Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 11

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

The result was Keep. The US World Cup Team is a highest level of amateur sports.-- Balloonman (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie O'Shea

Annie O'Shea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A very short article which was originally autobiographical, and which contravenes WP:Crystal. The only references given are to her personal blog. Paul20070 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep as she seems to have competed at the U.S. Nationals, but she doesn't rate more than a listing at the sport's U.S. website. It seems she hasn't officially been named an Olympian, and she's in the second tier as it is. --Dhartung | Talk 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article's assertion of notability seems dependent on future events that may or may not happen. Without reliable, third-party sources to assert current notability, I don't see keeping it. Pastordavid 20:35, 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 Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, WP:BOLLOCKS, why is it that all of these hoax bios have someone getting injured in an unlikely kind of accident? It's no longer funny (if it ever was). NawlinWiki 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark batey

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

Suspected hoax: No singles called "These Faces Are A Changing", "Poodle Walk Blues" or "Molehill Riots"; no band called "The Iron Masons" — BillC ^talk 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as a hoax. The band is allegedly a "hit" band with a meteoric rise to fame and a 42-year recording career yet there are no sources for the band, the albums or any of the band members and none of them rate even one relevant mention on an internet search. Then two of the three band members, now in their 60's, suddenly die in a combine harvester accident? What, they had retirement jobs in large scale agriculture? Nonsense. If we were to take this seriously it would still fail WP:MUSIC - it is not the subject of independent published works, did not have any hits or conduct any international tours, is not identified as a prominent representative of any musical style, has won no awards and the alleged musical output is not on high (or even low) rotation on any media. Euryalus 23:34, 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 Speedily deleted by User:Bjelleklang. NawlinWiki 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biodemometer

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

Apparent promotional of a device the article's creator has invented himself, and which "ha[s] not been validated" (i.e. it has never been shown that it actually works) [1]. Speedily deleted twice; the last revision may not be that blatant spam, but still delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "SPEEDY"Shoessss |  Chat  22:51, 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. I think this would have been closed sooner if the creator of the page wasn't as vocal as he was. But even so, this is a clear case of something to be deleted. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS Conte Rosso Sinking

SS Conte Rosso Sinking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page created exclusively to place the editor's father's account of the sinking (not WP:RS) into wiki after it had been removed from the main article Mayalld 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your qualification to edit this page, what evidence do you have to say this is not accurate or sourced correctly?

My qualification is that I have read and understood Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources, and can see that this does not comply. Mayalld 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are biased and don't care for the truth. Since when is personal testimony not a valid resource and reference? I think you are against the spirit of Wiki by applying technical consideriations over truth and human experience. You promote the impression that you insult the memory of the men and women who gave their lives in war time. And this is Rememberance Day, or veterans day. It seems edit for the sake of editing and deleting content that you don't know anything about. Do you have any experience about the SS Conte Rosso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Wikipedia has a very firm policy that unverifiable material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That isn't to insult your father, it is just saying that Wikipedia must only contain material that anybody can verify. If your father's account was recorded (for example in the transcript of a board of enquiry), then you could cite the board of inquiry, and introduce the material, but otherwise, it is just hearsay.Mayalld 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I am sorry. and in fact can understand the wish to memorialize what happened. However, this is second hand information and in fact no more than hearsay. In situations like this, Wikipedia policy is clear. Delete. Shoessss |  Chat  22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are arrogantly saying it is hearsay. Where is the actual text where that says this policy? show me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

hearsay is evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath. Hope this explains. Shoessss |  Chat  23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. According to our longstanding policies, this article fails verification and reliable sourcing. We regret that this personal account is not something we can publish here. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But I have verifiable and reliable sources. Is that not OK? What is your definition of Reliable Source and Verification?

• Delete as per nominator. Gianniconterosso should also read wikipedia is not a place to honour the departed. Bobby1011 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

None of you have answered my specific and exact questions. You are are only responding with a cultural view of values. Policy based on interpretation. Where is the exact line of text that defines Verification, Sourcing?

Here you go talk • contribs just follow the link [2]. Shoessss |  Chat  23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The line of text that defines verification is "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (taken from first paragraph of WP:V). Has your father had his account published? Can I check to see if he really said it? If not then it cannot be verified. Bobby1011 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In answer to booby1011, Yes I have previously published materials. People can verify it. However it's not online at this moment. If you wikibots want to check maybe you'll have to wait. Is that enough to stay the execution of the delete page order? Or how long do it need to be placed online before the automatic wikibot rush to deletion? What if I put in some references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.101.243 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It need not be online. You can cite news, books, encyclopaedias, etc. but give us sources to pass WP:V. Bobby1011 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How's the list of references now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well Gianniconterosso, have a think about it. Can I check any of those references? Bobby1011 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in the absence of sources compliant with policy, and per nom and Bobby1011. If the account had been published - maybe in a newspaper article or some such place - then an article about the sinking might be possible. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can check them if you do the research. Just go to the naval history department in the Arsenal in Venice Italy, or look at the pension or discharge papers the next time you visit Napoli. However I've done some "fact" checking already. I've got some documents but scanning and uploading will take some time. Previous question still applies.. how long till autowikibots rule and delete this world without online references? (Every time I open this page this browser logs me out- stupid safari and windows xp... Gianni 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't scan and upload images as references. That is not how an article is referenced. You have to find published sources and tell us where to find them. The sources that you have listed as references need to be given in a proper fashion. That means including all of the details we would need to check them. The article is also begining to look like a coatrack for your fathers biography. If he is really as notable as you say he is (mainly being knighted), then perhaps you should consider creating an article about him. Papers that are in his possession (or yours or any of his suriving relatives) are not available for users to check them. In any case any such papaers are considered questionable sources because discharge papers and pension papers are not known for their strick fact checking. Also, there is no reason to list pending sources. Bobby1011 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've skipped over the statements above, but my first glance skim-through is that it's highly unsourced and apparent original research. If it is found that it should be kept (or that any portions thereof should be maintained), it should either be renamed as something along the lines of "The sinking of the SS Conte Rosso" or be merged into the main SS Conte Rosso article. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, but posting on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If there were a publication (newspaper, magazine, book) containing the text of an interview with Vittorio Raineri, then that could be part of an article. However, original research (ricerche originali) is not acceptable on Wikipedia in any language. From [[3]]:

"Wikipedia non è il posto adatto per pubblicare ricerche originali (come, ad esempio, teorie ed idee formulate ex novo, o punti di vista/fatti sostenuti da una minoranza limitata o estremamente piccola), Wikipedia, infatti, non è una fonte primaria." Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, for example, new theories and ideas, or viewpoints or factual statements supported by, or known by, an extremely small number of people. Wikipedia is not a primary source. With all respect to the memory of Mr. Raineri and his service in the military, the details that he recounted to you cannot be published for the first time on Wikipedia if they have not been published somewhere else. Mandsford 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete for being an unverifiable article about something that may have been broadly similar to an event portrayed in the cinema about another ship sinking. There is already an article on the ship itself, so if any verifiable details (that is, checkable by third-party published sources) are to be added then, surely, they should be incorporated in to that main article? Eddie.willers 03:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

'Neutral'-In fact, i felt that the incident should be merged with a page with the ship's name or merge altogether but i knew that that would roar into another battle and i suggests that more formatting should be done to make the page more professional if the result was to BE KEEP.However, more references and eyewitness accounts should be placed into references and they must be verifiable.--Quek157 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment This article was forked from the main article, after the non-verifiable content was repeatedly removed from it, presumably in an attempt to get the unverifiable material "under the wire" Mayalld 07:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- I just substantially expanded the main SS Conte Rosso article, including material on the sinking. I don't think we need two SS Conte Rosso stories. The material in the current SS Conte Rosso Sinking article is not encyclopedic. --A. B. ^(talk) 07:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The main article on the ship is sufficient. Alberon 10:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-(changed from neutral)After reading the past few comments, i felt that the page should be deleted as there are not much research done and the main page offers enough data.--Quek157 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. BTW a comment on hearsay: please don't use anglo-american court rules here, this is not an anglo-american court. Greswik 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not anglo-american court rules I am quoting. Rather it is a Definition taken word for word from Wikitionary[4]. Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you say you have quoted the (law) meaning, and then you appear to have quoted an anglo-american court rule, retrieved thru Wictionary. So it unfortunately shows you bring an anglo-american court rule with the "normally inadmissible because not made under oath" . I hope you know other countries may not have this rule. I also hope you noticed my !vote was for deletion. My point was just the seven words I quoted above was a strange element in the thread. Greswik 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa Greswik, first of all easy does it, you are taking this way to serious. Second, the reason I placed the definition of the word heresy under my original deletion comments was because Gianniconterossotalk questioned my use of the word heresy. I was just pointing out the statements that were made,in the article, needed to be verifiable. The use of this English word, in this context, has nothing to do with law or any court system. It is just ONE word that sums up, “….you need verification!.”. Nothing more and nothing less. Hope this clears up the matter. Shoessss |  Chat  11:46, 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nod technology of Command & Conquer

Nod technology of Command & Conquer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer. Pagrashtak 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no out-of-universe context, as with the other nominations. Pagrashtak, you may wish to use a batch nomination next time! Marasmusine 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend not to batch nominate for groups as small as four, as if there is something in one article worth saving it throws off the entire nomination and drags the process out. Pagrashtak 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per reasoning in the other nominations. I should note that any applicable cleanup tags should be added to all of them, and further note that if a proper merge can't be found for the stuff, the next time it's up for AfD, I'll go with delete. Jtrainor 08:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge - Same reasoning as in the relevant GDI AfD. The articles are rubbish but are heavily relied upon by the parent works, so the content should be preserved in some form (that merge proposal wasn't a bad idea). MalikCarr 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for being related only to the game universe. This type of content is much more suited to some wiki specifically about those games. Friday (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per already stated reasons --Eldarone 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning at the other one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer). Miremare 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - here's a novel concept...delete in terms of policy: this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS...outside the game manual, there's no references other than one blog (hardly a RS), and there's no demonstration from outside sources that this subject is actually notable in an encyclopedic way. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you forgot the Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars (novel), developer blogs, interviews, offical sites (http://www.ea.com/cncx360/units.jsp?ncc=1), game development articles (like http://pc.ign.com/articles/725/725322p1.html) , I think there are more than enough secondary sources. --Eldarone 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it. It is improtant to everyone along with GDI Technology. I will stop you from deleting the page. I will keep the page because of it had a long history.(TougHHead 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

• Delete - Per policies listed by User:Akradecki. Also, I would be interested in how the user intends to stop the deletion, if that passes. I somehow think he wasn't referring to DR either. - BillCJ 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Better suited for places like Wikia than the main Wikipedia project.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:55, 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. Catchy phrase, but nn.-- Balloonman (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet

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

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Step 1) Come up with a catchy phrase about how Wikipedia will host whole articles on trivial nonsense and start a Facebook group about it.
• Step 2) Start selling t-shirts with said catch phrase.
• Step 3) Create article on Wikipedia about catch phrase.
• Step 4) ???
• Step 5) Profit!!!

Delete Seriously, are we going to catalogue every internet meme now? AlistairMcMillan 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Is more needed to be said. Shoessss |  Chat  22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unimportant and not notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is cited by news articles and is notable. --Joebengo 22:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. At most, this merits a brief mention in 2006 definition of planet#Impact. But it primarily seems to exist to promote a Facebook group. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Less than 1000 google hits for "When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet" (don't forget the quotes) is hardly an internet phenomenon. Bobby1011 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not encyclopedic. Gaius Cornelius 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB's criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although it's interesting that 725,000 people noticed this on facebook.com, I agree with Dhartung that it rates no more than a sentence or two in the 2006 redefinition article. Mandsford 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-I had no comment and the result would be 100% delete as there is NO SENSE to make an encyclopedia page about an online craze and the aftermath.--Quek157 06:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was very interested in the whole debate over Pluto at the time and I don't remember this phrase. A small mention in the main redefinition article at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberon (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even with the sources, there's nothing to suggest this meme is notable. If it remains popular in a few years like "All Your Base" or the Hamster Dance, or gets picked up by a major movie, then let's revisit it. 23skidoo 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete. Let them become famous and then we'll do an article about them. ScienceApologist 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is cited by news articles and is notable. DPCU 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' on the same reason that 23skidoo brings up Doc Strange 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Greswik 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  The media coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources cited in When_I_was_your_age,_Pluto_was_a_Planet#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability for this topic pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One dead link, one journalist's blog post and one PBS article. Hardly "significant media coverage". AlistairMcMillan 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two working links to articles concerning this subject in different reliable sources. Media coverage is no less significant because it is characterized as a "journalist's blog post" (the article is concededly written by a journalist, not by a blogger), or because it appears on PBS. John254 02:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just fixed the broken link. That gives us articles concerning this subject in three different reliable sources, certainly sufficient to establish a presumption of notability pursuant to the general notability guideline. John254 02:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but an article in a college newspaper that briefly mentions the Facebook group (and seems to misunderstand the effort required to create said group), and quickly moves on... I'm still seeing how any of these links constitute "significant media coverage". AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

College newspapers can be reliable sources. I contend that all three articles, taken as a whole, constitute "significant coverage", even if none of them individually would. With regard to the claim that an article "seems to misunderstand the effort required to create said group", I note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If third party reliable sources treat a topic as notable by providing significant coverage of it, we should not be second-guessing that determination. John254 04:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If we have to make room for every internet meme that pops up, we're going to quickly run out of it. HalfShadow 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  Please see WP:NOTPAPER. John254 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  I have. And I quote:'This policy is not a free pass for inclusion.' HalfShadow 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOTPAPER councils against making the argument that articles should be deleted for the sole purpose of saving space on Wikipedia. John254 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: the topic of Pluto's status as a planet (or otherwise) is clearly an encyclopaedic topic. This, however, isn't. --RFBailey 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: -- BSVulturis (talk) 22:11, 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 Merge. — Scientizzle 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off The Record (satirical newspaper at Wheaton College, IL)

Off The Record (satirical newspaper at Wheaton College, IL) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable college newspaper, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete As above.Shoessss |  Chat  22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Wheaton College. Ideally, an article could be created about college humor magazines, of which the Harvard Lampoon is the most notable. Off campus, most official college newspapers are not notable, let alone the secondary papers. Mandsford 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - I would have to agree with Mandsford above.--Kranar drogin 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - A low circulation and may have achieved controversy, but not really notability. Gaius Cornelius 08:21, 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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Top 100 NHL Players of All-Time

