the hits. The seventh article is in Finnish, which is Greek to me. Dekimasuよ! 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I think we should delete this article. --A. B. (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swiki

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

Wiki software. No independent sources, no evidence of innovation, significance or market share. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I found these with a 30-second Google News Archive search --A. B. (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmallWiki

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

A wiki. No independent sources cited, no evidence of novelty, significance or market share. Guy (Help!) 16http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate You can help Wikipedia change the world!:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and also finding no results on 2 news archive searches. --W.marsh 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albanian Christian Democratic Movement

Albanian Christian Democratic Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This organisation does not pass the notability guidelines here - WP:NOTABILITY - in that it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I nominated the article for speedy deletion, following which it was merged/redirected to Christian Democratic Party of Albania, however this was not agreeable to the article's author. Springnuts 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge→Christian Democratic Party of Albania (PDK); if at a future time it can stand alone as an article, I'd support the ensuing article split. The notability of the party described by this article is (at present) fully dependent upon its relationship to the PDK and the person of Nikollë Lesi. As there is not an article for the person mentioned, I do not think it is unreasonable to address both parties in the same political party article. Party splits are (in my opinion) notable events, but often not sufficiently notable to be addressed by standalone articles; this is the case in the current context. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an independent article; it has been common practice for quite some time now to create separate articles for newly founded parties if they are notable, which this one certainly is (as it has one MP). I think this article is in danger of falling prey to west-centrism -- noone would even *THINK* of not having an article on a party which has an MP in the UK, in Canada or in NZ, whereas parties which have an MP in Albania are apparently not considered notable enough by some people to have their own article... (I'm not accusing Ceyockey or Springnuts of being west-centric, it's just that I get an impression of double standards being employed on things like this here on Wikipedia.) —Nightstallion 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nightstallion above. If this party really does have one MP in the Albanian parliament, then it's definitely sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. How many articles do we have about US political parties that have never successfully held any elected positions? Very many, and this party may well be more notable than all of them. Terraxos 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a parliamentary party. There is nothing else need be said. --PaxEquilibrium 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well actually there is - Notability needs to be demonstrated. Springnuts 13:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Though the article states the party has a seat, there is no source for that tidbit. The referenced source indicates the 'movement' split from the 'party', which did have a seat. That doesn't really impart much notability to the movement, for all we know it could be one or two people. Additionally, all the info for this article is also already in the "party" article. Epthorn 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Response: The source does clearly state that the party has an MP -- the MP *founded* the party, so why would you doubt it has an MP? —Nightstallion 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Prove notability and the article should stay. Otherwise it should go. The MP on the other hand is I imagine notable in his or her own right, so (again if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) would be a good candidate for an article. Springnuts 13:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how many independent reliable sources do you expect to cover the creation of a political party in Albania? I'm quite happy I found even one. —Nightstallion 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately what I want is not the point, the point is: does the topic of the conform to the guidelines in WP:N. Might I again suggest an article on the MP who would, I am certain, be notable? Regards, Springnuts 08:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that I would face any problems if I simply hunted for Albanian sources on the party and on the event and added a couple of them to the article -- that would fulfil the letter of WP:N more than it does now, but the *intent* of WP:N is obviously already fulfilled. I'm sorry, but I really find it rather ridiculous to question the notability of a parliamentary party. —Nightstallion 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What party? There are no reliable sources for the existence of the party. All we have is one source says that six days ago ago Nikollë Lesi said he was setting up a new party. Does it have offices, members, activists ...? Apparently this "party" consists of one man. That's not a party, or at least not yet. I have set up a short article about the very notable Nikollë Lesi - perhaps this article is best re-directed there? Springnuts 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per PaxEquilibrium. --Prevalis 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (should not be construed as my changing my opinion away from 'merge') I do realize that on-line reliable sources might be difficult to come by and an argument can be made (following from the Tony Snow-related comment above) for keeping the article as a matter of countering systematic bias. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Terraxos, PaxEquilibrium, Nightstallion. The article quotes an external reliable source. Looks like we could have some WP:BIAS creeping in here. Phil Bridger 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Anz Frankopan

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ivan Anz Frankopan
Ivan Anz Frankopan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)The whole article is not only original research, but a hoax. This guy wants to prove the royal origin of Radich family and produces several hoaxes in Wiki with the same purpose. His technic is writing something about real historical events, persons and facts and mixing it with the Radich family's alleged history. I could not find any source on the net about this claim. --Koppany 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced and probable hoax. Terraxos 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, no sources. --UnleashTheWolves 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, some of this ("On 31 July 1424, two envoys arrived to Venice from Senj...") appears to have been copied from this[16], part of a site about the history of Croatia but this article is completely unreferenced and appears totally unverifiable. Fails WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus below that there are insufficient reliable sources that focus on him as a primary subject for him to be the proper focus of an article. Eluchil404 08:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. Roswell Thompson

A. Roswell Thompson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a great obituary. But, er, we don't do obituaries. It is possible to become notable by losing elections, see Bill Boaks, but I don't see much evidence of significant coverage in life and there's not much but an obituary and some election stats (see WP:NOR) to go on here.

Maybe this will be one of the rare keeps for articles by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), but it doesn't look good to me. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. A search for reliable information about this person turns up nothing but obituaries. —dustmite 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not aware of the precise notability requirements for biographies of politicians, but whatever they are, this surely doesn't reach them. Getting less than 1% of the vote in various elections does not make one notable, relevant coverage from reliable sources does; and I see little evidence of that here. Terraxos 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - despicable, but notable? Tiptopper 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Article does not establish notability, although I'm not sure if there might be info out there to do so. I would say delete but without prejudice towards another creation... user who created it seems to create a lot of articles that are not seen as notable, not sure if its a trend or learning curve.Epthorn 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep of course Thompson was "notable", just unpopular. He was the best known Klansman in New Orleans. He ran for office fourteen times -- never expected to win anything -- just keeping the KKK in the public spotlight. Billy Hathorn 21:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. RMHED 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it invaluable when doing research on lesser political figures, regardless of location or political leanings, to have such information out there. Many of these figures often have far more interesting and colorful histories than many current notable political figures. DJ Jones74 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, and what you need for such WP:USEFUL stuff is a local history site. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if there were such sites, but there are precious few that have such biographies of more recent figures. DJ Jones74 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, very true. Wikipedia is not the place to fix that, we are not a publisher of first instance. I'm sure that a site can be set up, if you have the enthusiasm. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article goes to considerable trouble to show how unimportant he was. i think BH does careful research, and i accept his evaluation of it. DGG (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would he be deleted if he were a Black Panther instead of a Klansman? Billy Hathorn 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Next question? Guy (Help!) 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy is a HUGE personality in race history in the U.S. South. This article (if better written) can give the reader a better understanding of the KKK. Kingturtle 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An interesting historical footnote, but not notable in and of himself. Pastordavid 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pastordavid and bluedustmite. Nburden (T) 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live in Cleveland

Live in Cleveland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article covers a bootleg recording that is not more notable than any other Meat Loaf bootleg, in accordance to the Notability and Music Guidelines . Also, it is factually incorrect, and it's inclusion in Meat Loaf's discography is bound to confuse users. Evil Nickname 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the same reasons mentioned above, I am also nominating the following related pages:

Live at the Bottom Line (Meat Loaf) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Live at the Bottom Line 1985 (Meat Loaf) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:MUSIC notes that bootlegs are seldom notable enough for a stand-alone article, and there's no indication that these are exceptional. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Eluchil404 08:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timpanogas Regional Hospital

Timpanogas Regional Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because like the main article, they are all non-notable hospitals in Utah, and were created by the same editor at around the same time:

Intermountain Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Salt Lake Regional Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Uintah Basin Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Huntsman Cancer Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Ogden Regional Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
American Fork Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Gunnison Valley Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Sevier Valley Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Orthopedic Specialty Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mountain West Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)‎
McKay-Dee Hospital Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Lakeview Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Utah Valley Regional Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Dixie Regional Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Sanpete Valley Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Subject seems to be non-notable. For a majority of the pages, there is no considerable text on the page aside from the hospital's location and its phone number. Others have text that seems to have been picked from another source, and may be a copyright violation. Additionally, these read a great deal like advertisements. The creator has been creating a number of articles all related to hospitals in Utah, all of which seem to be non-notable. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable hospitals. Bobby1011 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable hospitals. TonyBallioni 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. I agree. JohnCD 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:N is clear on this, and WP:ORG doesn't contradict it: If there are multiple, independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage, the subject is notable. Because hospitals are so important in the lives of people and in communities, it's hard for them NOT to be notable. They often generate plenty of coverage. The first hospital listed here recently had several newspaper articles written about it, as anyone can see here. Where sources are not now in the articles, they can be found. Noroton 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: But they're not all like that. In a Google news search, the main article I listed yields no results. Should we just pick and choose from the list? As a side comment, the editor who created these articles just created them and ran away without making any attempt to clean up the articles. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nortoton. These are far too many articles to batch AfD and some of these, Ogden Regional Medical Center and Utah Valley Regional Medical Center for examples, are very major hospitals serving large population centers. These aren't little clinics in the woods. --Oakshade 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly hospitals are notable. I did a bunch of tagging and added a cat for these. They probably need to be tagged for references. This just makes the articles of poor quality and they are still notable. Vegaswikian —Preceding comment was added at 10:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per noroton. Kingturtle 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all, after dismissing several WP:ATA arguments, mostly "keep" opinions that do not address the crucial WP:DIRECTORY/WP:IINFO issues. Apologies for the acronym salad. Sandstein (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nude celebrities

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

Also nominated are the related sub-articles and category.

  • List of nude celebrities: A (added by closing admin)
  • List of nude celebrities: B (added by closing admin)
  • List of nude celebrities: C (added by closing admin)
  • List of nude celebrities: Y (added by closing admin)
  • List of nude celebrities: Z (added by closing admin)
  • Category:Lists of nude celebrities (added by closing admin)

Although this page is "sourced" about nudity in film the derivate articles and subsequent articles are, literally, just listings of when celebrities have appeared nude in one form or another including nipple slips on the red carpet. This listing serves no real purpose and although I commend the main article for its attempt at an article the ultimate aim of this series has no basis for articles. –– Lid(Talk) 14:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The article certainly has justification, and it’s the same as one of the main justifications for Wikipedia itself: to provide an alternative source for and/or to counter all the false, speculative and commercialized material on the internet. Whether or not you think the subject is tasteful is irrelevant; it is notable and has public interest – as has clearly been demonstrated. It is our job to provide information, not to moralize. LoNC 14:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Before anyone complains about the lack of sourcing for the movies, I would like to quote the applicable policy, which in this case would be that relating to film plots, which states that: “Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film.” LoNC 14:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment taste has nothing to do with it, in fact I commended you on the talk page for the article quality. My issue is that it serves as nothing more than a crufty directory, which is not protected by policy and has nothing to do with censorship misnomers. –– Lid(Talk) 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I’m not denying that the article may attract cruft, but difficulty of maintenance is not in itself reason enough to delete an article. Furthermore, the complexity of the formatting will probably discourage less serious editors, rather than had it been a simple bullet-point list. The directory issue I’ve addressed below.LoNC 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per LoNC. mattbuck 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with the article, although I suggest that the list is removed from the article and most importantly, the article name. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question before deciding Delete see reasoning below Can those claiming that this is notable please explain why they think it is so. As of now it looks like a clear example of WP:DIRECTORY and I am leaning towards delete but I am willing to "vote" for keep if it can be explained why this is notable. TonyBallioni 15:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a valid point, but in my opinion this is not a directory, but has independent value as a list. I’d like to draw attention to the following passage in that policy: "Cross-categories...are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Nudity is a significant attribute of celebrity; there are those like Halle Berry, whose decision to appear nude in the movie Swordfish significantly boosted her fame and profitability. On the other hand there are stars like Sandra Bullock and Renée Zellweger whose market value depends exactly on their insistence on not appearing nude on film, thereby maintaining a wholesome public image. This is why I believe the list can be valuable, because it can provide reliable, verified information on a subject normally burdened with speculation, innuendo and lies. LoNC 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete reasoning while LoNC does make some points this article is a clear example of WP:DIRECTORY and should be deleted. Also this topic is not notable enough to merit its own article. If a notable subject has done a nude performance and that performance is notable it should either be added to the performance's article or to the celebrity's article. This list has no place in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, as nearly every actor has been nude in public or on screen, or partially nude. Every single little instance of bare breast doesn't need to be on a list. This could also very easily become unmaintainable, as the creator might realize...it's already divided into 26 sub-lists, and it's only on B. --UsaSatsui 17:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How would you divide it then, if not into 26 lists of 1 letter each? mattbuck 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • 0 lists, of 0 letters each. It's not worth inclusion. Assuming it were, though, I'd do one page. If it gets too big, split into 2. And go from there. --UsaSatsui 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is work in the top 1 percentile of Wikipedia. How about we drop this obsession with deleting everything we don't like, and start focusing on improving the bad articles, there's plenty to take from. Lampman 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Response I'm all for improving the bad articles/articles that need improvement/cleanup, but this is a deletion discussion, listed on the deletion log, the purpose of which is to determine whether to keep or delete an article. The fact that there are articles on Wikipedia that need improvement is not a justification for keeping articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Calgary 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-response I know that, I'm just suggesting that some people reflect on how much easier it is to destroy than to build up, and maybe refocus their efforts a little. Lampman 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate list. Looking through what it contains so far, I see celebrities included on such dubious grounds as being photographed naked on private holidays, and accidentally exposing themselves in front of cameras. In other words, many of the people on this list made no voluntary choice to appear in nude pictures; as such, it probably violates WP:BLP as well, by being an unreasonable and potentially damaging intrusion into people's privacy. Terraxos 19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
To those who support keeping the list, I have to ask: would you feel differently if you were marginally famous for something, and nude paparazzi shots of you made it onto this list against your wishes? I would imagine so. Terraxos 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd think that I'd care more about sites which actually HAD the pictures. mattbuck 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That’s an interesting approach you’re recommending, that we should only write about people what they themselves would like to read. I’ll get to work on George W. Bush then. But seriously, while taking pictures of someone in a private setting without their consent is a violation of privacy, reporting about that event is not. Suppressing reports about it though, can be censorship, and you’ve badly misunderstood WP:BLP if you think it’s about censorship. It’s not; it’s about stricter demands on verification. LoNC 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The appropriate title for this article isn't "List of nude celebrities", but is "List of celebrities who have appeared nude in some capacity". In order for a list to be warranted, the subject of the list itself must be notable, and the subjects who appear on the list must be notable. In the case of this article, however, you have almost the exact opposite, as it makes a point of excluding pornographic actors, nude models, and anyone else whose career focuses on them exposing their bodies. In this case, what you end up with is a list of people who have appeared nude in some form of media, but are still not notable for their nudity. In addition, you have the problem of the scope of the article being far too broad. Even a list of actors who have appeared nude would be close to unmanageable, yet the term "celebrity" extends to virtually all members of the entertainment media. One could argue that the term "celebrity" would narrow the possible number of people who could be included on the list, but in the opposite ends up happening, as "celebrity" is a highly subjective term. Yes, Pamela Anderson is clearly a celebrity, but it Gillian Anderson a celebrity? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Furthermore, the article actually goes a step further, to include people who have appeared nude in some form of medai, as well as people who have appeared nude outside of the entertainment media. What this ends up coming down to is a list that is inconcievably vast, which has the potential to include any entertainer who has ever been seen nude, while giving little regard to notability or subjectiveness. The information may appear to be well organized, but in the end the inclusion criteria alone is not, and this is a prime example of an indiscriminate collection of information. Calgary 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Gillian Anderson, not a celebrity? Considering that The X-Files is a legendary science fiction show that is still airing today on the SciFi channel, i disagree with you. Just because the media decides to cover anytime that Pamela Anderson gets married doesn't make Gillian Anderson any less of a celebrity (or make Pamela any more of a celebrity). dposse 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Response I never said Gillian Anderson wasn't a celebrity, I was simply comparing her to Pamela Anderson in order to demonstrate that the lines asto who is or isn't a celebrity is rather blury. By some standards Gillian Anderson could be considered a celebrity, by some standards she couldn't. I'm saying that the term itself is ambiguous. Calgary 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terraxos. The list is indiscriminate and poses some WP:BLP problems as well. LaMenta3 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terraxos and Calgary. JohnCD 20:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm in agreement with Lampman. Everyone here seems to jump to "delete the article" rather then fixing it. dposse 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As a question what are we meant to fix the article to? –– Lid(Talk) 13:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the lists but merge the list intro somewhere. Calgary makes a very good analysis why a list like this (not to mention WP:NOT#IINFO) is not a good idea. – sgeureka t•c 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The list is likely to be of interest to a lot of people. Not sure regarding how the list is put together, but this discussion isn't about cleaning up the presentation but whether the topic should exist at all. StuffOfInterest 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Comment I think your keep comment would be benefitted from reading WP:INTERESTING and re-phrasing the reasoning appropriately. –– Lid(Talk) 13:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Calgary above. The title of this article makes very little sense, as everyone in the world has been nude at one point in their lives. shoy (words words) 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED 21:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. We really ought to try harder to be an encyclopedia. You do that by having encyclopedic articles. Articles not about encyclopedic topics aren't encyclopedic. This is trivia, which I'd define as a bunch of related facts that don't actually give us any information about the universe that would ever help us understand it better beyond just knowing the trivial facts in the article.Noroton 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep: On second thought, any list worth keeping in Wikipedia can generally be justified as illustrating some article that is worth keeping, and in this case that article is Nudity in film, and probably a few others. That makes it encyclopedic and not trivia.Noroton 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The list is not List of persons who have appeared nude on film, a list that would at least has discriminate criteria. It's "list of nude celebrities", which uses indiscriminate criteria for "what is a celebrity?" and "What is nude?". I mean, at some point or another, most people are at least one of those. --UsaSatsui 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rework the idea. If nobody wants to rework it, delete it. As it is, it's often too hard to determine whether or not a given person is a "celebrity". If you're too strict in your definition, the list will surely be too short because there are so many examples and not enough can be represented. (Playboy alone has created a lot of 'em.) And if you're not strict enough, it will surely be too long. And for a list like this, I don't think there is a "just right" because the line is just too fuzzy. Problems like these limit the usefulness of a list, and if it's not useful, why have it? But if you can establish a precise criterion for what defines a celebrity, then maybe the list would be more useful and I would be more inclined to keep it. For instance, find a list of top 100 celebrities chosen by a magazine or something, and then make a list of people on that list who have appeared nude. That's just an example; the point I'm making is we need a good definition of "celebrity" to work with. Then there would be much less debate on who should be on the list and the list would become much more useful. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I don’t think we should get caught up on the word "celebrity"; that could easily be changed, to "famous people" or "notable people". In any case, the criteria for inclusion should be the same as for Wikipedia in general. The exception is of course those who are known primarily for this activity, as that would be tautological ("people known for taking their clothes off who have taken their clothes off"). Besides, these already have their own lists (see here, here or here). The point is that even if an article has the potential to be very long, that is not a valid argument for deletion. Some might say that managing an encyclopedia of over 2 million subjects is too vast a project, and yet here we are...LoNC 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think changing it to a list of notable people would be worse, expanding it beyond any topic whatsoever. I can understand not having an article for "people known for taking their clothes off who have taken their clothes off", (although we have lists for people known for taking their clothes off), but what would be the logic of having an article of "people who are not known for taking their clothes off, who have taken their clothes off" Lists are meant to be an organizational tool, and can be very effective, but what is the organizational value of listing people by something that they are not notable for, and something which is not strongly associated with them? Calgary 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I’m not saying they’re not notable for it, to varying degrees they are, in some cases very much so (think Madonna, Paris Hilton etc.). I’m just saying it’s not their primary claim to fame; their defining characteristic. We have plenty of those lists, listing people by activity, belief, sexuality, medical condition, cause of death etc., and these all serve a purpose. I’m sure the people on the list of bow tie wearers would argue that there’s more to them than that!
As I see it, one of the main purposes of this list is to separate real images from fakes, in other words to separate true information from false, which should be one of Wikipedia’s main objectives. This does not only provide valuable information for the reader, but it also offers a level of protection for the subjects, in keeping with WP:BLP. This information is better placed in a list than forced into each separate biography article. LoNC 15:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per LoNC. Not to argue that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that bowtie list actually survived an AfD. It that one can make it and this one doesn't, I'd almost have to suspect us of prudishness. Eixo 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, I am inclined to nominate that article too after this, while it may list seventy references sixty of those are "this guy wore a bow tie". In fact the entire thing could be integrated into the bow tie article itself. –– Lid(Talk) 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment But it's already been nominated! What is this, "keep nominating it until I get the reusult I want"? That's how they have elections in some countries. There is such a thing as accepting the decisions of the community and the fact that you're not always right, and just move on. Endless re-nominations only disrupt the system and divert attention away from more important things. To me it just seems a bit childish and self-indulgent. Eixo 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment it was nominated back in January and the result then was "no consensus", given the time difference and that consensus can change over time a second nomination is not out of the question. Your implication of "keep nominating until I get the decision I want" is amusing as I wasn't even aware of the articles existence until you pointed it out to me and re-nominations do not disrupt the system, they are an integral part of the system and using the system is not childish or self-indulgent, especially in this case as I have no prior relation to the article. –– Lid(Talk) 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment It doesn't matter who nominiated it the first time, the result still stands, and the world hasn't changed that radically in the last 10 months. Then of course, if it's nominated enough times, the laws of statistics dictate that sooner or later the result will swing in favour of "delete". That's why the people who create articles can win a hundred times, while the people intent on deleting them only have to win once. But I'm sure you're aware of that, after all it's just a way of "using the system". Eixo 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment The result wasn't a keep for the article in the first place, it was a no consensus. You're making it sound like the last time the article was put up for deletion it was speedy kept. –– Lid(Talk) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment I implied no such thing. Eixo 14:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment "It doesn't matter who nominiated it the first time, the result still stands, and the world hasn't changed that radically in the last 10 months." makes it sound like a "no consensus" becoming "delete" would be a radical change for an article of people who wear bow ties. This is also horribly going off the current deletion topic and if you would like you can present your arguments again in the forum they will be used for. –– Lid(Talk) 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Terraxos, Calgary, etc. Indiscriminate list/directory with sketchy inclusion criteria and possible WP:BLP issues. Also has maintainability issues, especially in terms of maintaining a balanced neutral point of view with gender, historical, and worldwide perspectives, etc. Ravenna1961 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I maintain it is not a directory, and this is why: The list does not mention every instance of nudity, which would serve as a finding aid for the reader and hence make it a directory. It simply names one or two examples in way of verification, and is therefore only a list. LoNC 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I submit Mr. Skin's Skincyclopedia: The A-to-Z Guide to Finding Your Favorite Actresses Naked and The Bare Facts Video Guide as "significant coverage in reliable sources" which make a list like this notable. Any problems with the title can be solved by renaming (e.g. List of actors and actresses who have appeared nude); and if excluding porn stars, Playboy models, etc., is a problem, it could be changed to incorporate them by reference, by saying "See also: Category:Lists of porn stars, Category:Adult models, etc." DHowell 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks, actually Mr. Skin is already linked in the individual lists, and the online versioin is of course more up-to-date than the book. LoNC 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep John254 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Collection of trivia. If a (semi)nude shot is something so remarkable for the US culture rename it to "List of American nude something" to avoid chaotic and unmaintainable growth into regions where now hardly anybody cares. Pavel Vozenilek 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per LoNC. This seems like a well-defined, well-written and maintainable list of general interest, I think many of the objections against it are unfair. Panichappy 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Greswik 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Calgary makes an excellent argument.-- Balloonman (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie-Rose Mueller