The Top 100 NHL Players of All-Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

subjective POV list cruft ccwaters 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Pparazorback 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete most ridiculous thing I've seen on Wikipedia. --Krm500 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Totally OR, just someone's opinion, and unprovable. Probably this could be speedy deleted. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:NOR. Completely based on creators opinion, does not belong on Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia. Pparazorback 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To be honest, I think the article would be a great addition to Wikipedia. However, it does not cite sources, therefore, POV. Hence, delete. Sorry. Shoessss |  Chat  22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Any type of list, even somehow sourced, would still be a POV violation. It is not like this is a listing of the top 100 goal scorers of all-time that would be based on fact. I do not think it would be possible for this type of article to ever survive an afd. I could be wrong though. -Pparazorback 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per all the obvious reasons. Skudrafan1 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: just for the record, based on one of this editor's other recent edits, this list comes from a book published by The Hockey News. This just not change the fact that the list does not belong on Wikipedia, of course. Skudrafan1 23:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Thanks for posting the link. Sadly, it turns out it ISN'T based on The Hockey News book, after looking at the link and the table of contents. The editor seems to disagree with THN on everybody but Wayne Gretzky and Bobby Orr. Wouldn't it be great if we could all post our opinions about the top 100 NHL players of all time on Wikipedia? Mandsford 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overwhelmingly Strong Delete: per above. Heck, I can't imagine a Top THOUSAND list that would include Bryan Fogarty's name.  RGTraynor  01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I guess I should have looked more closely before I assumed the edits were related. I guess the editor just thought anything that said "Top 100 NHL Players of All-Time" should be linked to this page. Skudrafan1 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably so. I looked at the link you provided Skud, and Howe and Lemieux were flip flopped from this guy's article. I predict this article won't be around for more than another day if it takes that long .. WP:SNOW. Pparazorback 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Massive point of view problems, no sources. --Phirazo 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe this list comes from a Sports Illustrated issue? I could be wrong.Flibirigit 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete My bad, it was Hockey News. This information would be better used in the form of.. "Bobby Orr was ranked second overall according to...;" but it does not deserve an article to itself. Flibirigit 05:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW DELETE - What acronym doesn't this violate? --Djsasso 06:11, 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 Redirected to Cheez-It. NawlinWiki 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheez-Itz

Cheez-Itz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 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 per WP:BIO failiure for sports people --JForget 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: [5] He made his first appereance with Crewe Alexandra F.C. on November 16, 2007. With its first official appereance in a professionnal league game, he now meets WP:BIO and therefore I've reversed the deletion. --JForget 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cedric Baseya

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

Cotested speedy and prod. Non notable footballer, so far he has not played a competitive, professional match. The sole reference is to a youth team game over two years ago. Nuttah68 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks significant media coverage Addhoc 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - has yet to appear in a first team squad let alone make an appearance. --Daemonic Kangaroo 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and the prospective new criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and per Number57. Peanut4 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no appearances for first team at fully professional club. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no professional appearances, no enough media coverage, etc... --Angelo 09:32, 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copper Ridge School

Copper Ridge School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable. stub article that has been flagged without references for 10 months - seems unlikely to have notability be established or to be improved. Arthur 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Elementary schools are rarely notable, especially when they only opened six years ago. —dustmite 21:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable elementary school, one of about 92,000 in the US. AnteaterZot 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:17, 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Leonards (Hastings postcode area)

St Leonards (Hastings postcode area) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article title does not correspond to the content of the article, and in any case the area referred to is not a Postcode area. The subject-matter mainly duplicates information in the Hastings article, and no useful purpose is served by making it a separate article. --rossb 20:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Postcode areas are not, by themselves, generally notable, especially when they overlap with existing areas that have articles. In this case the article contradicts itself, saying it isn't St Leonards-on-Sea, then saying most of its area is. Better to use the St Leonards-on-Sea article itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Postcode areas? A very few postcode areas might be notable for one reason or another, but this is not one of them. Gaius Cornelius 08:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not notable. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article appears to have been maliciously created as the result of an editing/revert war. -- Winchelsea (talk) 20:42, 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allied technology of Command & Conquer

Allied technology of Command & Conquer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I tagged this for merging on 25 October, in case someone was interested, but this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving. Delete or transwiki, if someone is willing. Pagrashtak 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete Game cruft. Not a single reference, let alone a reliable secondary source to establish the encyclopedic notability of this topic. WP:N must be satisified by an WP:RS secondary source, this comes no where close. Transwiki it if you like, but this is essentially a fan essay, and just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, be it paper or not. Pete.Hurd 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than the games, game manuals, the developer blogs, offical website, and what not? --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No point keeping. The C&C wiki already has these--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no the CNC Wikia dosn't. The EVA Databasse is totally In-universe, and does not provide any factual context. We assumed Wikipedia was a better source for contextual information. --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It is hard to imagine how this topic could be in any way notable and the article certainly does not establish notability. This article belongs on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. Gaius Cornelius 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Provides important context to the game's universe. It's no more different than disciribin gthe fictional sciences of Star Trek, or providing some info on characters. --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article has been tagged for less than a month, give it time for editors who discover the cleanup templates to address them. Relist in the future and if it's still garbage, delete it then. MalikCarr 08:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The only cleanup needed is deletion. There's nothing worth merging. Pagrashtak 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per MalikCarr. IIRC several articles like this one on the same general topic exist and need to be merged-- mabye leave a note on WP:Videogames or whatever? Jtrainor 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The VG project has been notified—I stated that above. Pagrashtak 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep = For reasons already stated from above. --Eldarone 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No real world context, no sourcing other than from game manuals. Re the "give it more time" argument; it has already had time - a year and a half since creation, a couple of weeks since being tagged for a merge, and the five day duration of this AfD, which is more than enough time in itself to find sources. If there are such sources just post the links here, you don't have to rewrite the article or anything. Miremare 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just game manuals, but also offical websites, game guides, game previews, interviews, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Official" sources don't count for establishing notability as they are not independent of the subject. Blogs and gameguides are also not suitable as they are not reliable. Miremare 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. My reasoning mirrors Miremare's. DurinsBane87 —Preceding comment was added at 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It does provide vitial information on the setting. --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - once again, here's a novel concept...delete in terms of policy: this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS...outside the game manual, there's no references other than one blog (hardly a RS), and there's no demonstration from outside sources that this subject is actually notable in an encyclopedic way. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unluess you forgot to mention the Official Website (http://www.ea.com/official/cc/redalert2/english/gameinfo.jsp), various game guides, IGN's own articles on the topic, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:14, 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) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet technology of Command & Conquer

Soviet technology of Command & Conquer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I tagged this for merging on 25 October, in case someone was interested, but this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving. Delete or transwiki, if someone is willing. Pagrashtak 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete Game cruft. Not a single reference, let alone a reliable secondary source to establish the encyclopedic notability of this topic. WP:N must be satisified by an WP:RS secondary source, this comes no where close. Transwiki it if you like, but this is essentially a fan essay, and just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, be it paper or not. Pete.Hurd 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

delete same as the other one--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no out-of-universe context, unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Interested editors may wish to transiwiki to this CnC wiki. Marasmusine 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - page has been tagged for less than a month, give it time for editors who locate the cleanup templates to address them. Relist in the future and if it's still garbage, then kill it then. MalikCarr 08:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - For reasons already stated --Eldarone 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per MalikCarr. IIRC there are several articles like this and most of them need merging and so forth. Mabye make a post about it at WP:Videogames or whatever it's called? Jtrainor 08:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• No one has given any reason why this article passes Wikipedia:Notability. Pagrashtak 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning at the other one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer). Miremare 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See response same response on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer --Eldarone 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - yet again a novel concept...delete in terms of policy: this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS...there's no references, and there's no demonstration from outside sources that this subject is actually notable in an encyclopedic way. We're not a game guide, folks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you forgot to mention the Official Website (http://www.ea.com/official/cc/redalert2/english/gameinfo.jsp), various game guides, IGN's own articles on the topic, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not appear to have any notability. Judgesurreal777 23:14, 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. The stubby content is unsourced and mostly makes little sense, as do the first and last "keep" opinions below. Creating redirect to Criticisms of anarchism. Sandstein (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-anarchism

Anti-anarchism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article seems to have no notable subject. A Google Scholar search for "anti-anarchism" yields three unimpressive results, one of which is fictional, the other two which concern imperialism and Yugoslavian history. The content of this article - if it can be cleaned up, verified and so on - belongs in the Anarchism, First International, Spanish Revolution and histories of fascism articles, if at all. Skomorokh ^incite 13:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to anarchism; create a section for "opposition to the anarchist movement" (or whatever). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe this is a GREAT topic and should remain on Wiki. Bravo to the poster. Troy Vincent Lewald 02:51, 6 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 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete notability not established by a reliable secondary source. Article cites no sources, and there are none suggested. "Anti-anarchism covers a range of views in opposition to anarchist movement and ideology" smacks of WP:OR, and until secondary sources are provided, I think we should delete. The article contains no real content other than to imply that there have been people opposed to the notion of Anarchism. That doesn't merit merging into Anarchism. Pete.Hurd 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete. Delete if good sources aren't found, and merge to anarchism if they are. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Anarchism. If sources are found, people can be bold and reverse the redirect. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or a minimum of merge into anarchism. I am not sure what Skomorokh ^incite Googled, but there does seem to be a number of verifiable and noteworthy sources to quote from.. Strong KEEP. Shoessss |  Chat  22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My Google Scholar search is linked in the nomination. Here it is if you can't see it.

How about these...:::Here [6] and [7]. Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you mention which part of the article you think deserves inclusion in the well-referenced Anarchism article? Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

strong keepI think the ide of redirecting ot to Anarchism may seem ridiculous to anyone who has tangled with the anarcho-authoritarians who have turned that page into a paen of their chosen ideology. If it should be merged with any page, perhaps criticisms of anarchismmight be more appropriate. The page clearly needs more work encompassing everything from the International Conference of Rome for the Social Defense Against Anarchists to the International Communist Current. As long aseverything is referenced I find it hard to understand why people should be worried about original research.-- 86.143.155.222 (talk) 17:10, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope

Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corporation, as far as I can make out. made in good faith, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication or obvious evidence on how this company meets WP:ORG. Nuttah68 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable. - Rjd0060 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Should have been "Speedy" as "Spam". Shoessss |  Chat  22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I tried that but I guess somebody removed it. Wierd. - Rjd0060 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Comment: this article has been updated with additional third party links as a company that is notable. Astronomy interested people will know the telescope names of Meade Instruments and Celestron. Meade/Celestron list Woodland Hills as one of their "Elite" sellers of their products such as Amazon is listed as dealer for other products on misc. websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mca2001 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, sorry, I can't seem to find any reliable sources covering the company. PRs don't really count, and the rest seem to have little to do with them. There's a claim that they are "featured" in articles in certain notable magazines, but the only link is to a contest where they donated a prize. Could you provide some sort of reference to one of these articles? It need not be online. Kuru ^talk 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just delete the article. I'm fighting a losing battle and it's not worth wasting my time over it. :( Mca2001 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete for utter failure to establish any kind of notability. The business is 50 years old and sells telescopes in Woodland Hills. SFW?? Eddie.willers 04:19, 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. Mr.Z-man 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies on South Park

Parodies on South Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate collection of trivia as well as being a mass of original research. A list of every single thing that's ever been parodied in an episode of South Park, or everything that in the unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion of whatever random editor is parodied on South Park, is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sadly, delete as original research. Good content and I would hope to find it in an encyclopedia, but WP:NOR isn't debatable. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think that some cultural reference lists merit articles, but the connections listed here are very trivial and not significantly meaningful. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; Unless there are books by writers or other critics that could be used as citations, then in that case, keep. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 21:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, and cruft. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Has plenty of merit, and if Wikipedia will delete this where else will this info be available? --bobsmith319 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• This South Park wiki or this South Park wiki or any of the other South Park wikis on the net maybe? If any of them want it, let them have it. Otto4711 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it concerns a notable show and a major aspect of the show for which the show has received much attention and controversy. I will do what I can to address the original research concern by adding sources in the next few minutes so that the article satisfies our requirements for "List". It already meets notability requirements. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly original research, trivia and cruft. South Park is notable, but not every aspect of it is. RobJ1981 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral seems to need some sourcing, but it's a great article to have here. I don't see this as original research of it only get some more links. Or really, if something is obvious when you first point at it, does it need sourcing then? I'm leaning to keep.After all, this is a really notable show, and we're not making a paper encyclopedia here.Greswik 14:23, 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Bruder

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

does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, appearances on a major drama seem to meet notability standard. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable (35 years on a major soap opera) [8]. JJL 22:51, 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 keep. W.marsh 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starkey International Institute for Household Management