Marie-Rose Mueller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about someone who was once one of the top 50 living people in the world. So what? Most people who were once one of the top 50 living people at some point do not have an article here, and there's no reason to suggest why this case is any different. If she was a record-breaker for her country or was one of the top 10 living people in the world, then it might be different, but as far as I'm concerned there's a little bit of news coverage (WP:NOT#NEWS) and a load of original research here - there may even be a conflict of interest as the person who uploaded the photograph took it of the article's subject themselves, and so much of the content may be unverifiable, leaving us with a permastub. Not even the holder of the title of the oldest living person in Connecticut at any point. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The sources of the article are, as HisSpaceResearch said, unverifiable. That said, I don't believe that there should be much use of the article either. Besides, there is no news coverage on it either. No news coverage means no interest. No interest means no use of it. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I did a search on Google, and found three separate US newspaper articles about her death. So clearly there was news coverage.--Toddy1 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - 62 Google hits minus "wikipedia", nothing on Google News. Many of the Google hits are blogs and forums. Wikipedia is not a directory of supercentenarians or anything else.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently Wikipedia is a directory of flight destinations from Manchester UK airport:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destinations_served_by_Manchester_Airport_Terminal_3

This article is at least interesting due to the history involved: born in that part of Alsace retained by France after the annexation of most of it by Germany after the Franco-Prussian war. This article alone led to a greater understanding of the past; most had not even realized that France retained the Territoire de Belfort. In this day and age when people watch too much TV and play too many video games, shouldn't it be OK for a minority of young people to actually learn something academic?Ryoung122 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Centenarians are default notable; they are honoured in the UK by a telegram from the monarch for example. The 100th anniversary is frequently reported in local news. Providing there is an independent source then the article should stay. LessHeard vanU 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. In fact, she's a supercentenarian (110+), but you have it totally wrong if you think that centenarians are by default notable enough for Wikipedia. That would merit many tens of thousands of permastubs many of which would lack multiple reliable non-trivial published sources and fail WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#DIR.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete very few supercens are truly notable. RMHED 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being over the age of 110 does not make someone inherently notable. Impressive as this woman's longevity may be, she was not even the oldest woman in her state, let alone the country; there is nothing particularly notable about her to anyone other than her friends and family. Terraxos 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable for not taking many pills and being infairly good health. Being age 111 in its own right entitles one to an article. And she was a local celebrity even with her own holiday''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The COI charge is unfair. The first photo uploaded was from the newspaper, which was deleted as being a 'copyright' issue. It thus made sense that, since Wikipedians are deleting newspaper/commercial photos, the only photos available will thus be amateur. This is true even with the world's oldest woman, Edna Parker. Note even the city of Atlanta has several amateur photos.
    Second, there are some 80,000 centenarians in the USA but perhaps only 80 persons aged 110+, and maybe 40 aged 111+, at any one time. So, this age grouping is much rarer than the average college football player (who is often included even if scoring only one career touchdown, as is the case with Keeley Dorsey).
    So, a question must be asked: where do we draw the line for 'notability' when it comes to supercentenarians? There are over 200 articles created and the minimum standard is age 110. Thus the issue may be related to 'media coverage'. How much coverage is sufficient?
    A final note, 'notable' or not, the woman's article was originally created by a non-relative who read about her in the paper, not a relative.Ryoung122 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I started reading the article thinking that it would be a clear keep, but had to abandon that idea as I read though it. There are no inline citations, so it's hard to tell which of the facts asserted are sourced where, but of the three links provided, one is just an entry in a list, one is a dead link which doesn't show up in the internet archive, and the remaining link is to 247-word news report which offers far fewer facts than are in the article, supporting the suggestion that the article contains a lot of original research. Even if the missing article was was substantial, she still falls far short of WP:BIO.
    It would be great to include a properly-sourced single paragraph on Mueller in a list of extremely long-lived American people, but without massive new evidence of notability this standalone article looks like a clear delete. If the article was plausibly referenced I'd suggest a merger to a list, but I don't see anything here worth keeping unless new sources are available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • bhg, I included a reference to a long article in the Stratford Courier, (or maybe it was Journal, it's been awhile), when I first wrote the article. Unless it's been removed, or I pasted it in wrong, it should still be in their and should be enough for the articles reference, as the article only repeats, tit for tat, everything mentioned in the article, except perhaps reworded, very thinly in fact in several places. As for notability, an American is, by statistal probability, 10 times more likely to become a Congressman or Governor than live to be 111, that is notable, though not notable enough, on it's on. There's more though, and I implore you to change your opinion, as if this supercentenarian isn't notable then none of them are. Allow me to continue. Her father was a carriage maker, a carriage maker, who was one of the first people to switch to manufacturing automobiles and as a result her family was one of the first in France to drive a car. They lived in small part of the Alsace region of France still controlled by France and surrounded on three sides by Germany. They left France to flee uncoming agressions from Germany at the beginnings of the events which eventually led to WWI. There's a historical notability for you there, that also adds interest. Then add to it that up to her death at 111, she could still speak three langauges, (that's stunningly sharp for a supercentenarian), and was in good, stable health up to her sudden death, (which happens among supercentenarians sometimes), and you add more to her notability as a supercentenarian and add more interest. Lastly, hers is a good 'example article', an article that gives a good, well written example of a more interesting supercentenarian. It should stand so that it can serve as an example of a supercentenarian, (there are not many as detailed as it, aside from World's Oldest Lived people). I'm not proposing to write four hundred 10 page long articles on every supercentenarian that ever lived, but asking to let one, a page and a half long including references etc., stand. It's not long, and I do believe that Mueller's notability and interestingness, (which is not even a word), for lack of a better word, crosses the threshold to be allowed a simple, short article. On a last note, it could stand as a human interest article, and is, in my opinion a solid addition to Wikipedia's biography project. I respectfully ask you to reconsider carefully, and if that's still not enough, then why not submit, to me, a list of problems that you think make it delete worthy, from formating, to content, to referencing, and I will fix them to the best of my ability, simple as that. If Wikipedia has space for articles on 500 Pokemon cards because people are interested in them, then it has space for a few articles on supercentenarians because there are people interested in them, and Gerontology is an actual field and a growing hobby that does deserve representation.--Robert Waalk 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the original articles html has been moved. Otherwise absolutely everything would match, because I pretty much just prettied up and copied that article as best as could, and added a little orginal bit her and there, based on what the article said. I will try and relocate the article to substantiate this too you. AS for the earlier claim about conflict of interest, posted by the first person seeking deletion, I have no conflict here, I have never met her, and am of no relationship. The other picture I had was unusuable because of the annoying copyright restrictions for photographs, and had to be pulled, that was the only other one available, and someone graciously uploaded it. --Robert Waalk 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take your word on the content of the original article. But even if we count that missing article as a source, we are still left with only three brief articles in local newspapers, which falls well short of the substantial coverage required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep

I once saw a Pokemon card, as a featured article. That's Wikipedia. It's about big encyclopedic things and small "useless" facts. I know servers cost money, but I see Wikipedia as an infinite pool of information, so deleting articles should be rare. This article could be shortened, but if there are 1 or 2 mentions in the media, I don't see the point of deleting it. It's quite an interesting life story anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.94.3 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:INTERESTING is not a good argument for inclusion. In fact, if it weren't for deletionism, Wikipedia would be so full of crap that people would not be able to use it in the same way.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Who is it hurting if we leave it up? No One. So you people arguing that it’s unverifiable, are you saying that every piece of information on Wikipedia is verifiable, because if it wasn’t it has already been deleted? It would be one thing if she was like 78 and died, because then the world wouldn’t really care, as it happens every day, but she was 111, and one of a very small group of people.--Tyler Gothier 18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do I care what you think, or what Wikipedia guidelines say I should avoid? No, I don't. Also, stop commenting on peoples opinions, no one really cares what you have to say, and as you say on your page, there are two sides to every story.--Tyler Gothier 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think not, and unknown for the second 1. However, with that response, it seems apparent you don't care, else you wouldn't be replying. Anyways, no one has to follow the "stop commenting on people's opinions," which leads to the pointlessness of requesting it. Also, asking "do I care what you think," is an example of "appeal to unqualified authority." The number 1 person to ask questions about yourself isn't User:HisSpaceResearch, it should, in fact, be you. Neal 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Yes, your information is false. The Stratford Journal or Carrier or whatever is was, wrote a long article on her, I posted it as a reference when I wrote the article. There are about to be obituaries in Connecticuts two largest newspapers which shows people do care, and Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has declared her birthday 'Muzzy Mueller Day' for the past four years. She was something of a local figure in Connecticuts Capitol. Go to Google and you can find no less than four articles on her. There is no issue with the articles quality. AS for the most of the Supercentenarians not having articles, well this article was the start of a project to give many of the more notable ones, who were lacking articles, short articles. Her life is interesting from the historical context, and the fact that only one in some 50 million people make it to be her age. By statistical probability, a person born in America has a far greater chance of becoming a Congressman, or Governor, far greater. So, by simple rarity of her longevity she is notable. Again, you are misguided. People do care, so your biggest argument is gone. Multiple newspaper articles, including ones for everyone of her birthdays dating back four years ago, and multiple obituaries. She even had her birthday declared "Muzzy Mueller Day" by the Governor of Connecticut. I'm sorry to repeat myself but this an outrageous delete and I feel I have to drive the point in. Marie Mueller was notable from her local status, and from the extreme statistical rarity. Not to mention she falls under the interest category, as her good health and the historic context of her life are interesting. As for the comment, "She wasn't even the oldest People in Connecticut, delete", well, the oldest person in Connecticut happens to be one 12 oldest people alive right now, so it's hard to fault her for that. Look up up Elizabeth Stefan to see more on it. She is, I believe the oldest living immigrant, and the oldest living Hungarian, (by birth).--216.79.211.7 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also, I have voted before but if its the verifibility that is the issue, we can simply remove the unverifible stuff and keep the verifible stuff, which is pretty much all the article. If its the notability factor, well doesn't Wikipedia have a policy that says that local notables should be included. The governor himself came to her house and declared her 111th a holiday. And also read my previous Keep for other reasons for notability. This is actually a very stupid discussion for I can counter anything that is a Delete. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. As per users "Ryoung" and also "Kitia". Extremely sexy 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe this is notable and worthy of a "keep" vote. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Weak keep, for the time being. As mentioned above, old age is not a reason for inclusion per se, but the media coverage may contain things not yet worked into the Wikipedia article. <KF> 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, supercentenarians are rare - that is notable in itself. The idea of deleting this article is as absurd as it is pedantic and brings out the worst in Wikipedia. Dovea 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP There are perhaps 100 or so people alive right now who can be verifiably said to be over 110 years old, and only around 1100 people ever known to have reached such ages. These people are the outer edge of Human longevity, and are directly important and relevant to the life and longevity of our species, and every one of us. If that doesn't count for something, then perhaps the wikipedia policy on "notability" needs to be broadened just a little bit so that articles like this can remain, for the people who find them facinating and important, rather than just being deleted one by one by people who are applying policy and guidelines in a somewhat robotic fashion. There is always room for flexibilty and understanding in any system of rules and policies. Is it too much to ask to have some here? Cjeales 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the strikethrough placed on the comments of Cjeales by Duja. Even if the former is a puppet of Ryoung122, there has only been one comment by Ryoung122, which made a different point.--Toddy1 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I unblocked Cjeales, as he's probably just a meatpuppet; however, please see WP:CANVASS. If it wasn't crystal clear so far, it is in process in this AfD. Cjeales (talk · contribs) has 3 edits on Wikipedia outside Young-related AfDs and ANIs. Duja► 08:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Wikipedia is a compact source for a lot of different themes and only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.

Statistician 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply: I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd question of your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. And an admin's opinion is slightly different than what an admin does. And your last sentence is irrelevant in terms of your vote according to Wikipedia's policies. Neal 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

Comment We seem to be going off at very interesting debates, so I thought I should voice some opinions. Robert Young is now banned, so I will speak on his behalf (and Bart Versieck is under a 48 hour shun, so I'm the only 1 left). I'm from world's oldest people group, so I really shouldn't vote. She doesn't pass WP:BIO, least, not that I know off. Robert Young once said he felt someone that is 112.5 is notable for a Wikipedia article (that's where he drew the line). And this woman is only 111. So when I looked at this article, I could see how it was started: more than a sentence. Matter fact, several paragraphs.

Anyways, she's the 2nd oldest person in the state of Connecticut. There's 50 U.S. states. If every 1st and 2nd oldest person in U.S. state had their own article, that's 100 articles. But then, why not go back to 2005 and 2003, there's another quadruple amount for articles.