Starkey International Institute for Household Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starkey International Institute for Household Management with very little discussion; consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8 was to relist. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I see no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable institution which has been covered to a significant extent by multiple reliable, published sources. Picaroon (t) 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. I've added some inline citations. --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, may have been borderline before, but is clearly across the line now in terms of "notability." I couldn't view the content before when I argued to relist at the DRV, but I see nothing outside the bounds of BLP, and certainly nothing that can't be resolved on a talk page. --JayHenry 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Plenty of reliable source material from which to tell their story on Wikipedia. Meets WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unless better sources can be found, delete for failure to establish notability. The sources in the article so far establish the existence of the school but do not rise to the level required for WP:ORG. They are primarily about a particular trend in conspicuous consumption and mention the school mostly as an example, not as the primary subject of the article. Rossami (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the coverage not meeting "level required" by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as that page's criteria are met by the sources listed. I quote from the guideline you linked - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." The sources listed meet all such criteria listed there: they are reliable, they are secondary, and they cover the school in depth and to a significant extent. The fact that the school is not the primary subject of the articles does not make the coverage insignificant - an article can be about one subject and still cover another subject in depth, as several of the articles linked do. The guideline doesn't seem to support your comment. Picaroon (t) 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you only on your interpretation of the third criterion - I do not consider those articles to have covered the school in any significant depth. That is, of course, a judgment call and you are free to disagree with it. But the standard application of WP:ORG is generally held to be that the article must be primarily about the subject in order to count as evidence of notability. Find better evidence and I'll withdraw my opposition. The evidence so far, however, describes a company not significantly different from any other new venture that got picked up for a human-interest story on a slow news day. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the source from The Times is originally a story from The Atlantic Monthly. I doubt anyone would call a story from The Atlantic a "human-interest story on a slow news day" (The Atlantic is famous for having its reporters work on stories for months.) It devotes around 1600 words directly to Starkey. Two articles in the NY Times, the Atlantic Monthly, a large portion of a book... the stories are about hospitality management and they identify Starkey as a leader in its particular industry. Claims of "non-notable" don't carry much weight against sources making claims like that. --JayHenry 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You way overrate the significance of the coverage - are all the others mentioned to an equal or greater extent by these sources notable because their significance of coverage is greater? Carlossuarez46 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete many of the sources do not give significant coverage to the school. In the story itself, The Campbell Recorder gives much more coverage the concept of good help is hard to find and mentions the place as where butlers come from. The Campbell Recorder is perhaps a reliable source and since it contains as headlines such wonders as this and this every empty lot awaiting the spade or decision of the Campbell, California city council is now notable. The Irish Independent devotes 4 sentences to the school in its report on the surge in demand for butlers - it also mentions a placement agency for butlers by such lax standards now notable too probably. One of the NY Times articles has a few quotes from the founder of the establishment - mentioning her affiliation - but the gist of the article was Princess Diana's butler being in attendance at a butler convention (must have been one helluva party) - also the placement agency for butlers is mentioned and its founder quoted (ah big case for notability now) as are some butlers who are given their 15 minutes of fame in the artcle and now should have pages here to memorialize that. The Atlantic Monthly article in The Times covers the school as one part of its article on the experts rich people employ to make their lives run smoothly - in addition to the school, there are a lifestyle consultant, a bank type, a trust officer. They're all notable now too by the same logic. The only article that gives significant coverage to the school is the other NY Times article which again gives coverage to various personages affiliated with the school, a former butler to the governor of New York, etc. Are they, too, now notable. This falls below the line. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 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 Speedily deleted as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freehold Football Club

Freehold Football Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Absolutely non-notable, even the league they play in is a redlink. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Deleted as non-notable. Teams are taken to be notable down to Level 10 of the pyramid system, this league is somewhere below level 16. ELIMINATORJR 18:05, 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 --JForget 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Rizzotti

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

Minor league baseball player who has not made it past the single-A level yet. Gsearch doesn't show evidence of notability. Speedy was denied, so I assume a prod will be contested. Fabrictramp 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. —Fabrictramp 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Note that a speedy deletion being declined need not imply a prod won't work. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete recreate when he reaches Triple-A at least, currently single-A isn't really fully professional, fails several guidelines. This is a Secret ^account 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough yet. NawlinWiki 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too soon for him. Has some college baseball awards, but nothing of note in the minors (A- level currently). Spanneraol 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete claim to notability is playing with another person of borderline notability. (Wouldnt have worked if the other person had been No1 in the world.) Victuallers 10:08, 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 Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. Davewild 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everette Harp

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

I'm not sure if this meets WP:MUSIC. Could we have some input from editors who have plenty of experience with the policy? The article was speedied before as a copyvio (it isn't one anymore), and the author keeps removing the 'notability' tag I've applied to it. I'm assuming that he'll also remove any PROD tags, so I'm bringing it here - a good-faith deletion discussion, if you will. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:MUSIC on at least one count, as having more than two full-length major-label albums. A quick Google News archive search shows articles in the Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and others. Agree that the article as written doesn't assert notability well, but in this case it's definitely there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:MUSIC, I'm sure more of the criteria will be met as (if?) the article expands. ---- WebHamster 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind, although some improvement is necessary. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I declined a speedy on the original article because I didn't notice the copyvio. It seemed obvious that this guy is notable and I was sure WP:RS and WP:V could be found with a little effort. I still think so. Pigman^what?/trail 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Harp had a #1 Billboard debut. Notability proven. • Freechild'sup? 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination, seeing the recent additions by Freechild (talk · contribs). I am not a Jazz afficionado, and it's nice to know that the article is notable after all! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:51, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Wald

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

does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 16:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral; She does have a Daytime Emmy (According to her IMDb.com entry) for writing one of the most popular soap operas on TV, but it doesn't pass BIO either. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable about the subject could expand on this. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasoning as Darin Goldberg - lack of verifiable notability and doubt with compliance over WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 04:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely non-notable subject, no references, no content. Turgidson 02:16, 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. -Splash - tk 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darin Goldberg

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

does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning for the AfD is that the article was ghostwritten by User:Wilhelmina Will for an unregistered editor who hasn't established notability and, frankly, refuses to. When asked to improve the article, the original author instead chose to harass the various participants (including Wilhelmina Will) to the point of being IP-blocked for 72 hours.

I see no reason to speedily delete, but my doubts arise from concerns that the other ghost-written articles all revolve around other Hollywood writers whom previously have not established notability. The cynic in me is concerned that these might be second-person vanity articles, due to the timing with the current writer's strike in the US. Needless to say, I am not emotionally invested in it, so will not fight for a pro-deletion consensus, if the intent is clear to keep it. Thank you.--LeyteWolfer 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It needs to be said that the article is absolutely not a speedy candidate -- being a Hollywood writer and producer is certainly a claim of notability. I think that being co-producer on Dawson's Creek may be significant enough to make this person notable. What worries me is the verifiability of information which would expand this article, but barring a verifiability issue, it's probably worthy of inclusion. - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an A7 candidate, really, but there is no attribution of notability to independent sources, and I found nothing but listings on Google News Archive. Just working on a TV show does not guarantee your own notability as notability is not inherited. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lacking verifiable notability. Being involved with notable TV shows doesn't mean, ipso facto, that Darin Goldberg is a person of importance sufficient to warrant an encylopaedia article. Eddie.willers 04:15, 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 A7. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zachar tolmachev

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

I believe that this article is not notable. Per WP:BIO a person can't be notable because they have a relationship to someone notable. This person doesn't seem to be anything other than an aspiring entrepreneur. Icestorm815 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete this is speedy criteria, i was even suprised you put this here as i was going to speedy it for non notable person. Really if there born in the 90's its usaly speedy worthy. Eskater11 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no notability asserted in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7, so tagged. —dustmite 16:28, 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 --JForget 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who See?

Who See? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group with no third-party, reliable sources. There's not even an assertion of notability, so I tagged it for deletion for meeting criterion A7 of the WP:CSD, but an administrator declined it. I say delete. Agüeybaná 15:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - The CSD was previously declined to allow time as the article was only a few minutes old. A day has passed now and no assertion of notability has been demonstrated. I've re-added the CSD tag. ---- WebHamster 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of doing that, but I decided to contact the admin who declined the speedy nom instead. He ignored me. --Agüeybaná 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I would take having released an official album and had songs on compilations as an assertion of notability, and thus do not believe this is a speedy candidate. That said, delete as non-notable and probably largely unverifiable. - Revolving Bugbear 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That was added after these comments. --Agüeybaná 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've removed the Db tag once more, since the creator has resumed editing and we can let this discussion run its course for the possibility that something turns up. --Tikiwont 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Taking into account WP:CSB; sources on Eastern European bands are notoriously difficult to come by, but given that the article admits they've only released one album, they almost certainly don't pass the notability guidelines on bands anyway. ELIMINATORJR 18:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete let's see....do they pass my test...

1. Do they have a hit single? no 2. Do they have a hit album? no 3. Are they known outside their hometown? no 4. Have they at least opened up for anyone who's well known? no This seems to be better suited on the Wikipedia of the language the group speaks rather than english Wikipedia Doc Strange 14:57, 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 deleted. ELIMINATORJR 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Moncton Cycles

Greater Moncton Cycles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Exactly zero Google hits. grubber 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as A7, absolutely no assertion of notability. ELIMINATORJR 18:09, 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, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not for words made up yesterday, WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ditchconnect

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

Seems to be a made-up neologism. Can't find any reference to this term anywhere. Both Google[9] and Yahoo[10] return no matches. A^RendedWinter 15:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is definitely a made up neologism. The article itself states that the word was created yesterday (November 10th, 2007). Icestorm815 15:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neologism. I'd like to see a speedy criterion for this sort of thing. JohnCD 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously something made up by the creator of the article. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable neologism. TonyBallioni 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:GT. Zero hits. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:23, 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 Speedy Deleted as A7 - no assertion of notability, no references, wikilinks go nowhere, orphaned... etc. ELIMINATORJR 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Four (Forgotten Realms)

The Four (Forgotten Realms) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional group. Nothing in the way of secondary sources or third-party analysis. {{prod}} endorsed by User:Gavin.collins, then removed by User:LtPowers with the comment "valid stub". Mikeblas 15:37, 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. Dhartung makes a very good point; however consensus is not reached in this debate and I suspect that there is Wikipedic mileage in this article. -Splash - tk 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Mississippi license plates

Historical Mississippi license plates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research. No verifiable sources that any of these license plates are historic. Nv8200p talk 15:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the use of the word "historical" is not meant to claim that they are of historical interest, but rather that historically they were officially the license plates but are now retired. - Revolving Bugbear 18:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that these are not meant to be interpreted as "historic" plates (as in "historic" sites, i.e. with some importance), but simply the prior plates ("historical"). This is the proper use of the term "historical". See wikt:historic for a usage note. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but maybe change title to "Mississippi State License Plates." The extent to which this is original research is that examples were provided and it could be easily sourced by someone who knows about MS issuing authority. There is enough variation and notability in this subject to warrant an article in my opinion, at least under a more general heading.Moheroy 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:IINFO. Any state modifies its license plates on a regular basis and Mississippi is no exception. This is primarily of interest to collectors. I see no independent sources pointing to the notability of these miscellaneous items. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 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 KEEP, but observe the dire referencing state of the article. -Splash - tk 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinsters of San Francisco

Spinsters of San Francisco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Queryable speedy-delete-tagging for "not notable". They seem fairly notable to me. Anthony Appleyard 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - acceptable notability. Needs better references. --Evb-wiki 15:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not a speedy delete - makes strong claim for notability. A few references would improve. Phil Bridger 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable and failing WP:ORG. There are less than 700 GHits, which reduces to less than 60 when Google removes similar links. None of these appear to be from reliable sources, and those that seem independent (and some that are closely linked) describe the Spinsters as being an exclusive membership club that does a bit of charity work on the side. Nuttah68 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, the only in-depth coverage (i.e. not a membership invocation in a wedding announcement or obituary) was this. There are a couple of minor mentions in Google Books. It seems like it should be more notable historically and so there are probably offline sources that could be used, but ultimately it's just a localized version of the Junior League. Still, with such a unique name and in such a large city, it has some currency. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 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 speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard (G12). Non-admin closure. Deor 15:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temperature sensors

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

(1) Page Temperature sensor already exists. (2) Appears to be copied from commercial project page (3) promotional rather than encyclopedic Chemical Engineer 14:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Copyvio of [11] --DAJF 15:07, 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. I will add the merge tags so experienced editors on this topic can do the merge properly. W.marsh 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talismans (Sailor Moon)

Talismans (Sailor Moon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Plot device from manga series. No explanation at notability, no references, written in-universe and is basically a plot summary. May be possible to merge a summary to a parent article? ELIMINATORJR 14:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Sailor Moon S, which is about the plot arc in which these prominently feature. (They do need to be covered somewhere, but it can probably be there.) --Masamage ♫ 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the main arc article. Plot detials can be covered there. --Hanaichi 09:32, 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 no consensus in both AFDs (Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) and Shadow Game (game)), although a merge seems reasonable.. W.marsh 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!)

Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A location in a game. Might possibly be notable, but impossible to tell without sourcing or references. Also written completely in-universe and is basically a plot summary. Prod removed without explanation other than "notable". ELIMINATORJR 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think there are any other avenues to fix this article. It lacks reliable sources, doesn't establish notability (so effectively it fails the relevant notability guideline) and there would be no reason to re-write the in-universe material since it doesn't appear to be notable. It can always be recreated if sources exists. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Squilibob 10:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Shadow game (game). The realm is really only interesting in so far as the Shadow games take place in it. --Gwern (contribs) 12:21 14 November 2007 (GMT)

• Keep and have Shadow game (game) merged into it, not the other way around like Gwern is suggesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Big X (talk • contribs) 19:37, 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 JForget 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar Associates

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

Speedy contested by original author of the article. A non notable PR firm established this year. Nothing to indicate, and no apparent sources of, how the firm meets WP:ORG. Nuttah68 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Advertising. --DAJF 13:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Seems to be spam STORMTRACKER 94 14:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not quite sure if that's blatant advertising - it could probably be edited down, though it's still spammy. That being said, do we have notability? Nihiltres^(t.l) 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While sections of the article are promotional, those could be removed. However, as the nom notes, there is no assertion of notability per WP:CORP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JohnCD 15:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete might be notable, might not be. But the present article is unsalvagably an advert... and a poor one at that. Pretty embarassing all around, but doubly so considering this is supposed to be a PR firm! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam spam spam. Nixdorf 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is an ad, but even if you change that there's no notability yet to justify a page. Alberon 10:33, 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 --JForget 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fotkipus

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

This is a non notable carton image - it even failed the contest that was its basis for being - not that winning would not have led to notability. Anyway, the author took off speedy, and took off the redirect to Fotki, so bringing here to get consensus. Obina 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It fails the relevant notability guideline, contains OR and lacks reliable sources. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN web content, no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Though I like the name (shut up, it's fun to say), non-notable, OR, etc, etc. Dookama 19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely insignificant. NawlinWiki 22:20, 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, disregarding the overly long and unintelligible contribution of Crscrs (talk · contribs). Sandstein (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Fuchs (sociologist)