It should be noted that Robert's view of supercentenarian articles for keep increases exponentially by age of 1 year. In other words, less than 50% of 113 year-olds reach 114. Less than 50% of 112 year-olds reach 113. In other words, there are more 110 year olds ever than 111-122 year olds ever. So Robert drew the line at 112.5 for modern-day, even though WP:BIO did not say 1 had to be 112.5 in order to have their own article. It seems that Robert did not create this article, but he'll still be inclined not to give it the disadvantage of the doubt by voting for deletion.

By reading some of the above posts that 111 is really notable, I would be curious to know where they draw the line, and I'm guessing 110. That would mean some 1,000 biographies. Anyways, I'm more strongly towards rank (rank at death). The 2nd oldest person in a U.S. state would mean the 2nd oldest person of any sizeable state/province. Oh, yea, and I probably lied about speaking on Robert's behalf. I'm, in reality, speaking on my own. :P. Neal 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

  • keep. There is an entire article on Supercentenarians, and an entire subculture that celebrates and documents supercentenarians. Kingturtle 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Greswik 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (again) if she's so boring, why have we written so much in this article Mike Young 21:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Heh, it's not about whether she's boring or not. Why have people written so much in her article? To make her notable enough to avoid deletion. Neal 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
  • I really think this one is heading for a big no consensus. The people arguing for a keep are sometimes using weak arguments for inclusion, although there are more keep voters than delete voters.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think the amount of 'keep' votes and 'delete' votes matter. This isn't a popularity contest. I think it's more about adding up the logical reasonings on both sides and weighing that in. For example, a lot of the keep are the same reasons "she's 111, that's really notable!" But if someone can find how she matches a WP:BIO, etc., then that would be something else. Neal 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 05:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torsten Fogh Dybvad

Apparently a hoax, I have just removed the Danish counterpart. According to the discussion page on Danish Wikipedia, there is no historical person in Roskilde at this time, and the sources that were mentioned in the Danish article does not seem to exist. Morten LJ 14:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as no real claim of notability. RMHED 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 03:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Roskilde article makes the claim that the Voksen Uddannelse Center "...is situated in the former varehouse of the well known Danish merchant Torsten Fogh Dybvad." Presumably that is false. --Malcolmxl5 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rabah Alquei'i

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Rabah Alquei'i
Rabah Alquei'i (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I think he isn't a really famous person (What did he do for the world!), he has written this article about himself (look at history of article). OsamaK 13:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment There is nothing in the history that indicates that he has written the article himself, and "What did he do for the world!" is not a valid deletion argument. Actually, there aren't any valid arguments in the nomination at all. 96T 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google search returns only 5 results, of which 4 are wikipedia or mirrors. This is the only other result, and 1 google hit is hardly notable. Unless more sources are found, delete it. mattbuck 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - actually if you look at the history of the article, it was started by a user named "Rabio", which is clearly a play on his own name "Rabah". Furthermore, he wrote the same article about himself under his full given name "Rabah al-Quwai'i" in the Arabic version of Wikipedia also and later went on a long hiatus. When the article was later nominated for deletion, he reappeared suddenly to unilaterally remove the deletion tage. There are only three independent sources that speak of him: Human Rights Watch calling for his release [17], CPJ announcing 13 days later that he was released [18], and a very sympathetic article on the website of an Arabic satellite news station (al-Arabiya) that reports on him being harassed by religious conservatives in his town and saying: "Rabah al-Quwai'i, whose intellectual activities have been limited to appearing on internet web forums under his real name to debate intellectual issues and express ideas contrary to those of some conservatives" [19] (Arabic). I have nothing but sympathy for what this young man has gone through, but I can find references in news reports to people who have gone through much worse and that doesn't mean they are notable enough for Wikipedia. At the very least, we should see if someone other than himself will eventually see fit to write a decent, well-sourced article about him. -- Slacker 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • ‌Comment: He has written an article about him self at Arabic Wikipedia (his name was Rabah) And I think he is Rabio at English Wikipedia.--OsamaK 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete he is not famous person i am with delete this article Bayrak 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The nomination might have been worded differently, but notability is not establised. He might fit into an article as an illustration of Saudi censorship or the like, but doesn't warrant a serarate article. Eixo 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin) RMHED 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lindsay Ashford

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (third nomination)
Lindsay Ashford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Inactive pedophile activist from the internet. Half of the sources don't work, as he took his site down. Fringe notability on its own, as notable material already covered at Pro-pedophile activism. GrooV 12:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete only notable on the fringe, as per nom, this is a good afd call. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This has been discussed over and over again. This guy is a central figure both in the media and in a heated social debate about pedophilia. As such, the page on him is highly significant and notable. Whether in glory or disgrace, he might even end up a significant historical figure. In addition to this, due to strong POV objections to Ashford's views, such as those previously given for nominating this article for deletion, factual information about this person is very hard to come by, and the wikipedia article serves an important purpose. Please notice also that SqueakBox (previous commenter) was the proposer of the second delete nomination, which was turned down. Ravstein 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)User has made 5 edits, all today. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Although there are many sources on this page, most of them do not actually relate to Lindsay Ashford or mention him by name. The only area where he seems to have significant notability is the part about him posting pictures of Barack Obama's kids and having to remove them, and that was only a brief news story at best. Overall, his notability is extremely marginal, and so while I suggest keeping the article, I think it should be cut down to the bare minimum of what reliable sources say about the guy (probably, about one or two paragraphs). Terraxos 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I think this article should be kept because it is able to meet the basic requirements from WP:BIO. However, this article needs some major cleaning up. The sources need to be fixed because the one of the sites listed as references closed down, making the statements unverifiable at the moment. Icestorm815 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Ashford and his website created quite a bit of a controversy in the media; his name returns about 488,000 hits on Google and he has been a major target of the anti-pedophile movement. Albert Wincentz 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Some sources don't work anymore because there are efforts out there trying to remove information about him, by petitioning Google to remove links to his site, for example. The fact that his site is down doesn't mean that we should take down our article on him. Notability is not temporary! If anything it just makes the little information we have on him that much more valuable. --Ospinad 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a notable individual in the history of pro-pedophile activism. Even though his activist site is shut down at the moment, he has already left his mark, and there's plenty of material to build a quality article. It's true that it's a bit harder now to source some of his ideas, seeing as linking to his site is no longer an option, but there are plenty of secondary sources that discuss the perspectives Ashford advocated. Since the topic of this article fulfills the notability requirements, and the content satisfies the biography standards, there's no reason to delete the article. If anything, the article should be kept and expanded, for there's much more that needs to be said about this person - information that was previously removed due to lack of proper referencing. ~ Homologeo 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unnotable criminal. Pol64 01:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I saw nothing to suggest that Ashford was a criminal, and would rather you not make those kind of comments on a webpage that is likely to be referenced by people who wish to establish his character. Indeed, his lack of a criminal record makes him all the less notable. GrooV 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the nom Ashford has "fringe notability on his own, as notable material already covered at Pro-pedophile activism." I don't think that's really true because in the whole (80kb) article for Pro-pedophile activism the only time Lindsay's name is mentioned is in this sentence:
"Many other pedophile activists, amongst them David Riegel, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to consent to sex."
I just think there is more that can be said about him than just this. --Ospinad 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if it survives afd perhaps we can merge it into PPA. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need since Lindsay Ashford has already met the requirements of notability to have his own article. --Ospinad 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That assertion is clearly disputed which is why we are here, and for the third time. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's being disputed by fewer and fewer people each time, lol. I think 3 should be the limit for the number of times an article can be nominated for deletion. --Ospinad 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Daniel Brandt took 14 deletion attempts before succeeding and the trolling GNAA organisation took a similar number. There are no limits at present re number of afds. I think we should wait before drawing any conclusions re this afd. Thanks, SqueakBox01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't vote, but if he isn't notable then why the huge uproar over his article? Is Wikipedia short on server space or something? -HolokittyNX 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep there is more than enough continuing news coverage to show notability. The reason for nomination seems a little peculiar--If he was notable while his site was up he still is now. Notability is permanent DGG (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAWN. I see no possibility of passing this vote any more. And although there are good reasons for deleting this material, I would not like to be seen as in league with either Pol64 or his reasoning. Sorry for the inconvenience. GrooV 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Although I may disagree with you on some things in regards to this article, I agree that the stance Pol64 is taking is overboard and not helpful to the project. Also, considering that you have withdrawn your nomination of this article for deletion, what happens now? Do we need an admin to bring this process to closure? Although, I think it would still make sense to complete this process as usual, so that all the arguments on both sides can be voiced - this information can then be used to improve the article. ~ Homologeo 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Meh. By the look of other votes, an admin will come along, declare nomination withdrawn and archive it. The whole mood around here seems to be one of cynical politics, policy violation, gross logical incompetence and rampant psychological projection, especially with reference to unnamed others. I might feel better about this tomorrow, but with the failure to act on Pol64 (see AN), the message is clear; no one is brave enough to act on those whose excesses are commonly seen as noble or valiant. I guess it's because of the pressure from Perverted-Justice (cso.com). GrooV 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont 08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger "Raj" Thomas

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Roger "Raj" Thomas
Roger "Raj" Thomas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fictional character that doesn't seem to pass WP:FICT. I would've suggested to merge the article, but it mainly consists of in-universe information, and I don't think What's Happening!! needs more of that. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, character is not independently notable and nothing here needs to be added to the main article. Otto4711 15:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep*/No consensus to delete--JForget 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bingo wings

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

Dicdef, neologism and original research. Basically, it's a slang term for a type of pannus. It has had some cultural references, but that's about it. Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete just slang. JJL 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A fine article with notability and references. If more are needed, then try The Sun, Now magazine, Daily Mail, The Independent - national newspapers and magazines. Colonel Warden 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Colonel Warden - no difficulty in establishing third-party references, and importance in popular culture to describle a rather specific form of flabbiness... :-) DWaterson 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bingo wings?! That made my day. But those sources merely use the term, they do not make it notable. So it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. i (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Two of the sources I found don't just use the term - this condition is the focus of their coverage. I can't imagine what more is needed to demonstrate notability. Since this is a British usage, perhaps you are not a good judge of the matter. Colonel Warden 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Those sources are about the condition. This article is about the term. Two different things. Reliable sources need to be found about the term. Crazysuit 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the BBC source among other things, I have been, just barely, convinced this term in notable enough. I (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • At least the BBC source is about the term, but the BBC's full coverage amounts to: "Bingo wings is the name given to skin hanging down from people's arms as they raise their hands in victory at bingo", in other words, it's trivial coverage. Crazysuit 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources about this term, only the condition the term describes, which are two different concepts. Fails WP:NEO. Crazysuit 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to the keep voters. Just because it's an interesting neologism that made it into a dictionary doesn't mean it's any more notable than, say, "disappointment" as a phrase.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not just a novel phrase; it's also a running joke in the referenced shows. And it's a medical/cosmetic condition which is of great interest to millions of women. The article on pannus does not address the topic adequately and that word was unknown to me until now. We might compare with man boobs in which the medical aspects are better developed but the social aspects are still rudimentary. A redirect like that might work but outright deletion is not appropriate. As usual, AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is jsut a term from Bo' Selecta!, but a neologism, why not just redirect there? --W.marsh 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep if it's good enough for inclusion in Chambers Dictionary BBC report, then it should have it's own article. RMHED 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Does that mean we should have an article on every word in the Chambers Dictionary? I hope not - that's not what Wikipedia is for. I say delete this page as an article about a non-notable neologism. Terraxos 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! That's exactly my point. Just because it's a neologism that found its way into dictionaries, it's less notable than most other words in the dictionary - and we don't have articles about most words, we have articles about subjects.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes more neologisms in wikipedia and less Pokemon and Manga shite.RMHED 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bingo wings is quite a widely used term, and for it not to be represented here on Wikipedia would be a travesty, especially when page after endless page of that Pokemon shite is. RMHED 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Pokemon pages have been merged into lists recently, for your information. Very few articles about individual Pokemon remain. Obviously, Pikachu should remain for being the most famous, but Bellsprout has been merged.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
*Keep Common term and should be represented. KingStrato 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Then be bold and write it. It's certainly an encyclopaedic topic, though perhaps a nice redirect to Depression (mood) would suffice. I'm not sure that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is a good argument either. Oh no, actually it turns out we did have an article on that subject until you AFD'd it... Great way to make a point there. DWaterson 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Catch phrases or words that gained popularity through popular culture outlets (in this case a British TV program) are certainly worthy of an article. The Wiktionary entry doesn't negate its being notable, and it does not do an adequet job explaining the rise in popularity of the term. There are plenty of examples of catch phrases or slang terms that not only make it on to Wikipedia, but also more traditional encyclopedias, because they do more than just define the word, but describe how it came about. More importantly this term has verifiable, reliable, independent secondary sources. Jacksinterweb 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources are reliable, but they aren't significant coverage. One sentence in a BBC news article isn't non-trivial coverage, which is required to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Crazysuit 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. For example, it appears in Chambers Dictionary. Kingturtle 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Great Game