Christian Fuchs (sociologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Also nominating Internet and Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I suggest removing the nomination of the subject article Internet and Society, which should be nominated separately. It is the title of one of his books, but it is not altogether about it. DGG (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Struck through. I'll leave it to others to decide what do with that one. Prolog 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an autobiography with no reliable sources. Fuchs has also gone around the project adding essay-like paragraphs of his rather non-notable views (especially in context of websites such as YouTube, MySpace etc.) sourced to his upcoming book, [12][13] so there is a definite COI spam problem also. Prolog 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteNot sure about the autobiograhy part, but the sources are not independent so not WP:RS. His publications are normal for a prof. Thus this article fails WP:PROF and fails WP:NOTE.Obina 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, is a COI, and is non-notable. STORMTRACKER 94 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As stated on the talk page Fuch seems to be a very productive young scholar addressing broadly important topics. He published already six books and dozends of articles, in notable journals, in the field of systems science. I think it is a extra dimension that Wikipedia also tells about these kind of contemporary scientists. I write this from the perspective of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I am glad that among the some hunderd systems scientists mentioned also some young and promising scientists are mentioned. I realize though, that he still has to prove himselve some more the years to come. What counts is that respectable publishers and journals seems to have faith in him. I am amazed that this doesn't seems to count at all. - Mdd 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All professors publish in journals from respectable publishers. Web of Science mentions that Fuchs' works have been cited by a grand total of 195 articles. His h-index is 6. This guy looks to have a promising future and some years from now may meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. At this moment, he obviously does not. --Crusio 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Correction Almost all cited articles mentioned above are on psychiatric disorders and from another "C. Fuchs". Only one paper cited just 4 times remains when these have been removed. Obviously non notable. --Crusio 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Fuchs isn't a professor yet, which makes it some more special. - Mdd 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing for notability on the grounds that the person lacks better professional status? No. Doczilla 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Put simply, this is not a very impressive record. Neither the most important publishers, nor the journals. Since Scopus is much more inclusive than WoS for European work in the social sciences, I checked there, but found nothing much more substantial: only 10 citations total. If this is notable "from the perspective of the WikiProject Systems," the WP articles in that field need some objective examination to maintain WP standards. But in all subjects I tend to translate "promising" as "not yet notable." DGG (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite any examination in the field of Systems to maintain WP standards. In fact I am glad with any activity here, even this discussion. I'm learning here about Scopus and WoS, and the (for me new) ways to establish notability, and the rule to eliminate all scholars whose citating rate isn't high enough. I haven't read that yet in the notability guideliness or heard it in any discussion. But I am still learning. At the moment I'm wondering if I can check those rates myselve? - Mdd 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Mdd, you are right that a low citation rate does not disqualify someone as non-notable. However, for an academic it is a way of establishing notability if they are cited very highly. In the absence of other evidence, a high citation rate would establish notability. In the present case, there is no evidence of notability and the citation record shows that these works have not (yet?) received much attention from people working in the same field. Fuchs may become notable in the future, but then again, he may not. It's too early to say, so notability is not established at this point. I agree that it is unfortunate that both Scopus and WoS are subscription-based services. However, from your userpage I guess that you live in the Randstad Holland. There are many universities there and you most probably can access both services if you visit one of their library sites. --Crusio 13:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'll take a look next time. I now understand that the original creator user:Crscrs is probably "Christian Fuchs" himselve, or somebody closs by, and here is a conflickt of interest. And the spamming as 121.44.15.103 mentioned, doesn't look that good eighter. - Mdd 14:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article in question has been posted in several articles with only a minor relationship to this one, possibly encroaching upon WP:SPAM. Furthermore the articlee is a vanity piece. Other highly notable scientists, both dead (Enrico Fermi) and Alive (Peter Grünberg), have considerably shorter publication lists. 121.44.15.103 13:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable spammishness. Doczilla 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keeplow citation rate isn't a formalized ruled for deletion of an article in wikipedia. in the social sciences, citation indexes are considered rather unimportant because so much publishing is done in the form of books. routledge is a top-social science publishing house, books published there are peer-reviewed which guarantees quality and importance standards. as the person in question has published a book there, shows a certain quality and relevance of his work, as the book has undergone peer-review. furthermore if you take a look at the publication list, you will find a whole bunch of peer-reviewed articles, which is also a quality measure of the work. if the logic of "low citation rate under ISI => deletion in wikipedia" is applied to one scientist, then it must be applied to all scientists mentioned in wikipedia. this will result in a heavy deletion of social scientists, because SCI is much more used in the natural and engineering sciences than in the social sciences. COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion". The material added was balanced out by adding the views of other authors in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore it is not a commercial spam, but a contribution to the representation of the state of the art in a specific field of research. Guideline on citing oneself: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." This rule says that an editor is even required to cite his own sources if he includes his knowledge. NPOV: Concerning the specific passages in question that were described as spam by one users and repeatedly by others, first the views of other authors (Tapscott, Williams) were added. Then the other views in question were added in order to allow the reader to compare these different views. The style of presentation wasn't biased. Probably it would be good to have a moderator mediating in this conflict. I have reduced the size of the article in question to a minimum, which would allow resolving the conflict discussed here by simply agreeing that as notability is in conflict here, such a reduction could be a consensus. ? Please also consider the following aspect of the deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". So another suggestion would be that all those involved in the discussion here, actively edit the article or discuss how to edit the article in order to find consensus.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crscrs (talk • contribs) 21:11, 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. -Splash - tk 19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germaine Haye

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

Assertion of notability is that she was old, which is not a criterion in WP:BIO. The article contains no reliable sources, and the two that are there are not indpendent (one is to a yahoogroup run by the article's creator and main editor, and the other is to his employer), so there is no evidence that the subject has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO or at the very least redirect. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is not a biography it's a factoid. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly proper claim to notability makes it a fine stub. Not merely "old," but oldEST in France. No reason to believe this can't/won't be fleshed out into a worthwhile article. I think it would be best to let the current issues surrounding the article's creator die down before considering this deletion. -Pete 20:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of the oldest people. Potential searchable term and a notable achievement but a biography should not exist. violet/riga (t) 21:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As nominator, I would be happy to support redirection unless and until a proper article can be written using reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with that too, I'll change my position to Keep or Redirect. (Do note that she might not remain there terribly long, she's currently ranked 99 out of 100.) -Pete 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The 100 documented oldest people of all time are notable. I expanded the article, with reliable source references (from Germany, France, and Brazil, showing international attention), and a somewhat interesting life. She was a published author (poetry). Please look again, folks. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:BIO does not say that the 100 documented oldest people of all time are individually notable. AnonEMouse's research has significantly improved the article, but it's still more of a well-formed stub article than start-class. To my mind the question is whether there is any reasonable prospect of it being expanded, which should determine whether it is kept or merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment True, but doesn't the existence of three sources -- so independent of one another that they come from different countries -- establish notability? In my experience, it's very difficult to predict what articles will or won't get expanded, or expanded well. I prefer to "assume good faith" on the part of Wikipedia community as a whole, and leave the stub so that someone may expand if desired. I don't see the harm, on either a policy or a practical level, in leaving a well-crafted stub that includes citations. The stub does not give a false impression of greater notability than the subject merits, which in my opinion is the main reason for removing articles whose subject's notability is questionable. -Pete 06:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's look a little more closely at the sources. One is a ref to a booksale site, usefully verifying the existence of the book, but not relevant to notabity. The longest story is the one from "Le Parisien", at 375 words, which barely qualifies as substantial. The German report is only 62 words long, which is definitely trivial, and the [Brazilian report] is only 150 words, also trivial. I find it hard to imagine that either the German or Brazilian papers sent a reporter off to France to file such short stories, so have to presume that those are based on news agency reports, and hence probably not independent. So all we are left with is one marginally substantial report, and two trivial ones of questionable independence, which leaves notability rather marginal per WP:BIO.
        The sparsity of sources doesn't surprise me, because stories such as this often don't get more than a brief mention, and that's why I question whether there is a realistic prospect that the articles can be expanded beyond a stub. With subjects such as this where notability is marginal and more detailed sources unlikely, it is much more appropriate to combine these very brief articles in list articles, without prejudice to splitting them out if and when more substantial sources become available rather than creating a proliferation of articles which are likely to remain peramstubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • C'est la vie', eh? :-) Yes, it's a stub, but that's not a reason for deletion. Merging to a list would necessitate losing the new information, which I think would be a shame. It is interesting and encyclopedic that she walked at the age of 111, that she recognized a large family, that she published at least one book on subjects that had nothing to do with being the oldest woman in France. It's true that publishing a not very notable book isn't sufficient in itself, but you have to admit that it does add to notability - most people don't publish books. Finally, if you want to refer to WP:BIO, I can cite chapter and verse if you like:
          1. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" - which being the oldest woman in France is, and
          2. "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Being the Doyenne of France is not an award, but it is an honor, and it is significant and recognized.
        • Look at the other criteria for, say, Athletes in WP:BIO. Just being among the top French players in a specific sport for a year would qualify, being the very top one certainly would. Being the oldest person isn't a sport, but I don't think anyone can honestly say it's less important and notable than a sport. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I don't see evidence that she has made a widely recognised contribution, just that her age was noted by three sources, and I don't see any evidence the term "doyenne of France" is anything other than a media term. However, there's no reason why merger should lose any information. The references are all inline, so the text of the artucle could be block-copied into the appropriate list article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
            • "Contribution" is debatable, but it's part of the enduring historical record: a hundred years from now people will still be writing about the oldest people in France at a certain time, and our article about her will still have people looking for it. And if "Doyenne of France" is an international media term, and not just a nickname for her specifically, but consistently to the current holder of the position, that qualifies, in my humble opinion. Anyway, I think we need to agree to disagree, and let other people have a word too. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of the oldest people. AnonEMouse: in a number of years, Germaine Haye will not be among the 100 oldest people ever any more. Do we then delete this article? Better to do it now and include in a simple list. --Crusio 23:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. As per upcleaning user "AnonEMouse". Extremely sexy 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It passes WP:BIO: at least 3 multiple, independent sources about the subject, with references from Brazil and Germany. Neal 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC).
  • See my comment above. Only one if the sources is remotely substantial, and it seems unlikely that the other two news reports are independent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Keep. Oldest in France for more than a year.131.96.70.164 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per research and expansion by AnonEMouse. This is enough to clearly establish notability, so I'm going back to my original position. (Note regarding above: it was actually more like 9 months. Not that it makes much difference.) -Pete 06:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep* I think the person mentioned in the article is notable for being one of the top 100 oldest persons that ever lived in any other aspect in this world the top 10 or top 100 of a cetain discipline or category is notable aren't they?So being one of the top 100 oldest living persons ever is notable people should see this on a more broader scale and not be narrow or close minded thanks!Ka el son of jor el 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — Ka el son of jor el (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I don't even think notability should come in to it. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia and the matter of longevity or records pertaining to longevity is definitely something that I consider of encyclopedic interest, I would also think others may well expect this kind of thing to be reported in encyclopedias - in exactly this way, a stub article about somebody that is notable for being in the longevity list alone seems fine to me, you don't need a huge wedge of external referencing.
  • Furthermore as this kind/type of stub articles are likely to be nominated in the future by profligate Wiki editors such as BrownHairedGirl (not intending offence but profligate editors or editors heavily involved in the community can cause just as much damage as good - you've already bought along a number of fellow peers that know the rules inside out, the danger here is that applying the rules become the means to the end rather than guidelines that help) I would like to see this sorted out for all-time. Either the whole subject area of supercenterians/longest lived persons is notable, in which case chipping away at the minor articles at the bottom end of a list is extremely counter-productive to the area of general interest, or the subject area isn't at all of encyclopedic interest in which case all articles will have to survive on their own merits. RichyBoy 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. - It should be noted that RichyBoy is one of those who has been canvassed by Ryoung122. - Galloglass 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well I can't help that somebody wrote some stuff on my talk page, not that it was to do with this AfD anyway. I was perhaps reasonably likely to come across this AfD anyway, as I do from time-to-time comment on some quite diverse AfD's. I admit though that in this instance I came across this by reading BrownHairGirls talk page. In any event I don't see why it matters how I come across it; in case you've forgotten a AfD isn't a vote - either the point raised is a good one or a bad one and it's appraised qualitatively not quantitatively. RichyBoy 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to vote, but I am going to say pretty much the same thing as I did on the first deletion vote for Robert Young's article. Unless you're AnonEMouse, who's been very generous in spending some of his time here adding better citations, then everyone voting "keep" should be prepared to help improve the article that they are fighting for. BHG is an experienced editor and would not have nominated this if she didn't feel that there were significant notability concerns. If the individual is notable, then it's your responsibility as someone coming and voting for the article to be on Wikipedia to ensure that it means Wikipedia's standards, both for quality and for notability. It's NOT good enough to say "all of these people deserve their own article and should be on here" and leave it at that. Robert Young's article was deleted, at least in my opinion, because it was not at all improved after the first deletion debate and thus there was a much stronger case for its deletion the second round. If this article is kept, and nothing is made of the excellent opportunity AnonEMouse has given you by digging up sources, then this article will almost certainly be renominated within a few months and, once the Robert Young fervour has died down, there will be a much stronger case for deletion. So if you truly do care about this article being on Wikipedia then, please, make it notable beyond a doubt. Fill it with notable and verifiable information that could not merely be included on a list and proves that this person merits their own article. Cheers, CP 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Stricken per below comment

Thanks for the compliment, but I have to admit I did the easy work, with Google searching (and translation!); I don't think there is that much more available on the web. There is probably more available in print, she was an author after all, and I don't doubt that between than and her age she was one of the more notable citizens of her town, so there are probably local articles, but you probably have to be in France, probably even in Normandy, in order to find them. So, while I do think she is notable enough for our purposes, I doubt we can expect much more to show up during the few days this AFD has left to run, and shouldn't base the decision of the AFD on whether or not it does. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should renominate if nothing happens in a week. I just meant, even with just the sources you provided, certainly this article can be improved based off of that and more so within a few months. I think this is going to end up in no consensus personally (and probably rightly so), so I should have emphasized that the above is my suggestion to avoid another deletion debate in a few months down the road. Certainly a potential for expansion has been provided. Cheers, CP 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: CP, I disagree with what you say. I improve stubs all the time of my own volition, but my opinion about notability does not compel me to do so in any specific case. I respect the depth of BHG's experience as well, but it is not a "blank check" for her to determine what should or shouldn't be deleted; she still has to build a compelling case like anyone else (and she has done a good job of that.) Expressing an opinions here is not a commitment to volunteer time; that is often the result, but due to the choice of individual editors, not out of obligation. -Pete 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I agree with two of your points. First, that none of us has a blank check, which is a v important point; the issue, as you say, is which arguments are more compelling wrt policy and guidelines. Secondly, you're absolutely right than opinion is not a commitment to fix, and should not be taken as such (I've had that one thrown at me by people who object to an article being tagged as unreferenced, and it's a v bad route to down). However, I have often at XfD seen an editor commit to fixing a problem, and in that case I am usually inclined to say go ahead, take the time to fix it (unless the article or category would be bad news no matter how much impoved). But if there isn't that commitment then we have to weigh what we have now against the likelihood of an article being improved, which is a judgement call, and I think it's great that thanks to your effort in improving this article, that judgement less of an open-and-shut case. For me the the remaining question, though, is whether merger would impede improvement, and I don't see that it would. If the list entry expands, then it can be split out again just easily as it was merged. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about your suggestion re: merging. Moving the 3 paragraphs or so of text to the list would make it Haye the only one of the 100 people listed to have specific text on that page; it would go against the page's nature as a list. Can you clarify? -Pete 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh! And this is why I don't usually comment on serious topics first thing in the morning. What actually came out was not what I meant to say. Rather than try to backpedal, I'll admit my mistake, strike the comment and perhaps think of a better way to rephrase what I'm trying to say. Cheers, CP 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know other people had to worry about that morning self-censoring thing. No worries Paul! -Pete 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
Statistician 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd half question in your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. Anyways, as far as I know, 1 does not have to be an 'admin' to nominate an article for deletion. Robert Young once nominated the 2nd oldest person in the world for deletion and he's not an admin. And your last sentence is irrelevant to whether an article passes the Wikipedia policies or not. Neal 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Arbitary break

Comment. I wish there was a way to put a group of articles under a common category for deletion, rather than just 1. Category: the oldest woman in France. See table below:

• Marie Brémont etc.
• Germaine Haye June 6, 2001 - April 18, 2002
• Anne Primout April 18, 2002 - March 26, 2005
• Camille Loiseau March 26, 2005 - August 12, 2006
• Marie-Simone Capony August 12, 2006 - September 15, 2007
• Clémentine Solignac September 15, 2007 -

In other words, why add 1 particular article for deletion and not all? (Assuming these oldest women are only notable for their longevity and nothing else.) If you only add this article to deletion and not the others, then obviously I'm not inclined to vote just this 1 for deletion and not the others. So it should be asked whether all these articles should be deleted and not just 1 of the bucket.

My point? (Or in other words, my fallacy?) That if this junk must be deleted so should others. It could very well be that the plan is to afd each article 1 by 1 rather than all at once. But I don't know that.

And I can extend this idea of categorical deletion that: Florrie Baldwin, what about the oldest woman in England? She's only 111, and her article is not nominated for deletion.

It could very well be that I'm giving more ideas for more articles for deletion, and that will be fine as spoken. Neal 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

• Comment Neal, you are absolutely right and as far as I am concerned most or all of those articles should be merged into one list. Note that the fact that other such non-notable articles exist is not a reason to keep an article nominated for AfD (there's a Wikipedia policy for this, but I cannot locate it right now). --Crusio 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAX. Ah crap, someone got to it before me. It's also important to note that overloading AfD with mass nominations is not really helpful to anyone. Also, if this is kept and the precedent can be applied to all those others, then it might make others consider not nominating those articles. Cheers, CP 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Okay, OtherCrapExists and WAX are about why this article should not be deleted because others aren't. I was reversing it, that if this article must be deleted, so should others. But that's nothing to do with this article.

Suppose we have the category: the oldest gender by country. Example: the oldest woman in France.

And hypothetically, every individual is about the oldest for about a year, from 200-2007. And everyone has their own article. But let's say that sometime, in like 2004, we have 1 woman, whom was only oldest about a week. And not much is known about her, she was never photographed, no media attention, nothing, so simply, she's just a first and last name, with date of birth and date of death. Therefore, she's noted exlusively for her longevity. Obviously, some admin may tag that for deletion.

Which brings to new articles for idea: the oldest gender by country, where in that article, there's a huge table, with the name, date of birth, death of death, an image, and possibly a short paragraph of biography. This idea results from the fact that not every oldest person by country is equally notable, so not all of them will fail AfD, especially when you go back down the decades.

I'm not Robert Young, so whether each oldest-person-by-country gets their own article or not won't make much difference to me, especially since I'm my own webmaster; I could easily make my own biographical pages. But I'd rather decide each person as a category then on the individual level. I'd be okay if every person had their own little article or were all listed in 1 article. So I would rather have all of them deleted, then to have 1 of them deleted. Vice versa. Neal 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

More comments, continued It should be noted that mass deletion of articles has been possible on Wikipedia. Some of you may know that recently, each and every pokémon has their own article. All 493 of them. Well, now they don't, they been broken up into a list of pokémon with each of them their own paragraph, rather than their own article. Did a Wikipedia admin go to each and every article, all 493 of them, and nominate them for merge or deletion? I hope not.

So an article like this will be satisfactory for me:

The oldest gender of country:

First name last name (born-died)

Paragraph, blah blah, photo.

Next person (born-died)

Etc.

Me and Robert debated whether the 10th oldest person in the world should get their own article, or the 5th oldest person in the world and above should get their own article. Then, someone noted arbitrary cut-off points are irrelevant. In reality, 3 skinny paragraphs in their own article can be merged into a fat paragraph. The problem is, within the next 25 years, we'll have too many articles, and most of them won't be long and in-depth. And Robert (whom I know will be reading this), you must admit you have each supercentenarian on watch. I know this because everytime I edit 1, he'll be there to point out my mistakes, and he told me so. So would it be easier if you had 1 list-article on watch, as opposed to each and every individual oldest man/woman by country? After we get this settled, we'll worry about the 2nd/3rd oldest person in country if they're in the top 100 later. Neal 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

• Keep - IMO she's rare enough to be notable. Tiptopper 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rarity is not a notability criterion (see WP:BIO). It may be a reason for curiosity, but notability is something different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Half a day ago, it should be noted that the Marie-Rose Mueller article won the AfD for keep. She was "only 111," and the 2nd oldest person in a U.S. state. It also looks like the AfD for Emma Carroll, 112, and oldest in U.S. state, is about to win nomination for keep. It would be interesting if this article for 113, and "oldest in country," fails nomination. Neal (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

• Comment. Emma Carroll was withdrawn by nominator. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:16, 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 (closed by non-admin) I'll probably get a clip round the ear for closing this, but as a neutral it seems to me to be an unambiguous case of no consensus. I've read and followed this afd with interest and despite all the changes to the article since nomination the keepers and deleters seem unable to come to an agreement. There seem to be misunderstandings, either deliberate or otherwise, on both sides of the argument. To delete would clearly be against consensus as would to label this afd a keep. No consensus may be an unsatisfactory outcome, but it does reflect the actuality of this afd. (If an admin wants to reopen this afd it really should be one NOT involved in the debate}-- RMHED (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Coles

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

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

No evidence or assertion of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. The subject is an academic researcher, but there are no refs from independent reliable sources, and the article's main claim of Coles's significance appears to be as a co-founder of the Gerontology Research Group. The article was created by a member of the Gerontology Research Group, Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)/User:Ryoung122. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion Stephen Coles does satisfy the notability requirement because it is highly likely that he has participated in more autopsies of supercentenarians than any other individual alive. The study of the causes of death in supercentenarians gives us significantly greater insight into the processes of aging and disease in the elderly. His contributions to the GRG which is one of the foremost groups studying aging and longevity are significant. He is also extremely active in efforts to increase funding for stem cell research. He participates in a number of editorial and board positions and has organized conferences related to anti-aging medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertBradbury (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Organising conferences and holding board positions doesn't establish notability. That needs non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete the article claims that Coles is a "Professor at the UCLA", but I can't find his faculty web page. I find this where he's called " visiting scholar, Department of Computer Science", and this he's billed as "assistant researcher in the Department of Surgery", the only other reference to him that I can find in a departmental page is on the list of <$900 contributors to Donors to the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine ([14]). Other than that there's one article in the campus paper on the GRG (which the article describes as a group "which meets at the UCLA Medical Center" .... "once a month to disseminate information and to discuss recent news in regards to aging") which mentions him. Of course, he's mentioned, (as "L. Stephen Coles, GRG System Administrator/Webmaster") in this GRG web page is hosted at UCLA, but that page begins with several layers of boilerplate dissociating itself from UCLA, which is a bit odd. In short, I doubt the veracity of the article's first sentence, and therefore recommend deletion. Pete.Hurd 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Coles is not a professor at UCLA. At least not according to the UCLA directory lists a him as a visiting scholar in the computer science department. Pete.Hurd 08:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's a link that mentions UCLA:http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503131.96.70.143 03:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Stephen Coles was a professor at UCLA. Not anymore. He is now retired (age 66). Neal 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

  Question Can you tell us where this info comes from? And before he retired, what exactly was he at UCLA? Given his publication record, it's impossible that he would be anything like a full professor or have tenure (at most universities he would miss the assistant professor bar...). --Crusio 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  Reply Robert e-mailed me, as he reads all the articles for deletion. Since you posted your question here, he'll likely e-mail me the answer soon (as he is banned). Added: well he's not interested in talking through me, he'll answer any questions on his talk page. Anyways, I don't personally know much about L. Stephen Coles. Neal 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

  • The contributions record confirms 131.96.70.143 (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of blocked Ryoung122 (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per Pete.Hurd. Again another that fails WP:BIO. - Galloglass 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Evident notability. Colonel Warden 23:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pete Hurd's meticulous research. Colonel, the notability clearly is not "evident". What evidence do you have to support that statement? --Crusio 23:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., is the Director of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and maintains lists of supercentenarians on the GRG website (www.grg.org; http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/B579 ). The GRG has become a recognized authority on validated supercentenarians due to the work of Dr. Coles and the careful research of Robert Douglas Young and Louis Epstein. In order to be certain of the legitimacy of claims to extreme age Young and Epstein require at least three documents that support the claim. These documents may include a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, and a marriage certificate to show a woman’s name change. I am personally acquainted with Dr. Coles, Robert Young, and Louis Epstein, and I can vouch for their dedication to present accurate data on supercentenarians. Many news stories cite the GRG as a reliable source of information about supercentenarians (e.g. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3071036; the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 25, 2005, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110929999480364081.html; http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-11-oldest-person_x.htm; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20031006/ai_n14564771, citing an AP story in the Oakland Tribune of Oct. 6, 2003; http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1970532,00.html; http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-minagawa14aug14,1,4586720.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california ).

In addition to providing a reliable source of data on supercentenarians, Dr. Coles has participated in the autopsies of four supercentenarians (http://www.grg.org/resources/GJohnsonAutopsy_files/frame.htm; http://www.grg.org/resources/Palermo_files/frame.htm ) and one quasi-supercentenarian (www.grg.org/resources/SENS3HTML.htm ). In three of these autopsies the cause of death was determined to be senile systemic amyloidosis, a remarkable finding if additional autopsies prove it to be statistically significant.

Dr. Coles’ accomplishments warrant retaining the brief article about him. StanPrimmer 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:StanPrimmer has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ryoung122. - Galloglass 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I was trained as a geriatrician myself and have attended Dr. Coles' discussion groups at UCLA for years. He is an expert in his field, which is superlongevity in humans, and regularly publishes demographics on the subject in peer reviewed journals. I'm including three citations below by Coles:

Coles LS. Demographics of human supercentenarians and the implications for longevity medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1019:490-5. Review. PMID 15247072

Coles LS. Demography of human supercentenarians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Jun;59(6):B579-86. PMID 15215268

de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM. Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science. 2002 Apr 26;296(5568):656. PMID 11985356

Now, am I going to be accused of being a sockpuppet? And by the way, you totally screwed up with Stan Primmer, who is a real person. And that's his real name, not Brown Haired Girl. So pot, kettle, black. Give it a rest, you hypocrits. SBHarris 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Stan Primmer is someone else. "Stan Primmer, a long-time member of the GRG and a Co-Founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation (SRF)," etc. Neal 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. Thanks to NealIRC and Sbharris for confirming that StanPrimmer is a meatpuppet. It's a pity, though, that we now have more than one person involved in the Gerontology Research Group engaged in this disruption, and it can do no good at all to GRG's reputation or credibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't YOU read the article, BHG? Let me quote: "As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies. Users who are recruited as meatpuppets have presumably never seen the editing side of Wikipedia before, and some of them may broaden their interests and turn into productive editors. If meat puppets are disrupting a discussion that you are involved in, it is better to disregard them than to get angry at them or call them "meatpuppets" to their face." Don't bite the newbies certainly means don't block them indefinitely for being sockpuppets, which they are not. Stan is indeed a "meatpuppet" for purposes of this argument by the definition referenced, but admitting that means you people who blocked him are how obligated to admit you were wrong and now go unblock him, and also admit that you were wrong in the same space where you did your highhanded work. That's fair.

The question of "meatpuppets," itself by the way, deserves some discussion, but not here. I can only comment that I see no real difference between having your associates and friends come to Wikipedia to support your argument, vs. recruiting associates and friends to echo you, from among people who are already here, and post on your TALK pages. What's the big difference? Today's WP newbie is tomorrow's vet. SBHarris 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is Sbharris most all of these puppets are here at the direction of just one person who is trying to exploit this encyclopaedia for his own self promotion. I would have thought you, as a long standing contributor would be as appalled by his actions as the rest of us? - Galloglass 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair question, I can see that it's sometimes difficult to draw the line between somebody's self-promotion and somebody who is promoting a cause by being a spokesperson for it. My sense (since I've known Coles for some years) is that he's more interested in promoting his passion, which is figuring out why the oldest people live so long, and how the rest of us can live longer. So far as I can tell, nobody has yet given him any medals or prizes for doing this thankless job (how would you like to fly around the world to autopsy a 115 year old?) but he's made some remarkable observations (such as the one about systemic amyloidosis perhaps being the ultimate limit to human life span) which I think will make sure his work is remembered. If you want to argue it's premature to do this now, fine. I wouldn't object if his material and that of centenarian tracker Robert Young were folded into the Gerontology Research Group, though I think there's a good chance that if this were done, sure are shooting somebody would suggest it all be split out again as separate bio material.