New Great Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listing on behalf of Curzon, who appears to be unfamiliar with deletion processes. User's rationale for deletion:

This article is a blog-style essay posing as an article. The non-opinion content should be placed in other articles and this article should be considered for deletion.
– Gurch 11:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject International relations has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems sufficiently well-referenced and notable as a concept in its own right. The article has neutrality issues, in that it basically assumes the central thesis is correct, but that just means it needs some rewriting, not deletion. Terraxos 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This article really does appear like a blog entry of some sort, with questionable source references in relation to what is actually written, and rather obvious POV flaws. I tried to edit it, but the subject matter seems rather hopeless, and very open to opinionated bias. This does not belong on an encyclopedia, so much as it does on either a political blog or newsletter. Atari400 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Complete rewrite. If not possible, strong delete - The page can't fit in any specific place in any encyclopedia as it is now. Rashid's theses could be summed up, compressed and put into a "New Great Game (book)" page, but that's really the only proper way I can think about them being hosted at Wikipedia. Billy Pilgrim 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. This is a poorly-written article with POV issues and potential violations of WP:SYN. It may be possible to salvage with either a re-write or a combination re-write and re-list as New Great Game (book). Majoreditor 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Terraxos. It seems a shame to delete something so thorough, even if it has certain issues. Panichappy 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A google search for "New Great Game" -wikipedia retrieved 89,800 hits. This article has nearly 40 notes. That the article needs re-writing does not justify deletion. It justifies re-writing. Kingturtle 17:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversationality

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

"The term was coined in March 2005". Doesn't seem widely used, about 1230 ghits. MER-C 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete In relation to marketing, this term fails WP:NEO. Bláthnaid 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete -- when you look at unique hits, it gets even worse: just 210. It appears to be an effort to promote the "STICK and MOVE" advertising agency; note this edit summary: ("Created a page for proprietary branding concept of Conversationality") --A. B. (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to strong delete -- the only effort here is in the way of enriching the conversation about marketing as it evolves in today's landscape and introducing a novel term that is relevant but not everyone may be familiar with. This benefits all those working in and passionate about the marketing industry, regardless of the term's agency origin. If this was to be deleted, then so should "lovemark" -- we're either opening up the discussion on marketing to everyone, or we're not, there's no midpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopova (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If conversationality gets to be as widely used as "lovemark", you'll have the kind of media coverage we need to justify an article for the concept. Google News search for "lovemark": 3 news items; Google News Archive: 224 news items. --A. B. (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is Spam disguised as a non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as link farming with a thin layer of marketing speak / neologism dicdef. -Harmil 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Harmil. Greswik 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wrestler (film)

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

Deprodded. Mostly a problem with crystal ball-ness. Film hasn't entered production, IMDb says Nic Cage is "rumoured" to be involved. Closedmouth 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom for crystal ball issues. Nikki311 16:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL TonyBallioni 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, Now that Cage has dropped out there is more to the story. The article will grow in time. Chandlerjoeyross 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the notability guidelines for films, which says that stand-alone articles for films should only be created after projects enter production. Before then, any number of factors could interfere with production. The 2007 writers' strike and other elements could keep this film from being made for a long time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. Excuse my ignorance, but I assume the article can easily be recreated if the movie becomes reality? Panichappy 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indeed it can be recreated if the movie becomes reality. As for now, it violated WP:CRYSTAL, as has been pointed out before. The Hybrid T/C 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Bramall

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

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 5. Notability and other related concerns. This is procedural, so no opinion. Daniel 08:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Representing UCL in a quiz [21] doesn't assert notability, nothing else found (no GNews, minimal Google). Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here indicates notability. Having the good fortune to be on a quiz with a journalist does not change that. Nuttah68 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Major NN. don't want to add color but i'd be surprised if any non-bias editor agreed this met BLP requisitesTrue theory 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)quisites.
  • Delete Winning a round in a quiz show is nowhere near an assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. JONATHAN Go green! 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reynols

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

Absolutely no assertion of notability since 2005, and when I prodded the page, the template was simply removed again without any improvement to the article. It's not so much an issue of needing citations, as needing a reason to have an article in the first place. Yeanold Viskersenn 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. No secondary-source citations, no assertion of notability.Ryoung122 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This may even be a hoax. Either way, it's not significant. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beaver_Creek_Elementary_School

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Beaver Creek Elementary School
Beaver_Creek_Elementary_School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Bundle of articles about schools, elementary and secondary, all non-notable. The following list of schools is included on this bundle by me: (they can all be found on the page for School_District_36_Surrey, which is probably part of the problem. Epthorn 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - please outline each high school you have researched and why the sources failed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: You cannot prove a negative statement. These schools do not meet notability because of a lack of independent, verifiable sourcing that establishes it via WP:NOTE; I cannot show evidence of this except for the lack of notability established. While I could say "this school fails to establish notability" for each article, it seems like it would greatly clog up AFD, doesn't it?Epthorn 07:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You didn't seem to intend to include secondary schools in this VfD but they are listed below. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch, I mis-typed that. Fixed. Epthorn 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
* Tamanawis Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* South Surrey White Rock Learning Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Sullivan Heights Secondary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Semiahmoo Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Queen Elizabeth Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Princess Margaret Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* North Surrey Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Kwantlen Park Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Johnston Heights Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Guildford Park Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Fraser Heights Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Frank Hurt Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Fleetwood Park Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Enver Creek Secondary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Clayton Heights Secondary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Prince Charles Elementary School (Surrey)‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Port Kells Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Peace Arch Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Martha Currie Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Maple Green Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* M B Sanford Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Lena Shaw Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Latimer Road Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Laronde Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Kirkbride Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Kensington Prairie Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Kennedy Trail Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* K B Woodward Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Janice Churchill Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* James Ardiel Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* J T Brown Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Hyland Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Hjorth Road Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Hillcrest Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Henry Bose Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Harold Bishop Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Halls Prairie Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* H T Thrift Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Green Timbers Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* George Greenaway Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Frost Road Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Fraser Wood Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Forsyth Road Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Fleetwood Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Erma Stephenson Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Ellendale Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Ecole Riverdale Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* East Kensington Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* East Clayton Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Dr F D Sinclair Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Don Christian Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Dogwood Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Discovery Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* David Brankin Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Crescent Park Elementary School (Surrey, British Columbia)‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Colebrook Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Coast Meridian Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Cloverdale Traditional School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Chantrell Creek Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Cedar Hills Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Brookside Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Bridgeview Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Boundary Park Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Bothwell Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Bonaccord Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Betty Huff Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Berkshire Park Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Beaver Creek Elementary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
* Earl Marriott Secondary School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The reason I have selected all of these is each fails to demonstrate notability. I prodded them, but some helpful creature exercised his right to take the prods off almost all the pages. It may be his/her right to do that, but it's my right to grumble about having to spend another hour or two doing this. Anyway, I left out a few schools that should probably also be deleted because they at least TRY to demonstrate notability. I'll nominate them one by one when the dust clears here. Epthorn 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Re-direct all elementary school articles to School District 36 Surrey; Keep all secondary school articles Keep all for now - It is very difficult to assess the notability of each school with this number been nominated. The elementary school articles do not appear notable and hence non-controversial re-directs to the district article are appropriate, it is a accepted practise not to bring these cases to AFD. A lot of the secondary schools been nominated have signs of notability, and most secondary schools brought to AFD are established to have notability and are kept. If the secondary schools are to be brought to AFD I suggest it is done individually and their existing and potential notability looked at on a case by case basis. Camaron1 | Chris 10:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against a re-direct, and in fact some of the schools on that page are redirected to the same page. It is a little odd because the page lists, in chart form, all the schools, with links. Having all these links simply point back to the same page they are linked FROM is a little confusing. Epthorn 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Links which link back to the page you are on should be avoided yes, in this event it sensible just just to remove the links manually. I think in the end though this simply is not going to work as some elementary schools could be more notable than the articles suggest and hence blanket deleting/re-directing them all might not be sensible. It is better just to deal with them on a case by case basis and re-direct those that are not notable. Camaron1 | Chris 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe primary/elementary schools do not normally need to go to AfD unless the deletion is in any way controversial. They should probably all be deleted. I'm not sure that I see the need for a redirect as this would only encourage the creation of a new article in the future. However the secondary schools are a different matter. They should really all have separate AfD pages so that people can comment properly. They should certainly not have been nominated en masse in this fashion. Proper articles can usually be written on the vast majority of secondary schools and they very rarely get deleted at AfD. Dahliarose 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, Dahliarose, I didn't want to have to tag all these. I tried using prod, but someone took away the tag, forcing my hand.Epthorn 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I can see that it is a waste of time bringing all the elementary schools to AfD, and I am quite happy to recommend them all for deletion. I am, however, concerned about all the secondary schools. I've only had a brief look at some of the schools listed, and some of them do indeed seem to have notable elements. I know nothing about Canadian schools, but I think the way that these schools have been nominated en masse means that they will not get a fair hearing. Dahliarose 15:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - why? Most elementary schools are non-notable I agree but some are notable as shown by several that have been sourced and kept recently. Each and every school should be individually considered against available sources. TerriersFan 19:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I did leave out a couple of the secondary schools, but those I left in, while they generally have more information than the elementary schools, still don't really give any encyclopedia-type info. Info about mascots, what sports are in the athletic programs, etc. Personally, I don't see any inherent difference between elementary schools and secondary schools in terms of notability. I know people are supposed to look through all the different articles for deletion, but if you feel there is one or two particular schools that shouldn't be here, maybe you can point them out? Epthorn 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to recheck the ones that people seem to think assert some notability. It is evident that some people who commented before my comment (below) didn't check each article on the list, as they should have done. I know that because my talk page was accidentally included in this and people left comments without noticing it. - Rjd0060 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all or redirect all to their home district. Deletion is appropriate, but redirection might help reduce re-creation. In any case the schools are non-notable, do not assert notability, and have no content to lose. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please outline each high school you have researched and why the sources failed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete All: I guess a redirect would be okay, but these need to go. All of the secondary schools, in addition to all of the elementary schools, fail to assert notability. They are just there. - Rjd0060 15:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please outline each high school you have researched and why the sources failed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: When you go to Wikipedia, you shouldnt have to research the information you find here. I've looked at each (and every) article listed above and the fact is they fail to assert notability. I haven't done any outside research. That should not be necessary. If something out there makes these schools notable, that information needs to be included in the article. - Rjd0060 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - if the article is inadequately sourced or fails to assert notability then it should be appropriately tagged for improvement. Giving a deletion view without assessing available sources to determine whether notability can be established is not a responsible approach and such blanket views should be ignored. TerriersFan 19:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I misspoke. I was simply trying to point out (again) that the articles fail to assert notability. If these werent schools (if they were people or other places) they could and would easily be deleted speedily via A7. - Rjd0060 19:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that you make a fair point. The way that policy has developed amongst admins who consider speedies is that some categories of people and places are considered to have sufficient inherent notability not to be speedy deleted. This includes, numbered highways, hamlets, judges, fauna and flora, schools etc. This doesn't mean that articles on these are fit to survive an AfD merely that they don't merit an A7 which is reserved for the clearest cases since it involves deletion without consensus. As it happens, most of the elementary schools are not notable and I was busy merging and redirecting those to the School District (an accepted practice that has emerged from many AfDs) when this mas AfD appeared. TerriersFan 22:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. There is no consensus for a notability standard for schools. WP:Schools shows the many attempts at reaching one. I believe public schools, by their nature, are notable. They have the financial and future of their community's youth invested in the school and there is tremendous interest in knowing what the school is doing, how well it is doing it, and how it compares to others. I have never started a school stub but the fact so many are written shows how many people do think they are encyclopedic. A good stub is a useful place for people to add notable content when they find it where many would not know, or want, to begin the process of starting a new article. Should a consensus develop for elementary school notability, I will abide by it but they should be merged and redirected to the school district. At least then the article will not be repeatedly started and it will give a place for notable facts to be added. What, precisely then, is the problem with keeping these articles? Are we running out of paper? "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree with this logic. Just because lots of people make articles about schools does not imply they are encyclopedic. Ever seen these schools in another encyclopedia? Lots of people believed the world was flat, as well. As to the point about the financial and future of the youth, et al, what about making an article about every doctor who delivers babies, then? Every fire station? Every grocery store? There are places on the internet to place this information, notably school websites. Existence of information is not evidence for inclusion on a site, and wikipedia does have guidelines as to what it is not (WP:DIRECTORY) Epthorn 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a good place for neutral, verifiable articles on schools including facts that would not go on school websites. Straw man argument but I'll answer anyway. There are notability guidelines established for people and shops. If an encyclopedic article on a fire hall can be written that is verifiable and NPOV, why not? What harm is there? I do see a benefit. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I must have been unclear. I don't mean that you want all doctors to be notable. But your logic, that schools should be notable because of their effect on people, can be carried to that conclusion. Doctors who save lives should then automatically be considered notable because of their effect, shouldn't they? And firehouses that do the same? And there are notability guidelines established for articles; they call for, among other things, verifiable sources independent of the source. I fail to see how the article deserves to be in an encyclopedia because it doesn't hurt. This seems to be a complete negation of WP:NOTE, which has no presumption of school notability (which would seem to indicate they have the same standards)Epthorn 18:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Mass deletion like this is a bad idea. WP:EiC is maintaining these articles. I just clicked through the first few, and while they are stub class, there is every indication that people are slowly turning them into full blown articles with the necessary references. As a parent with school-age kids, I'd rather see a standardized set of articles for the schools in our district than have these all deleted and then re-created by various people (likely students) who don't follow the guidelines established at WP:EiC. After mass deletionist move on, you wont be the ones stuck cleaning up the mess of stubs that the students will be re-creating. --Stéphane Charette 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it's much harder for a student to edit an existing page. Frankly, I had to revert two or three instances of either vandalism or very immature editing as I was going through the articles for deletion! "Teachers currently give to much homework" and such. A redirect to the district page would probably take care of this problem more effectively. While I wish the best to projects, their interest cannot in and of itself establish notability or a promise to make an article better (no crystal ball, etc). They seem to be concerned with warning members about potential deletions, but in the absence of a consensus that schools are 'automatically' assumed to be notable, I think we really have to take it on a case by case basis- and these schools just don't establish notability. Epthorn 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep all as train wreck. This is a wholly irresponsible AfD since there is no indication that each schools has been individually researched. We don't delete articles because of inadequacies with the articles but only if the institution is not-notable. That requires an individual search for sources and there is no indication that this has been done. In general, High/secondary normally can produce enough sources if am editor looks closely enough. TerriersFan 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment about my irresponsible actions. Very useful. I do agree that we delete articles only if the articles are non-notable. You seem to imply, however, that I just found some schools and decided to delete them. If you look at each of these articles carefully, as I have and as is necessary in an afd like this, I really question if you can find any notability that I did not as I went through them. Find sources about the existence of a school, it's demographics, or it's location is not notable in and of itself. If you have found notability in going through each school as I'm sure you did, which particular school is it regarding?Epthorn 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, your comments on your talk page with Alansohn also point to the idea that I 'indiscriminately' prodded these articles. I did no such thing, and you can note that there are a few schools which I did not include on this afd as they seem to make an attempt to establish notability. Epthorn 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep all as per TerriersFan. This mass nomination process does not allow for a fair hearing. The nominator has not explained why he thinks each school does not satisfy the notability criteria. Most elementary schools do get deleted but some are notable and do deserve articles. It is impossible to consider each school's merits or otherwise when the schools have been nominated in such a way. Dahliarose 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all 17 Secondary schools, and Delete all of the elementary schools. I have checked all of the elementary schools, and found that only Kensington Prairie Elementary School‎ was mildly interesting, but not notable enough to justify an article. PKT 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I appreciate all the work that the nominator and certain other editors went through to examine these articles. The ones I looked at definitely needed improvement. Some could be merged with their town article if there is no interest in developing the article. I think I would just blank, merge and comment why the page is blank! Then later speedy delete the page. A lot of work! One (early) school had a Canadian Olympic member. I thought that was noteworthy, though the school might not be responsible! But the same is true for place notables. The trouble with a kitchen sink list is all it takes is one little exception to turn the vote of a sympathetic editor. Sorry. Student7 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep All No evidence has been provided that each of these articles has been reviewed and addressed individually for notability per Wikipedia:deletion policy. Alansohn 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The evidence of notability must logically rest on establishment. I can not evidence a LACK of something, except by noting it. I went through each of these schools. Which school do you think does evidence notability? I keep asking this question...Epthorn 07:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Like I said, high schools should be left alone. SolidPlaid 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I did read how you 'removed the prods' and 'left snarky comments for the prodder' but never actually explained why any one of the schools was notable. User_talk:Alansohn#School_Prods. How are high schools inherently different than grade schools?Epthorn 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The onus is on the nominator to show that it is not notable. People will usually take the nominator's word for it (even though they shouldn't) for an elementary school. High schools are assumed to be notable, and are kept about as frequently as community colleges when brought to AfD. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy, since there are folks who will work very hard to find evidence that a high schools is notable. SolidPlaid 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, I don't really think there will be a consensus here for full deletion. The elementary schools, perhaps, but while no one has really yet articulated what differentiates secondary schools from elementary schools (absent increased notability via sources, etc), I think secondary schools will probably have to be severed from elementary schools. Epthorn 07:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
All of us working on school articles know from experience that it is possible to write a decent article which fully satisfies WP:N on virtually any secondary/high school in the English-speaking world, because multiple independent reliable sources are generally available. Nearly all secondary schools which come up for deletion are kept. The problem is that the initial school articles are often very poor and the notable features are not always mentioned. The only ones which do tend to get deleted are very new schools where no sources currently exist. It is much less time-consuming all around if these articles are improved rather than pointlessly nominated for deletion. There are far fewer sources for primary/elementary schools and they have far fewer claims to notability. They nearly always get deleted. There are however some exceptions. It is very difficult to know with a mass nomination if an important school has been mistakenly nominated. Dahliarose 14:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all and renominate any individual primary schools separate. There's no point nominating the secondary schools, as when they are considered properly one by one, almost all recent ones have been kept at AfD on the grounds that they are probably notable. . DGG (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all They all fail to assert notability and are thus speedable per A7, as explained by Epthorn and Rjd0060; that there is a "school lobby" that systematically tries to keep every school is not relevant, and an abuse of AfD. I respect the opinion that all schools are inherently notable, like towns and villages, but here is not the right place to change the rules. I suggest the village pump (policy), or WP:POLICY to establish such a new rule. --victor falk 09:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all Why this list? There are tens of thousands of school articles. I would be happy to see non secondary schools which are not notable stubs, but are you sure one of these secondary schools is not where some important meeting of a rock group or a software launch wasn't made. I agree with above... if you want to make large deletions which effectively change policy then you need the village pump. Victuallers 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all DGG argument is sound Victuallers 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Issues relevant to this AFD are been discussed at WT:SCH. Camaron1 | Chris 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all 17 Secondary schools —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themarriottmariner (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the elementary schools. The others need to be considered on an individual basis. This action would be consistent with numerous previous precedents. There is no reason to require a separate discussion on each elementary school. Vegaswikian 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see no basis for the elementary schools not being considered individually. At least one of them is well referenced and establishes notability. Elementary schools are mostly not kept, I agree, but some are and mass deletion without individual consideration is against deletion policy. TerriersFan 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Individualized consideration of each of these schools is required, since they may not be so similar in character as to be amenable to treatment in a single AFD nomination. John254 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:N & WP:ORG discuss this explicitly. Schools are notable. Kingturtle 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Normally, it would have voted delete or merge/redirect (in the case for elementary schools and keep for secondary schools per outcomes as usually secondary schools are more notable then elementary and middle schools. But I suggest to close this discussion and start a separate Afd discussion for the elementary schools while Keep the secondary schools. I'm going a bit whith John254 rationale. There is too many articles proposed for deletion in this one although last week there was a more extreme regarding List of United Kingdom places which the nom placed like over 100 articles in a single afd. --JForget 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is looking a likely closure but any AfD for the elementary schools must deal with them singly not as a mass or we shall have another train wreck. Every school has a different range of available sources and merits separate consideration. TerriersFan 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 policy-based reasons to keep; article still has zero third party sources. Sandstein (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PokerPlayer magazine

PokerPlayer magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Image:Febcover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to PokerPlayer magazine. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pokerplayermagazine.co.uk -- Hu12 06:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable magazine.Balloonman 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD announced at wikiproject poker

  • Comment some folks over at WikiProject Poker have started to do a bit of research on this - see the project talk page. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Dennis Publishing. The (spam happy) publisher does have an article. The real content of this article is a single sentence, so I'd support just boldly redirecting the article instead of letting the afd run. 2005 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to be the leading UK poker magazine and comes from a major UK publisher. I buy a copy regularly as it's better than most of its rivals IMO. Colonel Warden 21:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If its a leading UK poker magazine, and not jut a vanity article, citations should be easily found and added. Simply existing as a magazine doesn't imply notability.--Hu12 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So go find them then. Per WP:NOEFFORT, AFD is not cleanup. I've got a copy of issue 29 here which I bought in Borders the other day - 74 pages, full colour, highly professional editorial content, lots of full page ads from billion-dollar companies like PartyPoker. It obviously merits an entry. Colonel Warden 11:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a high profile magazine available at most newsagents in the UK. Here's an independent review. Phil Bridger 16:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. The fact that this magazine exists is not relevant. The issue is whether it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. It has not. -- Satori Son 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The barometer of notability is whether those independent of the subject itself have actually considered this magazine notable enough to have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it, not that it simply exists.--Hu12 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ballot stuffing Your reasons to delete should go in the proposal. Adding an apparently separate opinion is improper. Colonel Warden 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The review link provided above is adequately independent and non-trivial. Colonel Warden 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My comment comes directly from the reason proposed above, WP:NOTABILITY. see Notes, #4--Hu12 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Colonel Warden's admonition about ballot-stuffing is correct. It looks like a separate opinion because of where you placed it. No one was disputing that the opinion was included above. The problem is that you included it twice in two different places. (In other words, your "vote" is part of the nomination above. A second "vote" in this section is unnecessary, confusing, and redundant.) Rray 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into publisher's main article. We can always re-create an independent article in the future, if need be. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The magazine is much more notable than the publisher. If anything the publisher should be deleted and the magazine kept. Phil Bridger 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That is certainly not true. The publisher publishes all sorts of magazines, including Maxim, which alone is 100 times more notable than PokerPlayer magazine. 2005 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Smartguy and 2005. Rray 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable enough. Kingturtle 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Balloonman (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flesh Field

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

Article lacks any independent sources, and there are no assertions of notability. Seems to fail the notability and WP:MUSIC guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Bundled with this nomination is Strain (album), an article on an album by this band which also fails all applicable notability guidelines and lacks independent sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor, but I noticed this, and since I like Flesh Field I thought I should comment. According to WP:MUSIC criterion #10, they're notable if they have performed music for a notable work of media. According to http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-music-in-project-gotham-racing-3 their music is included in the soundtrack for X-Box game Project Gotham Racing 3. They were also interviewed by VampireFreaks.com, a major industrial/EBM site (http://vampirefreaks.com/content/comment.php?entry=24&t=Flesh+Field) (criterion 1), they have a song on a compilation by Dependant Records (criterion 10 again), and they were featured in an issue of Orkus Magazine (criterion 1 again) (I don't have independent sources for the last two.) They're currently signed with Metropolis Records, which is the biggest industrial music label in the USA, and they've released one record with them (halfway to criterion 5). If this isn't sufficient for notability, then go ahead and delete the article, but I will be sad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.167.212 (talk • contribs)