I suppose my real beef on "self-promotion" is that Wikipedia BLP inclusion criteria are hardly free of it, and most of it is for things which are pretty silly when it comes to importance. One way of promoting yourself is to join some organization whose purpose is to promote its members. That's why baseball Little Leaguers, professional wrestlers, and porn stars give each other endless trophies and awards. And these all qualify them for Wikipedia bios (look and see). Coles hasn't done that, although it would certainly be easy for him, since he's founded several organizations and help found at least one journal.

My other beef, as a Wikipedian, is how all these people have been treated HERE. If they were "famous" porn stars, it would have been better! Instead, we have Robert Young (a long and wide contributor with 7,000 edits) blocked indefinitely as part of the bruhaha. Another newbie, Stan Primmer, was accused of sockpuppetry by the same two admins who nailed Robert Young, and blocked indefinitely also. When it was pointed out that Primmer was a real person, the rejoinder was that, well, he was a meatpuppet. Which means that two administrators were admitting to not only biting, but mauling a newbie, AND doing nothing about correcting it. This stinks to high Heaven. So, as a long time contributor, what "appalls" me? Stuff like this. It's this behavior by administrators who should know better which hurts the encyclopedia, not a BIO of Steve Coles, for Godsake. Hope I've made myself clear now.

Sbharris, you refer to "recruiting associates and friends to echo you". Can you point to any example of where I or any editors other than Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) have asked anyone to come and post here? Diffs, please; let's have evidence rather than accusations. Note that anyone who wants to is free to watchlist another user's talk page or monitor their contributions: none of us has any control over who watches our work and decides to comment. "Recruiting" is a different business, it's asking selected people to join in and support a particular outcome. So I look forward to seeing those diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you can show me the dif where somebody asked Stan Primmer to join the argument. I have no evidence that he was specifically recruited, any more than I have evidence that you recruited the same person to block both Robert Young and Stan Primmer. But Primmer does follow a discussion list, which is no different than following somebody else's discussion pages and comments. "Meatpuppet" is a very bigotted term, as I noted: usually it means somebody from another venue (in the outside world) who disagrees with a pissed-off Wikipedian who thinks they know everything important about the outside world, already. But in this case, notability among people in another venue, is exactly the issue under discussion. So all this talk of meatpuppets is very odd. SBHarris 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The recuitment has been happening at Robert Young's yahoogroup, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People -- but you won't be able to read it unless you are already a member, because Young has closed the group to new members since he began his campaign. But he has posted a series of messages to the groups' 827 members, calling for a massive campaign of votestacking and disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"calling for a massive campaign of votestacking and disruption."?? Is he really doing that, or are you putting words into his mouth? If not, I'd like to see YOUR cite, as I don't have access to the group you mention. And I guess you don't either. SBHarris 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the sheer volume of Ryoung122's contributions to related AfDs, you'll see that he doesn't do brevity, so I'm not going to spam this AfD with it all. But if you want to see what's being said, drop a note on my talk and I'll post some of the campaigning messages there. In the meantime, you have alleged votestacking on wikipedia, which can be shown by diffs, and I'm still waiting for those. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On your TALK page?? I woudn't be caught dead on your TALK page. Not only have I seen how you treat others there, I've also seen how you use it as an excuse to accuse them of harrassment. I'm not stupid. SBHarris 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's try some objective documentation. Notability of researchers is demonstrated by the scientific third party recognition of their research. Web of Science finds 22 papers, of which the most highly cited is the one in Science mentioned above--cited a total of 12 times. The one mentioned in JGerontolA has been cited 4 times, the one in AnnNYAS has never been cited. Clearly not widelyrecognized by his peers outside his own institute and its publications. DGG (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're arguing about how many times a gerontology paper in Science has to be cited by other papers to be significant. What, is it 13 and I missed reading the cutoff? I know, you'll say "more than average." Do you KNOW the average? Or do you just mean more than the average of academics who get a paper into SCIENCE in the first place?? [Shaking my head about the surreal place Wikipedia is, where there's a full bio on some kid who pitched to third place in the Little League World Series, and was found to be 14 years old instead of 12....] SBHarris 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment OK, SBharris, here we go, some comparative data.... I searched in Web of Science for all items published in 2002 in Science (excluding news items and such that hardly ever are cited, I only included articles, letters, and reviews). That gave 1283 items. The most cited one has 1779 citations. The average number of citations is 100.23. The article on which Cole is a co-author ranks 966th. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.... So, no, it's not cited below average with a difference of just a couple of citations. It is way below average for Science.... In addition, this is not even a real paper. I looked it up and it is a 2 paragraph letter to the editor (something most academics would not even put in their publication list). Cole is 4th author out of 7, the least prestigious place. I see no reason here to change my delete vote, quite on the contrary. --Crusio 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Dr. Sanjay Gupta thought Dr Coles was enough to be featured on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2006/12/supercentenarian-looks-back-over-112.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2006/12/19/gupta.supercentenarians.cnn

That's a lot more than the 'average' professor. It's also not a 'self-published' source. We also find popular citations with bloggers and the anti-aging communities:

http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/sens3-stephen-coles-on-the-secrets-of-supercentenarians-slides/

Hmm, University of Cambridge, UK.131.96.70.143 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The contributions record confirms 131.96.70.143 (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of blocked Ryoung122 (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The 1st link makes no mention of Dr Coles, the 2nd won't work for me, and the 3rd is an acknowledgment for allowing Coles' slides to be used on blog about immortality. Nothing there that can be regarded as reliable sources. —Moondyne 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. CNN and Sanjay Gupta...not reliable sources? Rubbish. Your computer not working? That's the basis?131.96.70.143 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, have you actually ever take the time to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I suspect you haven't because your comment seems to be saying if a name is in print then that is a reliable source. Per the guideline: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." (my emphasis) A passing mention of a person in CNN or a blog only tells me that the person exists and that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is, whether the person is notable, and those url's don't help me answer that question. —Moondyne 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the argument here is being made in conjunction with the WP:PROF criterion that An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Now, CNN and Worldpress are not local newspapers. And I presume it makes no difference whether the newsmagazine is a print one or a TV one? The point here is whether or not an academic has broad media recognition factor as being a "go-to" authority in some matter or other, not particularly verifiablility in the academic sense. That's something different. And Coles has that-- a number of peer-reviewed publications, but the argument used against him there is that these aren't cited "enough." But WP:PROF really doesn't have any hard and fast criteria, but it does give a number of suggestions of which any one is enough, and if you find an M.D., Ph.D. who is pushing at two of them, that should be a clue that he's not just your average Joe. In any other case I think he'd get a pass, but he seems to have gotten into the middle of a pissing contest which involves his organization (also under attack) and a colleage of his (recently no-limit blocked for no really good reason) and so it's gotten to be a mess.

I'll have more comments above, in relation to the "self promotion" question. If Coles was a real self promoter I supposed he'd be here doing that himself. But as it is, I'll have to do a bit of it for him. SBHarris 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Pete.Hurd. —Moondyne 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into GRG. —Moondyne 09:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply Hello Moondyne. The GRG article is also nominated for deletion, so you can probably cancel your merge vote and revert back through your strike-through. Neal 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Neal. changing back to delete, especially in light of Crusio's new evidence of self-promotion and manipulation of impact factors as detailed below. —Moondyne 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have respect for double major Ph.D, M.D. He did do a comprehensive autopsy (on Microsoft PowerPoint) on George Johnson, 112. Neal. —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, did I not add in the 4 tildes? Another shot. Neal 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

• Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing has been added to the article since this AfD was raised. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not really, see comments from DGG and myself above. --Crusio 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Papers written by Dr. Stephen Coles stimulate others, how to live to very old age. See some examples of Dr. Coles's recent papers:
  

1. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (3): 425-426 SEP 2007
2. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (2): 243-244 JUN 2007
3. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (3): 423-424 FAL 2006
4. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (2): 367-368 SUM 2006
5. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 8 (3): 201-202 FAL 2005
6. Coles, LS; Validated supercentenarian cases aged 114 and above; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 7 (4): 271-273 WIN 2004
--Kletetschka 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

— Kletetschka is new but interested in keeping relevant articles on wikipedia for others to learn.

• Comment. - And these help this article meet WP:BIO exactly how? - Galloglass 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. - This stregthens Dr Coles's notability. Can you name others who report on Supercentenarians without bias, from the strict medical prospective? --Kletetschka 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)— Kletetschka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Reply. - No actually they don't strengthen the case in any way I'm afraid to say. They show that he is an academic but nothing out of the ordinary that would warrant his inclusion in an encyclopaedia. For future reference I would seriously recommend reading WP:BIO and WP:PROF which give a good idea on what is needed to meet the requirement. - Galloglass 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's a heck of an attitude for somebody with an interest in hereditary peers! Have you no shame? Coles actually has achieved something in his life by his own work, by earning advanced degrees and making scientific progress, not by birth to somebody with a title. But you just edited (let me see) William Molyneux, 2nd Earl of Sefton, supposedly notable for using his life to found a trophy cup for rabbit-chasing dogs! (And, actually, if you know the history, he didn't even do THAT. But I'll leave it to you to read about William Lynn, proprietor of the Waterloo Hotel, who was interested in increasing his guest numbers). The difference between us, is that I'm not out to get the poor 2nd Earl of Sefton, a giant hunchback who is actually notable only for driving a carriage too fast and losing a lot of money betting at the races. I don't give a damn about "perfecting" Wikipedia by removing some Irish buffoon from it. Sometimes people serve, just by being poor examples. SBHarris 04:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nobody is contesting Dr. Coles' qualifications as a scientist or denying that he reports without bias from a strict medical perspective. The question here is whether he is notable in an encyclopedic sense. That he clearly is not. I strongly doubt that "many people read his papers", because they are all published in difficult to obtain journals (unless one works at a University or other research organisation where the library might have access to these journals). --Crusio 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment REJUVENATION RESEARCH is a journal with impact factor greater than "8" in year 2006. Impact factor 8 measures highly cited journal with broad audience. Publications in REJUVENATION RESEARCH along with CV show that Dr. Stephen Coles is a notable person. This notability warrants recognition of Stephen Coles in an encyclopedic sense. --Kletetschka 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Kletetschka, please do read WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Publications in journals don't establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remark REJUVENATION RESEARCH has indeed the highest impact factor in the ISI category "gerontology". L. Stephen Coles is listed as being on its editorial board. I still don't think that this tips the balance and will not change my delete vote yet, but it starts looking like a close call. --Crusio 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question has he published anything other than the lists cited? There's a big difference between substantive research and a few lists. --23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

• Strange Something really strange is going on here. I can find hardly any publications by LS Coles in Web of Science. Most publications listed seem to be from somebody else with the same name. Seems strange that somebody who has published only some lists would be on the Editorial Board of a prestigious scientific journal. So I had a look again at Rejuvenation Research. It changed its name a few years ago from "Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine". Under that title it was listed by ISIS, too, but had an impact factor lower than 1. As soon as the name was changed it soared to the head of the pack with an IF>8. This is really, really unusual. Somebody with more time to spare than me might want to look into this. It may be true, but I do think this looks fishy, I have never befgore seen anything like this. --Crusio 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Impact factors and Rejuvenation Research This is an interesting journal. It is published by MA Liebert, a medium-sized respectable scientific publisher, both before and after the title change in 04. The editor is Aubrey de Grey, and, judging by the table of contents, it publishes mainly titles from his associates. There were 14 citable articles (i.e., non-news, etc.) published in 04, 20 in 05, and similar numbers in later years--but considerably fewer before the title change. JCR's IF is simply the average number of citations per article, and can be much affected in a journal publishing only a few dozen articles by a few widely-read papers.Examining the per-article records in Web of Science, it seems this is exactly what happened--in what was essentially a GRG house organ, they now also publish a few highly cited articles by people outside the group. Clearest example I've seen of this phenomenon. DGG (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Snap. I started asking questions ten days when I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of spam for nominating an orphaned category at CfD, and the more I have burrowed the more fishy it has got. At the very least, there is an awful lot of hype surrounding the GRG, and much care is needed sifting out such facts as there are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Blatant self promotion! Despite what I just said above, I was too intrigued to let this go. According to Journal Citation Reports, in 2006, articles that appeared in 2005 in Rejuv Res were cited 186 times and those published in 2004 were cited 98 times (these are the citation counts used to calculate an impact factor). Of these citations, a whopping 137 and 54, respectively, came from Rejuv Res itself! It looks like the self promotion that we have been seeing on Wikipedia extends to ISI!! (I could actually have seen this in Wikipedia itself.... :-) --Crusio 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He's a notable "talking head", or whatever they call it when someone is widely recognized as an expert on a subject and interviewed for their opinions by every media outlet on the face of the planet. He has a few sources that mention him substantially:
  • Los Angeles Times archived more fully at http://www.grg.org/ECorning1.htm
  • LATimes archived more fully at http://www.grg.org/LATimes2004.htm
  • http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/29038/

and just slews and slews that mention him for a few sentences each on different old people

• • http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13119227/ MSNBC
  • http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/25/content_5653425.htm Xinhua in China
  • http://www.morningsentinel.com/news/2006/0829/News_Cent/010.html Illinois
  • http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/02/BAGA0KU9NF1.DTL San Francisco
  • http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/13/1068674320415.html?from=storyrhs Australia
  • http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218365,00.html?sPage=fnc.health/aging Fox News
  • http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/19/cnr.03.html CNN

and there are more, I'm just tired of listing them all. He's notable. He may be notable as part of his organization, but he's clearly the public part of his organization. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. - I'm afraid the article as it stands contains too many statements that have proven not to be correct; not least the one which states that he is a Professor at UCLA. So as it stands I feel no option but to stick with my original delete. - Galloglass 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If having incorrect information were a reason to delete an article, then every time an article were vandalized it would have to be deleted. This is a debate about whether there is any "evidence or assertion of notability" for the subject, as it says at the top, not whether or not the article is in good shape now. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep (Continued). The Robert Young article has already been deleted, so that only weakens my vote for this 1. It should be noted that Stephen Coles's nobility for his GRG.org site is false (unless you think webmasters are notable). Sure, GRG.org has tables. But he isn't involved with making them. When the collaborators send Robert Young the data which he puts on MicroSoft Excel, Robert Young sends Stephen Coles the page, and Stephen Coles uploads it to his site! And that happens every week! In theory, Robert Young and friends could make their own website and upload their own tables, but that would mean being separate from the Gerontology Research Group, and I've suggested he become co-webmasters with grg.org and that hasn't happened. So I find Stephen Coles's nobility as a scientist then as a webmaster.