Reply Thank you for your reply. Though you admit that you are not a regular contributor, you seem to have a grasp of what notability requires. Thank you for providing these sources, as sources are what this article needs. However, I must contend that neither of these sources points towards notability. As noted in Criterion #10 of WP:MUSIC which you cite above, and I quote "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page." Thus, while inclusion of a single song by the band in question towards a video game soundtrack may combine with OTHER claims of notability to add to the "multiple" requirement of the Primary Criterion as spelled out in WP:N, it should not be the SOLE claim of notability. Also, the VampireFreaks site has a bit of a bloggish smell to it. Again, such sites may help add to notability, but I would like to see more in the way of reliable sources, such as print magazines, journals, newspapers, or websites with editorial controlls that miror those sites, such as allmusic.com, which lacks even a basic biography of the band in question. Its a good start, and you have the right idea. Please keep searching, and see if you can find more reliable sources, but for now I stand by the nomination. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Creek Elementary School

Bear Creek Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Epthorn 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I used a prod on a number of these pages, and someone took it down with this remark: "(remove prod: acceptable stub, no notability standard for schools WP:SCH"

It is my understanding that "projects" do not have authority over wikipedia guidelines, including notability. It is not an acceptable stub, as it refers to a non-notable subject and therefore doesn't have potential to be upgraded. Someone just decided to create articles for every elementary school in a school district. Epthorn 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete this one, keep on prod tagging. Prod tags can be contested without any reason, although I agree that wikiprojects have no more ownership over a page than anybody else. SolidPlaid 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this schoolcruft. Elementary schools are rarely notable, and this one does not appear to be an exception. —dustmite 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Too bad some guy deleted all the PROD's. Non notable. - Rjd0060 06:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete schools ain't inherently notableBalloonman 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-direct to School District 36 Surrey - Does not appear notable, so a simple re-direct is appropriate. It has become accepted practise on Wikipedia just to merge/re-direct these kind of articles making a AFD unnecessary. Camaron1 | Chris 10:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. --θnce θn this island Speak! 13:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, or redirect, as a non-notable school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability (meaning it should be speedy deleted, but some admins won't speedy delete schools for some reason). TJ Spyke 00:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability shown and not a secondary school Victuallers 14:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the content of the article. Vegaswikian 10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 henrik•talk 10:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Jacobson (Taiwan)

Dan Jacobson (Taiwan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm expecting this AFD to be problematic, so I will be brief. This is an autobiographical article written by Jidanni. However, I do not believe he meets WP:BIO, and the article reads like a self-promotional fluff piece. All but two of the sources used in the article are the subject's own website; one of the other two is a blog. The last one is a newspaper article, and is probably the only reliable source here; the rest aren't, and notability, if any, is fairly miniscule. It should be noted that the creator also failed to assume good faith in writing this article and proceeded to disrupt DRV when the article hadn't even been deleted. Coredesat 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: I am not seeing any notability. All 9-10 references (except 1-2) are from the subjects website. It is a self promotional piece with evident COI. But again, the main thing is assertion of notability, and this article clearly lacks it. Also, as the nom said, it is clear that the creator (aka the subject of the article) knew it would be problematic as evident from the premature deletion review attempt - Rjd0060 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; obvious puff piece autobiography. The user claims to have been translating his own biography at zh:, but he had been editting that one, as well. I'm not sure what makes him notable for inclusion at either language project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious puff piece that violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I hope our counterparts at Chinese WP are as vigilent. UnitedStatesian 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; I just saw his little rant at DRV, funny, someone complaining at Deletion Review before their article is even nominated. Not notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Masaruemoto 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I discovered an zh:積丹尼 and asked cautiously over a month on the English Wikipedia if it was OK to translate it into English.

Yes, after discovering zh:積丹尼, I made some minor corrections to it. I see there were earlier debates.

Yes please change the tone from promotion. You see all the sudden I am being to asked to prove how notable I am, an activity I do NOT enjoy.

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

I do not intend to link these low quality images into the article. Instead I will come up with some non my-website non-image .html newspaper articles for references. But not right now today. Thank you. Jidanni 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: As I am not notable, please put the carcass on my User Page/. Jidanni 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Close:Well then, I have tagged the page for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7 and the above comment. - Rjd0060 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: You're notable in Taiwan, but that cannot be asserted by the article as it stands. Your primacy in translating and writing about yourself is another issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Barnard - Pianist

David Barnard - Pianist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, couldn't find anything on him in google search.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the page may have been created by Mr. Barnard himself, which involves a conflict of interest and WP:A.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non notable, and no sources. Warning to others who may comment: careful with the google search though, there is a matching name but it doesn't appear to be the same person. - Rjd0060 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I was, I searched through to make sure.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete COI, fluff, and NNBalloonman 05:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete although article may be recreated in future as Barnard is quite young and may very well reach the notability guidelines specified at Wikipedia:Notability (music). At present I could not find adequate sources to support meeting the criteria. --Golden Wattle talk 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. By the way, I went to see the New England Revolution beat the Chicago Fire to win the Eastern Conference championship on Thursday night. Yes, MLS teams are notable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle MLS

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

Uncited, fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:SOAPBOX ViperSnake151 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - MLS has announced that Seattle is the location of the next expansion franchise, possibly playing in the 2009 season. I'll add a citation to the article. --D. Monack | talk 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article will grow as the talk about the expansion grows. There isn't much to talk about yet but it is just a start for the article. Gordomono 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Officially announced. One reliable source present, which seems appropriate for the little context currently in the article. - Rjd0060 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep at this point, it is almost certain to happen... thus not CrystalBalloonman 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep\Expand even if it fails to be included in the expansion, an expanded article on the history of this bid for the expansion would be a notable article. Macktheknifeau 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasons for deletion don't seem to apply at present. Maxamegalon2000 07:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Barring the utter collapse of MLS, this looks as certain as anything can be. Speculation may enter the article but only if sourced. But the article itself is not speculative. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of sources have confirmed Seattle getting a MLS franchise in 2009 Soccernet, [SI, Yahoo, etc. Patken4 13:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — The Seattle Sounders are a notable franchise in the USL First Division, and so is this announcement. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the afd was added before the article got it's legs. No brainer, keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh Snap (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep plenty of citations can be added to support this article. Gateman1997 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah, no brainer. It'll only get bigger and better from here. --Siradia 20:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Nathan_Day

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 empty page. Balloonman 05:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nathan Day
Nathan_Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The page only exists to redirect to other pages with some silly, unimportant social purpose in mind. It has no place on Wikipedia. Icydesign 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy close. This is (or was) a redirect, not an article. It should be deleted via discussion at WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment article is currently empty, so delete. Looks like it was a childish attempt at humor by the subject's peers? 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)JJL
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Titanic (1997 film)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) (2nd nomination)
List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was previously nominated in August. The verdict was 'Keep', but as one of the Keep supporters argued, 'delete in a few weeks if no proof or inclusion of real-world content is given.' It is now November, and the article remains utterly unreferenced, and violates WP:FICT by being written almost entirely in in-universe style and giving no evidence for real-world notability. It also arguably violates WP:NOT#PLOT, since the text here is effectively one long plot summary. Terraxos 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article definitely needs improvement, but an argument is often made that a list-of-characters article should be kept. Most of these types of articles are nothing but plot, but I've seen great arguments from great editors on how it is a way to have an article on several or more characters and summarize it all without having all of that in the film or show, etc. article that these characters come from. At this moment, I'm kind of undecided on how I feel about this article. Flyer22 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable list of people. As a side note, if this list were deleted, it would probably cause people to create individual articles for all of the characters, which would be a big mess. Anyhow, I see no reason to delete this, as that film is highly notable, and the characters are also. - Rjd0060 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, need references, but there is no deadline. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. I agree with Rjd0060 that the characters in the blockbuster movie, based on a real event, are notable. Some were based on real people, like the Captain Smith and Molly Brown; even those that were fictitious are representative of persons onboard the ship, in the sense that Jack Dawson would be drawn from any one of the many Irish passengers in steerage. I can only hope that it avoids this latest iceberg. Mandsford 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. People state this is "notable", but don't provide any third-party sources to back up their assertions. If editors can't bother finding some decent sources, I fail to see why Wikipedia needs something that does nothing but regurgitate the plot of a film multiple times and adds some original research along the way. "List of characters" is generally only a disguise for an overlong and overdetailed plot summary. ' 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It doesn't have to be generally only a disguise for an overlong and overdetailed plot summary. Flyer22 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it had to be. But it is. ' 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe this one is. Flyer22 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Is what? A disguise for an overlong and overdetailed plot summary? Glad to see we agree. ' 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Maybe. Flyer22 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Plot summaries don't need references; the movie is the reference. Other things here might need referencing, but that could be fixed. Panichappy 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thing is, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be plot summaries. Nobody here has addressed this issue. ' 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The list of characters and plot summaries in the main Titanic articles serve the same purpose and do not go into excessive detail. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to titanic film. Brian Boru is awesome 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at this time. Per below this should probably be revisited in a reasonable amount of time, although merger seems to have more support than deletion... a discussion could simply be held on the article's talk page after the trial, for example. W.marsh 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Royal blackmail plot

2007 Royal blackmail plot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Breaking news...WP:NOT#NEWS, " Two men are alleged", "unnamed member of the British royal family", "alleged", and so on. We all know who this involves, but this is only a news story, and it's already in David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. Crazysuit 02:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep for now, since the news is still developing and it involves a government matter. Though Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the currency ("currentness", not money) of Wikipedia allows articles to be updated as soon as information becomes available. I can imagine that if Wikipedia had existed in 1972, people would have nominated "1972 Watergate Office Break-in" for deletion in July. Mandsford 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This may become a notable story in time, but there's no need to have an article on it now; that amounts to breaking WP:NOT#CRYSTAL by predicting it will become notable in the near future. If and when it does, we can write the article, but for now it isn't and has virtually no content; the only significant content is already contained in the David Armstrong-Jones article, so this should be deleted and redirected there. Terraxos 03:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Armstrong-Jones, I should think. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect per Dhartung. No restrictions later on forking this back off again, later. The further it goes in legal proceedings, with coverage from non-UK uncensored media and information could make this a decent article sooner or later. • Lawrence Cohen 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect page: Per Dhartung. - Rjd0060 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge [er DhartungBalloonman 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this could expand substantially in a few weeks. PatGallacher 11:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now This is a story that has potential to be expanded. It should be left for a few weeks to see if anything else evolves. I would suggest keeping this article for a month an then returning to it to see if it has improved or not.Seddon69 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now widely reported news story; as more facts become available, it may be appropriate to merge - but not yet. Noel S McFerran 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terraxos - Merge with Armstrong-Jones may be appropriate in this case, too. Jame§ugrono 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (which is effectively already done) with the article on the Viscount in question, and redirect there. Currently, what's being said here is functionally the same as is being said there. If enough information comes to light to make the section too large, then it should be split off, but currently we're well under that point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. --Malcolmxl5 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- relevant info included already at the Viscount's page. Astrotrain 21:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I disagree with the statement "We all know who it involves", bearing in mind the British media gag they are probably many, many people in the UK who don't. Deleting this article now is very premptive. This is nothing to do with WP:NOT#NEWS, this is a Royal scandal to other such articles and deleting now, before the scandal is over means we can not asses whether the incident warrants a page. If it goes to court and all charges dismissed, then fine merge article. But given the press attention it will get when it goes to Court, there should be an article on it.--UpDown 08:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To me this doesn't seem like news reporting or crystal balling, it has independent value as an article. Panichappy 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Has their been any significant new information on this since the initial hushed up UK media storm? • Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Waiting for the trial next month I believe.--UpDown 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable enough and independent of the people involved. Springnuts 12:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Rob Matthew Gonzalez

Dr. Rob Matthew Gonzalez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. No verification for the notability of this person. Google search for "Rob Matthew Gonzalez" only produces this article. Search for "Rob Gonzalez"+LionsGate does not result in anything relevant. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Saw 5 and 6 haven't even been made yet. This is probably a hoax. GlassCobra 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: With no sources to confirm this stuff, it seems kind of crystal ball-ish. - Rjd0060 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete clear case of CRYSTAL and unverifiedBalloonman 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL at best, as original prodder. Wizardman 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, and WP:V. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 17:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Although Saw 5 and 6 have been confirmed, the characters themselves have not. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Icestorm815 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, esp. WP:BLP, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:V. Bearian 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP concerns. Balloonman 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misty Schipman

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

I initially tagged this as an attack page, but this appears to be a real person, or at least a persona, who has appeared on Howard Stern. A BLP nightmare, sourcing is far short of what it needs to be for such a topic. I bring it here for wider examination. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for about 100 reasons, but principally, lacking notability, reliable sources, and almost certainly violating WP:BLP. Terraxos 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable sources (and Howard, bless him, is not a sufficiently reliable source for the stuff in this article). --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: No sources, definite problems with BLP. - Rjd0060 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (G10), unsourced defamatory page. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete content surely must be deleted, but subject also doesn't seem notable per Google search. JJL 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Clubmarx 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bizzlebox

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

Dicdef and non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for reasons given by nominator - this is little more than a WP:DICDEF. Terraxos 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please Keep!: How does that compare to the entry for just 'izzle' alone? Surely 'Bizzlebox' has more meaning. User:Bizzlebox —Preceding comment was added at 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per above (NEO, DICT, N). - Rjd0060 04:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NEO Balloonman 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, once you remove the unconnected triavia you're left with nothing more than a dic def. Nuttah68 09:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article serves no purpose and adds no value as far as I can tell. Ringbark 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I rather like the word, but yes, it's not really notable. mattbuck 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable neologism. Snigbrook 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G12. Good job by User:RHaworth catching this one. GlassCobra 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Curse of Mo Lewis

The Curse of Mo Lewis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sheer OR and speculation, no substantive facts. GlassCobra 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


last I checked Jesus is speculation but he has a page. How is stating facts that occured being considered as copyright infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.173.205 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This is too ignorant to merit a reponse. Speedy delete as copyvio. JuJube 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the copyvio tag, but I'm glad you mentioned it, because now this article can be speedied. We don't accept copies of stuff from other websites. GlassCobra 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumple

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

The page is unsourced and apparently not notable. TheOtherSiguy 02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per lack of evidence for notability. Terraxos 03:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not appear to be notable and no sources to confirm or assert notability. - Rjd0060 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; As web content with no assertion of importance. Masaruemoto 05:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be established... Balloonman 06:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Both the Rumple page and JibJab pages have a "See also" section for each other, perhaps merge to JibJab? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

*Merge into JibJab. Snigbrook 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maxim 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Kids Day Care Center

Seriously articles on day care centers are going way too far. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, etc Delete This is a Secret account 01:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • delete unless at least a claim of notability is made. 1 != 2 02:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless more reliable sources can be found. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete completely non-notable day care center. TonyBallioni 02:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article doesn't demonstrate the noteworthiness of its subject.--Mumia-w-18 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - utterly NN - Alison ❤ 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Completely non-notable preschool. Like the nominator said, it fails WP:N and WP:RS. NHRHS2010 talk 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Time (radio show)

Pacific Time (radio show) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 00:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Long-running, well respected ratio program on major PBS station, syndicated nationwide, with considerable audience. Close to 20,000 google hits and 90+ articles, including numerous significant mentions in reliable 3rd party sources [31]. It is a reasonably well-written, informative, encyclopedic article. There is no reason to delete this kind of material from Wikipedia.Wikidemo 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
keep as it was a nationally syndicated show.Balloonman 01:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
keep, as per point 12 of the notability guideline for music. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a weekly radio talk program --Hu12 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable radio show article that is well-written, encyclopedic article, so I am going to oppose the deletion. NHRHS2010 talk 02:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable program on a major U.S. radio station; I can see no reason to prevent our readers from having a well documented page about this notable program. Badagnani 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Widely syndicated and notable radio show. One of the few national shows dealing exclusively with asian-american topics. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all the reasons above. Clearly notable radio program. JavaTenor 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment. clearly notable would imply there are a multitude of citations to support WP:NOTABILITY. Please improve the article by adding these. as it stands currently, the article is failing WP:NOTABILITY--Hu12 08:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Two isn't enough? I added two more. From the guideline, notability simply means "worthy of notice." The only nationwide radio show about Asian American issues is clearly worthy of notice. Further from the guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is obviously the case here. Needing more sources, and lacking notability, are two different things.Wikidemo 10:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The reliability of sources used and depth of coverage about the subject by the source must be considered (as noted in the notability guidelines).--Hu12 11:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an odd exercise. One doesn't have to argue for the reliability of the San Francisco Chronicle, and Asian Week is a substantial news operation with robust standard journalistic practices operating dead center in its area of expertise. One article was written by Ben Fong-Torres. All four are 100% devoted to the show and/or its host and his relation to the show. I think we're done here.Wikidemo 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't see anything unreliable about Asian Week or the San Francisco Chronicle. Phil Bridger 16:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Balloonman (while two editors worked on it, one only cleaned up the content. primary editor requested delete at AFD). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Ailwood

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

Michael Ailwood does not want this on the Internet (I created the article, as his student); regardless, I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Spiderhax 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable for own article, though Bananas in Pyjamas was such a cool show. He can be noted there. mattbuck 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted article as primary author requested the deletion (there was one other editor) but his contributions were "noob cleanup".Balloonman 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forum (KQED)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Michael Krasny (talk show host)Keep per edits below Balloonman 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Very important local radio show with high ratings and important material, has been on for 20-30 years. 300,000+ google hits, almost 2,000 news stories[32]. It is a different subject than the biographer of its long-time host. If the host leaves the show will likely continue. Wikidemo 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, notability is not automatically inherited. --Hu12 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Over half of the hits are generic in nature, a fair number were simply dates/times, etc. Ultimately, I am not necessarily opposed to this page---IF it were more than a simple stub. As is, it needs to be redirected.Balloonman 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Krasney is notable, and the show is notable. The point is they are two different things, like the difference between the Tonight Show and Jay Leno, or Teri Gross and Fresh Air. Stub articles about notable subjects grow; they don't simply get deleted for paucity of content. I might add a sentence or two, in which case I'll provide a source.Wikidemo 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The article makes zero claims to notability and is one sentence in length.Balloonman 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just expanded it slightly and added some references. Others can follow suit. It's a rather important show that no doubt will meet all the formal criteria for notability. It would be counterproductive to delete this kind of article.Wikidemo 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Nomination doesn't seem to have any point or merit. Notable program. No reason to prevent our readers from having a well documented article about this program. Badagnani 02:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep It is a notable program, and Wikidemo has done a great job on expanding and referencing the article. Tim Q. Wells 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per above. It is notable. - Rjd0060 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per nom. Clubmarx 05:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep especially with Wikidemo's excellent cleanup. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~Eliz81(C) 06:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - highly notable in itself, Michael Krasny aside - Alison ❤ 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment After Wikidemo's excellent cleanup of the article, I'll withdraw the nom and close.--Hu12 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<joke>Gosh, what a waste of time. See what you made me do, actually improve an article instead of just complaining.</joke> 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Viggiano

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

Article is on a contestant from the American TV show For Love of Money. Article has very little content, and subject is already treated in the TV series article. Article asserts no notability of the subject beyond his having been in the TV show. Suggest delete and redirect to the TV show, until such time as Chad Viggiano does something notable on his own. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge I am not opposed to an article on him... but in the current state, it is should be merged.Balloonman 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. Personally, I don't think reality show contestants should ever get their own article unless they go on to obtain later notoriety. He has no notability outside the context of the show, and everything that needs to be said about him can therefore be covered in the For Love or Money article. —dustmite 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree - this is sort of a parallel to how we don't typically have articles on crime victims - we cover everything within the article about the crime. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: No redirect. There isn't much to merge since the shows article doesn't really have much info on any other contestants. - Rjd0060 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as contestant doesn't seem to be notable outside of the show. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7. GlassCobra 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tokyo calling

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

Questionable notability, looks like an advertisement. Dougie WII 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete NN podcast with no independent sources.Balloonman 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, no outside sources. —dustmite 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (A7): No sources, notability not asserted. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HipHopDX.com

HipHopDX.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for a speedy four times. Fails WP:WEB as there is no detail "on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance". No more than one source independent of the site. All this will ever be is a perma-stub. Delete. Spellcast 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable website.Balloonman 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nom. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NHRHS2010 talk 02:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Salt. As nonnotable, web site. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Salt: 6, will be 7 deletions is enough for this NN website. - Rjd0060 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. Non-notable website. Tbo 157(talk) 13:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, it was created because it was the most wanted stub at the time. While I realise this is not in itself a reason for it to exist, just wanted to explain myself. Jdcooper 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin) rewrite has happened, consensus is keep. RMHED 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoveround

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

Article asserts no notability; I don't think A7 covers products. Will (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • delete advertisement stub. Not necessarily opposed to article on principle tho---if it were expanded/enhanced, I could see the potential of keeping it.Balloonman 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite to focus on the company, not the product. Hoveround Corporation easily passes WP:CORP as a major distributor of power wheelchairs. If I can find time, I'll try to rework this myself. By the way, does anyone else remember these seeing these commercials in the '90s? "Now I'm free to see the world!" —dustmite 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick rewrite. Still a stub, but I think notability is now more apparent. —dustmite 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and not well-written. NHRHS2010 talk 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per bluedustmite. These things were inescapable back in the day, and they still show ads for it now. JuJube 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sources seem to exist [33] for this to meet WP:CORP. That an article isn't well-written is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. --W.marsh 03:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Quite notable, who HASN'T seen those catchy Hoveround ads? ViperSnake151 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Notable, needs work, not deletion. - Rjd0060 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a search on Google turns up sufficient reliable sources. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-Rewrite notable device but in need of some editing work, right now it just sounds like a quickie ad. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per dustmite. Now I'm free to see the world. Maxamegalon2000 07:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious bad faith nom. Balloonman 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preston Manning

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

not very well known political figure. Fails WP: BIO User:Trumpetofthemusical 4:39 AM UTC

— Trumpetofthemusical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Rjd0060 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2H

2H (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

orphan. vanity page. only citation is the myspace page. Clubmarx 05:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, no sources and no indication of satisfyint WP:N. meshach 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep looks legit. Sources are hard to find due to shortness of name. SolidPlaid 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of coverage in third party sources. I scoured the 'net and news articles for both his name and exhibition names, also external links from his MySpace, and came up with nada. If someone else finds reliable sources I am open to keep. ~Eliz81(C) 06:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete he may actually exist, but I couldn't find anything that made me believe this artist is in any way notable.Balloonman 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable unless sources cntrary to that are provided. Nuttah68 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Ethicoaestheticist 10:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hummer - oh no, that's H2 - Delete Tiptopper 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete good page .... but no independent notability Victuallers 09:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 08:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happybkk

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

Nonnotable; while there is sources, most of them are in foreign languages VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 08:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete in the absence of sources establishing notability. If this changes I will reconsider. Nuttah68 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apiwat150

  • Delete: Appears non-notable. Maplewooddrive 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No apparent assertion of notability. --θnce θn this island Speak! 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Gillego

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

non-notable. This reads like bio or resume of a person who has only had a couple of published works. The only link to this page is to his college. Clubmarx 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete While appears to have won some minor awards, this is a resume---and not very notable.Balloonman 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see where everyone's coming from, but there are multiple sources about him, and I'm not willing to say definitively that these are all trivial sources. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears I'm the tiebreaker here. Anyways, delete per nom. JONATHAN Go green! 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Clubmarx 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that the main author of this article tried to remove this section and also tried to remove the afd notice from the page. Clubmarx 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While it might need some cleanup, the claim of notability for a poet is not negligible. Panichappy 15:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced self-promotion; reads like a resume. Biruitorul 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep seriously needs cleanup and removal of name dropping and poorly sourced claims. Nevertheless, I think he squeaks over the notability bar with prominent mentions in the three articles linked at the bottom. Eluchil404 08:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


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