The Gerontology Research Group might also be a company, so I would find that notable (not GRG.org). I think the problem is the size of the small field of gerontology. Stephen Coles seems notable in the fact that his field is so small. I think he's as notable as my chemistry professor, but when you think of chemistry, you don't think of my professor (because there's so many chemistry professors), but when you think of gerontology, you think of him (since the field is so small). Therefore, having a Ph.D degree and doing numerous publications by default isn't notable on Wikipedia, whereas winning a Nobel prize is. But anyways, I'm voting for Stephen Coles mainly for the sake of gerontology (however small it is). That he may be #1 in gerontology but that isn't enough. But then, the people below him in the field are even less notable. In other words, I feel the notability for the field of gerontology isn't the same as with chemistry or physics. And I would like Wikipedia to have some articles on leading gerontologists. Neal 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

• Note Further research has led me to nominate the Gerontology Research Group for deletion: see the AfD. Some of the material in that lengthy nomination may be relevant here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable researcher and part of the GRG walled garden assault on Wikipedia. I can understand if he was actually medically treating the old folk but a genealogy number cruncher and webmaster does not make a notable encyclopaedia article. A "speaking head" tends to be just an entry in a journalist's rolodex and not necessarily someone of note. They are only there to fill column space and sound important. That does not necessarily equate to notability and is more often than not chosen on the basis of convenience. ---- WebHamster 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pete Hurd's analysis of his academic credentials, Crusio's analysis of his claim-to-fame Science "paper", and WebHamster's point about walled gardens. —David Eppstein 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Per AnonEMouse and this list of newspaper articles... both those which cite him and particularly those which are about him. That's 'multiple verifiable independent sources'. Right there. Click the link and voila... absolute proof of notability. --CBD 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Merge but rewrite the article to mention the concerns above about self-promotion and the increase in the impact factor, but only if reliable sources can be found to have covered this alleged self-promotion. Carcharoth 03:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, having read the GRG AfD, I'm striking the above. Probably best to merge this article there. Carcharoth 03:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
  

Statistician 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd question in your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. What an admin thinks and what an admin does are different. And your last sentence isn't relevant for support, at least according to the Wikipedia policies. Neal 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

• Keep I just did a thorough rewrite and everything checks out and is verified to my satisfaction. Excuse the one sentence paragraphs, I will merge them later and mke them more prose like. I left them this way to show each fact has a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The rewrite indeed did away with a lot of the flab, but what's left still does not point to any notability. The articles listed are eminently non-notable. The info on the Maximum Life Foundation page (Coles' bio, linked as evidence that he was an adviser to the CIA) actually claims that he has 70 scientific publications, quite a bit more than the 11 in the Wikipedia article. However, if one searches PubMed, "Coles_LS" returns only 36 hits. Most of those articles are outside his claimed areas of expertise and have an Australian address: this is apparently another SL Coles. More smoke and mirrors again! If the information about the 70 publications on the Maximum Life Foundation site is wrong, then why should I trust any other information in this (non-independent) source? In summary, as a scientist this person is definitely not notable. --Crusio 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the NIH database of publications only goes back to the 1980's. Coles received his Ph.D. around 1968. The NIH database only has abstracts of articles on medicine. He appears to be active in many areas of research including computer science, and semantics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment The patent listed in the article as reference 8 was accorded to LS Coles, California Institute of Technology. Nowhere in any other info about Coles have I seen anything about a connection with CIT, which seems strange. The patent is about a molecular imaging method, which does not seem to jibe with any expertise Coles claims he has. Any evidence that this patent is from the same person that we are talking about here? --Crusio 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question Richard, you just changed "11 publications" to "at least 50" in the article. Do you have any sources to back that up? The hyperlinks you cite don't back it up. --Crusio 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• And we're down to just one patent. I actually read the patent, Richard. It says it came from work done under a NASA contract. So Coles also was a NASA contractor? Or was this somebody else with the same name? --Crusio 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• L. Stephen Coles. Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group. 4737 C La Villa Marina. Marina del Ray, CA 90292-7037 same name and address as in the patent. He may have a son of the same name, so I will remove it for now.

Don't even think about it. It is indeed a patent by the man under discussion, inspired by the first talk on imaging of DNA at the Gerontologic Research Group (that group being considered for deletion). "Doesn't seem to jibe with any expertise Coles claims he has" is a meaningless statement, since Coles has yet to edit his BIO, and is not claiming anything (if he did, you'd be crying "self-promotion"). As to what expertise the man actually has, since you don't know him, you can't really judge that, now can you? Not all his interests and areas of expertise will show up on PUBMED (to say the least-- the NASA and CIA contacts are real enough). In any case, the patent is his (and provably so), and if don't like that, or if it somehow doesn't fit into your worldview (laugh), well now that's too bad. SBHarris 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sbharris, I have no beef with Coles or anybody and I don't really like your remarks about my supposed "worldview". When I wrote about the expertise claims, I meant his bio on the Maximum Life Foundation site. So the patent is his. Mind you Sbharris, this is one of the few times in this whole debate that someone actually dredged up something that turned out to be real and verifiable. Thanks for getting us this information, this is a positive contribution. Now can someone please find some evidence that this patent is notable? Was it used commercially?

Concerning some other miscellaneous comments made above: The Pubmed database contains MedLine, going back much earlier even than 1968 (it goes back to 1950 and even has some older sources, too). Coles' activities in Life Sciences (gerontology) should be traceable in there. The Web of Science, which does cover computer sciences and such, does not list anything like "numerous publications" either (see above). Is there any backup of the "numerous publications" that are now mentioned in the article?

Above it has been said that Coles is retired from UC. Any verifiable evidence about what exactly his status was before retirement? Was he an assistant, associate or full professor? Was he tenured or a research professor? Why is he now an "assistant researcher" and not a "professor emeritus"?

Sbharris, contrary to what you seem to think, I don't know this guy and don't care about whether he's in Wikipedia or not, there's nothing personal here. I do care, however, that Wikipedia provides correct and verifiable information. You have made a start by providing evidence that the patent mentioned in the article is indeed his (and please assume some good faith here when I doubted that, there is at least one other LS Coles around in Australia). If somebody is notable, it usually is not too difficult to dredge up evidence of that. I have tried and not been able to do this in this case, I only found what has been called "smoke and mirrors", backed up by references to sites that were not independent of the subject himself (such as the Maximum Life Foundation page). If you feel that this bio should be saved, the best way to do that is to continue providing evidence of accomplishments that might show notability. Not by assuming that the people involved in this debate are conducting some kind of vendetta.... --Crusio 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into the use of the "smoke and mirrors" phrase, and it seems that it was started by Galloglass, and then used by Pete Hurd and you (Crusio). What I don't see is any indication that you might be willing to say that you might be wrong. What I see is people overstating a position and then trying to defend it. I see Richard editing the article and improving it by removing unsourced stuff and adding sources for what is there. Carcharoth 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Carcharoth the phrase smoke and mirrors was used specifically to refer to the circular boosting of Stephen Coles academic listing uncovered by Crusio which the defenders of this article have either failed to address completely or simply tried to deny the importance of. This simply will not wash. Taken together with the hyping of the GRG by its members there is simply a lack of credibility surrounding both it and the subject here. - Galloglass 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise all this, but what you (and others) have failed to demonstrate is firstly whether this circular boosting was intentional (it is entirely possible it is an innocent side-effect of working in a small field), and secondly whether Stephen Coles has done this circular boosting. That is what I take the allegations of "self-promotion" to be saying. If what you really mean is that other people have engaged in smoke and mirrors, then you should say that. And please, a little less of the "defenders" talk. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We need to have a calm discussion here. For example, where has the GRG been "hyped"? The way I see it, an unbalanced article has been discovered following the Robert Young episode, and the imbalances in the article have been corrected. That is not sufficient reason for deletion. Please try not to lump all these articles together (even though I am saying merge them), and try and assess each one on its own merits. Carcharoth 15:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Notability and verifiability - I believe these two items are the main sticking points. In this case, the information now present in the article appears to be verifiable. Notability is not clear, but rather than lose neutral verifiable information, I suggest merging to another article, for example Gerontology Research Group. Thus my merge comment above stands. I am also concerned that allegations of self-promotion are being made here. If this turns out not to be the case, those making the allegations should have the courtesy to retract them. If it is indeed a documented phenomenon that self-references raise impact factors in small fields of research, that is a problem with the measurement method, not the people publishing in that small field. Carcharoth 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  Reply The impact factor thing is completely specific to this particular journal. All other journals in the same ISI category of "Gerontology" (yes, I have checked all 36) have "normal" citation patterns, that is, self citations do not exceed about 10% of all citations received. Rejuvenation Research stands out as the only journal that artificially is boosting its impact factor. My bet is that this will cost them their ISI listing sooner rather than later. This is not an innocent issue. The whole world over, impact factors are used to evaluate researchers and employment, promotion, and funding decisions critically depend on these statistics being reliable and without artificial bias. In addition, I also think that most information in the article actually is NOT verifiable, because for this independent sources are needed. Most sources presented are not independent of the subject. Those sources that are independent (for instance the two sources listed for the publication record of Dr. Coles: Pubmed and the U Trier database) do not support the claims. And even after the information ahs been verified, we would still need independent secundary sources to establish notability. Thousands of people have publications and even patents. In and of itself, this does not make those people notable. It's the impact that their work has that may make them notable. This has now all been outlined repeatedly and I feel that this discussion is starting to go in circles and not much new information or arguments have been added in the past few days. IMHO, an independent neutral admin should have a look at all the arguments and data and close this AfD, so that we all can get back to more productive stuff. Whatever the decision of the closing admin, I for one will adhere to that. ---- Crusio (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw man

• Complaining about the journal and whether he was a professor is just a straw man, it has nothing to do with his biography, or notability, or the verifiability of the information in this biography. This is turning into a wacky conspiracy theory and a Wikigroan. 10 times the number of keystrokes went into this deletion, than are in the actual article. If everyone spent 1/10 of the keystrokes doing a Google search, they could have edited the article a long time ago, to everyone's satisfaction. I see as Wikipedia matures, its getting harder to find new topics to write about, so we satisfy our Wikilust by endlessly debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. ---- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote but not a vote This is a textual mess so lets summarize here, remember this is based on the current state of the article:

The article "is" notable and verifiable

• ---- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article "is not" notable and verifiable

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hirst's Law

Hirst's Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The diagrams (Image:Hirstslawidea.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea2.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea2a.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea3.jpg, Image:Triangle-1.jpg, Image:Triangle-2.jpg, Image:Trianlge-3.jpg, Image:Triangle-4.jpg, Image:Triangle-5.jpg and Image:Triangle-6.jpg), all of which should be deleted, give this "article" away as complete bollocks that the author made up one day. MER-C 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:MADEUP. Cosmo0 14:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per WP:MADEUP. --DAJF 14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The author appears to have rediscovered geometric similarity, except in more words. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, nonnotable, original (actually, not very original) work. NawlinWiki 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense (no such law). JJL 22:56, 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 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey internet

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

"Let me define the grey Internet..." No evidence of widespread usage, about 185 unique ghits, most unrelated. MER-C 12:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete, this just seems like a random users treatise that fell through the new page patrollers net. If it had been caught at the time it would've probably been speedied. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neglogism. Hut 8.5 20:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, "me" is not a reliable source. NawlinWiki 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being an ill-defined neologism. Eddie.willers 04:10, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blulogic

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

Non-notable company with no secondary sources in regards to its notability, speedy deletion contested by an IP. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I checked the website and it's a relatively new company with no current notability. Also, the Graphics Design, Game & Software Development and Business Design sections are completely empty. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 21:32, 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. The final comment listing many possible sources do seem to backup Shuki's claim of potential. I'm not comfortable deleting on the back of such a debat, therefore. I would suggest re-visiting this in the not-too-distant future and, if nothing has been or can be done, then it should be removed. -Splash - tk 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reuben Joshua Poupko

Reuben Joshua Poupko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:NN congregational rabbi who, while he may have done sterling service all his life, does not appear to have done anything that could be called "notable" to merit a WP:BIO -- speaking up for "Zionism and Israel" and harping on Elvis Presley, notwithstanding. IZAK 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. --Jayrav 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Actually, a very prominent and central rabbinical figure in Montreal. --Shuki 16:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you have any sources showing this? Best, --Shirahadasha 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope. It's my 'OR' and simple googling didn't help either, though I'm pretty sure that enough is out there for a legit modest NPOV article for this rabbi if someone really wanted to make the effort. I'll leave the 'keep' up just for the principle, you see I can't defend it too much in any case (I refuse to use 'weak keep' whatever that might be to some people). The current article is a delete. --Shuki 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems to be quite a prominent political voice in the Montreal community. See these links for example: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] --MPerel 23:10, 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 Speedy delete as hoax/nonsense/pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fergus Hill

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

Notability asserted by claims of newspaper appearances however can find no supporting data on the internet to support this. Possibly a hoax article with the image of being legitimate by attempting to assert notability. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Apparent hoax. --DAJF 11:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "never been captured on film" Yeah, right. Hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - in fact speedy delete as nonsense--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. No sources provided and an internet search reveals no relevant hits (reliable or otherwise). This of itself proves false the claim that this alleged person appears "regularly in major Australian newspapers". Face is never captured in photographs but he regularly appears in social pages - what, with a bag over his head? Upcoming film and music careers would fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC if they were taken seriously enough for anyone to be bothered. Natacha Peyre was not in Brisbane in 2006, did not release an album called "Blonde on Blondes" and has never "made headlines" with the alleged subject of this article. The alleged Mr Hill is also not "famous for allegedly coining the term Bris-Vegas", as the term was coined in around 1992 when Mr Hill would have been ten, and is attributed to a variety of media outlets commenting on tourism promotions being run by Brisbane City Council. In short, an article of pure nonsense from beginning to end. Euryalus 02:28, 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 deleted. ELIMINATORJR 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PIERRE JOSEPH-DUBOIS

PIERRE JOSEPH-DUBOIS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league, so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 10:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, never played for Reading. Punkmorten 11:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, when he turns out for Readings first team then give me a shout.--Vintagekits 11:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Peanut4 12:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt per CSD G4 as the article has been deleted twice previously (once a speedy per G12 and once by afd). TonyBallioni 13:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Deleted as G4 (recreated material), and fails WP:BIO for sportspeople regardless. ELIMINATORJR 18:12, 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 Redirected by author to Clow Cards. ELIMINATORJR 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Clow Cards

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

Renominating; unnecessary in-universe mostly WP:OR article that is not notable on its own and fails WP:Plot#Not. This is an excessively detailed list of cards from the series that is already sufficiently (and in some ways better) covered by the Clow Cards article. Collectonian 08:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The appearances of each card are clearly demonstrated in the images. So that's not WP:OR. Their personalities and powers are clearly documented in the sources listed at the bottom of the page, so that's not WP:OR either, and stating which episodes each card appeared in exempt from WP:OR as a reference to an episode is self referencing (for example, "in episode 29, X happened" clearly references itself to a specific episode). WP:Plot#Not also does not apply as this page is dealing with characters in a show, not the show's plot.

Strong Keep It is fully understandable that you might be unaware of this franchise or the significance that the Clow cards have to it, so I will give you some details.

The clow cards are the linchpin device around which the Cardcaptor Sakura franchise is written, without them there is no franchise.

Each card is a recurring character in its own right. They have their own distinctive personality, powers and appearance which have been laid down in detail by their creators Clamp. These are all clearly laid down in Nakayoshi in which the Manga was originally serialized and in the Clamp fortune telling book. The authors have been interviewed multiple times and have included extra panels explaining details out of universe and have written numerous out of universe guides and publications (for example, art books I-III which are specifically named in the references).

The Clows Cards appeared as characters in 12 Manga volumes running across 2 story arc, they were then mirrored to an Anime that ran for 3 seasons with no breaks and stared in 2 movies. All of which have sold internationally. On top of this they have been the subject of computer games across 7 computer platforms. While they are not individually notable enough to have their own page, they are more than notable enough to have a collective page.

- perfectblue 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unnecessary article perfectly well covered in Clow Cards and related articles. Regardless, as the nominator says, is in-universe, plot summary, and none of the sources are independent. ELIMINATORJR 19:01, 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 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation Activist

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

Original research, among others. Original authors gone. Most likely PR. Leranedo 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 19 Google hits suggest this isn't a widely-used term, and the article is written in the style of Dilbert's pointy-haired boss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being utter WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 04:08, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cadderly Bonaduce

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

Non-notable fictional character.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The main protagonist of 5-volume series by the most notable Forgotten Realms author. Also appears in video games and other series. Far more notable than, for example, Mouth of Sauron or Taurus Bulba. Garret Beaumain 11:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable fictional character per WP:FICT. Appearing in books and games is great, but what's needed are references to secondary sources. -- Mikeblas 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • They are below. Garret Beaumain 15:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Below what? —Quasirandom 00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If you meant below the text in the new "External links" section[32], those are external links, they are not references.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Leaning towards keep Seems notable to me, but I'm concerned this will remain AfD-bait until reliable secondary sourcing shows up. Salvatore is a very notable author, surely there are published reviews and such this can be sourced with? Heck, even Dragon magazine would be better than nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - into The Cleric Quintet; I'm not sure about the propriety of making this a multi-AfD with the additions below, particularly the last one, (and I would recommend a split to have them re-evaluated separately) so this !vote is not about the two following this. ◄Zahakiel► 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I have added Aballister Bonaduce. Marked for expand for 10 months, marked for cleanup for 11. This non-notable fictional character doesn't have adequate secondary sources to put together a meaningful article.[33]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I have added Adalon. Non-notable fictional character.[34]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FICT. Jdcooper 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I like Baldur's Gate II but Adalon is not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Mithent 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as both articles comprise entirely of plot summary with a heavy in-universe perspective. Neither has any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, which suggests to me this material would be better transcribed to a fansite like fancruft.net. --Gavin Collins 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge into series article. This is the primary protagonist of the series, so the redirect will aid searching. -Harmil 14:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete and merge Though violates WP:FICT, the article seems very well organized, and should merge to the relevant main pages. Chris! _ct 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Why is an unverifiable, organized article preferred over no article at all? -- Mikeblas 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both Adalon and Aballister Bonaduce because of WP:FICT and WP:N. -- Mikeblas 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Aballister Bonaduce (Cadderly's father) to Cadderly Bonaduce.--Neverpitch 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OS-tan

OS-tan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While I have put a good deal of work into trying to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, it seems that it cannot be done. At this point in time the majority of the article's sentences are tagged due to for citations being needed and most of the source material for the article is in Japanese and generally hard to come by outside of internet sources of dubious use. Furthermore, the whole subject matter doesn't seem to be on par with an encyclopedic article. Darkstar949 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. I actually kinda like the OS-tans, but there's just no article to be found here. Same old story, really: no reliable sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because someone went crazy with the {{cite}} {{fact}} tags is no reason to delete this article. (Is it really necessary to cite every single sentence?) There is notability here (this, for example), there is just a need for more sources. --Phirazo 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Phirazo about the overabundance of {{fact}} tags. There are a good selection of references on the page now, and although I didn't look carefully I'm sure you can find some Japanese references fairly quickly. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be widespread. Remove excessive fact tagged biasing to cleanup article. Are japanese language sources acceptable? 132.205.99.122 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Per the manual of style, non-English links are appropriate only when there is no reliable English source providing comparable information available. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Thus the problem, while the OS-tans might be very note worthy in Japan and would have a place in the Japanese version of Wikipedia, they haven't had the same sort of effect outside of the country outside of small groups of people. --Darkstar949 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• But if it's significant enough to get an Japanese language article, then shouldn't an English language one exist as well? 132.205.99.122 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• I looked for a note saying "Wikipedia is not local" but couldn't find it...might have to do something about that. Regardless, my understanding of the concept of notability does not include a linguistic or cultural element--while English language sources are preferred for ease of verification, I personally see no reason why every article on every version of Wikipedia shouldn't have an analogous article on every other version of Wikipedia, provided notability is properly established. Might have to do something about that, too.... --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment did you notice how many languages this article exists in? 132.205.99.122 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A good deal of the other articles seem to be machine translations of the English article, thus not necessary a good sign as to the quality of an article. --Darkstar949 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is noteworthy enough, it's widespread on the net and there are few real reasons for this to even be CONSIDERED for deletion, never mind it actually being done. Overlord11001001 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a cite tag at the top of article, no need for fact tags on everything - we are here to serve the average reader who is not interested in digging through overused tags to understand the subject of an article. I also don't see much of that material as being terribly controversial unless Bill Gates is sending his flying winged monkeys to vex us. It would be helpful to add context to lede that animation of characters is common in the culture or something similar otherwise seems like it's fine. Perhaps invite some of the related wikiprojects in hopes a bilingual expert can add clarity. Benjiboi 12:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A paucity of English-language material does not imply unnotability, and "citation needed" is used rather unsparingly by some editors; neither of these are sufficient grounds for deletion. --moof 08:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep An informative and entertaining article, with information that is verifiable, and on a widespread phenomenon. Denna Haldane 16:04, 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. Although if someone can verify this is a real place (a subdivision, most likely) a redirect might be in order, to a city or county article. W.marsh 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday Lake, California

Holiday Lake, California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be at all a notable, defined location. Dougie WII 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It is neither a census-defined location nor an acceptable mailing address (at least, no results on census.gov and usps.com). On the other hand it does seem to be "defined" as an accessory to the Morgan Hills sewerage district among other things. Results in Google News Archive are largely incidental, though. Primarily it just seems to be a subdivision that has resisted annexation. --Dhartung | Talk 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being a non-notable, hopelessly stubby article about a place that only 'exists' in a realtor's fevered imagination and flyers. Eddie.willers 04:02, 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 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duel Monsters Expert

Duel Monsters Expert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game without referencing, may be copyvio as well. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no notability asserted, no reliable independent sources cited. The game itself is a copyright violation of the Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise as the article even admits. I've removed the relevant external links in the article for this reason. Miremare 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the only sources I can find discuss the 2006 commercial release of the same name. Marasmusine 08:08, 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 in both AFDs (Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) and Shadow Game (game)), although a merge seems reasonable. W.marsh 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Game (game)

Shadow Game (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No real-world notability and no references; there's nothing encyclopedic here that isn't already covered in the various articles on the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Squilibob 10:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be a common thread to all the Yu-Gi-Oh stuff - spunky young protagonist, plays card games against foes for increasing stakes, eventually even lives etc. inside the Shadow Game/Realm. Could use some cleanup, perhaps, but I don't see how this is completely duplicated by the other articles. --Gwern (contribs) 12:29 14 November 2007 (GMT)
• Merge, into Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!), since that is obviously the dominant topic, shadow games take place in that setting. -The Big X 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Except that article is also up for deletion, and probably will be. JuJube 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simba Recordings

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

Non-notable music label, so going against company or music notability guidelines, fails both. Tagged for notability since January of this year with no improvement. Optigan13 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because: President of nominated label, also has no assertion of notability per biography guidelines.:

Vique Simba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete This is a non notable record label. --Stormbay 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also feel that the label owner, Vique Simba, is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both no indication of notability; company has ceased trading so is not going to become more notable any time soon!Garrie 01:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if there was more to say, it should have been said by now. Deb 12:53, 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, since the current article is not the same as the version nominated for AFD. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gil Montilla

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

Randomness... —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}offline 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Obviously a hoax, we all know who the first man on the moon was. Tiptoety 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:BIO, per User:Eliz81 below. Tiptoety 08:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It should've tagged under CSD--NAHID 07:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Not so much a hoax as total unashamed nonsense. --DAJF 07:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by total, random coincidence, this matches the name of a prominent Philippines politician from the 1930's. I've rewritten the stub with barebones info and will add more. What do you think? ~Eliz81^(C) 08:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If it can be expanded. --DAJF 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty darn ignorant about the history and politics of the country, but hopefully others can help me out here ;) ~Eliz81^(C) 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to some impressive (and quick!) editing to show notability. It would appear from google that there is a Gil Montilla National High School as well, which certainly seems to indicate some measure of notability (although I am not absolutely confident it is the same Gil Montilla, so I won't add it to the article). --TeaDrinker 08:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in a city from his district, so I added it in. Good catch! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 08:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Eliz81. —dustmite 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (thanks to Eliz81). Anyone who's been speaker of the national assembly of the 12th most populous country in the world must be notable. Phil Bridger 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is pretty important in the prewar Philippines Sugar Industry and the most important political machine in the commonwealth. The article could be improved but he was a trusted lieutenant of Quezon and first Speaker of the National assembly, so he is clearly notable. Probably the only reason he hasn't had a proper article till now is his lack of current filipino partisans. Moheroy 23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Talk to WP:PINOY, they can help.--125.212.21.31 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bordering on Speedy, now that the hoax has been replaced with a bio which albeit very rapidly put together, does have assertions of notability. Obviously it needs some more work and citations, but I think it is obvious that this article is no longer the same one that was nominated. Arakunem^Talk 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Citation now added for notability and verifiability. I find tons of references to the high school and barnegay but nothing linking him and the naming despite the obviousness. spryde | talk 21:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katbite

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

Non-notable band, no references from reliable third parties. Only news link appears to be from single editor website. Tagged for notability since January 2007, and prodded, with no improvement. Very few edits to article ever. - Optigan13 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: NN and no improvement after a great length of time. - Rjd0060 07:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete Despite claims of international touring (a WP:BAND criterion), I don't see much substantial here. Pigman^what?/trail 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Paul20070 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if they have toured internationally, I would expect to see evidence of it: some internationl write-ups of thier gigs in NZ, and other countries.Garrie 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This band doesn't make it in importance and seems non notable. --Stormbay 16:33, 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. She's already treated as much as anyone else in the main article.-Splash - tk 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marilinda

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

Only notable for being the winning model of Project Runway 3. Nothing else is stated about her work. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Merge info into appropriate show article. Non notable outside the scope of the show. - Rjd0060 07:24, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian riccioni

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

You'd think someone with this many accolades would have a verifiable article. But no, the 26 unique ghits seem more interested in someone caught up in the 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis. MER-C 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: As of now. Unless somebody can dig up some more sources from somewhere before this AfD closes, the article doesn't really assert any verifiable notability. - Rjd0060 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. -- Terraxos (talk) 18:45, 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 speedy delete G4 by User:Chuq. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81^(C) 09:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The World Game Forum

The World Game Forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about an Australian soccer forum. It does not cite reliable sources indicating its importance and Google News and Google News Archives comes up with no references. Article contains little to interest people outside the forum Capitalistroadster 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 05:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't assert notability, and no reliable sources. - Rjd0060 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources asserting notability have been provided and the article is incredibly POV and unencyclopaedic. There is no evidence that the forum has any impact or influence on anything outside the forum. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable, and the article content is not relevant to an encyclopedia anyway. --UnleashTheWolves 06:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliables. Twenty Years 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close Already deleted. JuJube 07:40, 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 Neranei. Pagrashtak 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douchebag The Card Game

Douchebag The Card Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deletion Nomination Article is unreferenced, and is about a card game which was probably made up one day. No evidence of this card game being noted by independant sources, thus it is not verifiable in any way, and thus should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Thats an easy one. - Rjd0060 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:MADEUP --UnleashTheWolves 06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources provided and a quick search reveals none. As previously noted, the article reads like something made up in school one day. Even if genuine, it is hard to see how this fairly childish drinking game will make a sufficient contribution to popular culture to justify a Wikipedia article. Euryalus 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't even believe this is going through AFD. Jesus wept. Lugnuts 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Aside from PROD (which would have been removed since there is an active person editing the page -- even deleted the AfD notice), and the fact that CSD doesn't apply here, why can't you believe it? - Rjd0060 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it's complete and utter gibberish that's not got a snowballs chance in hell of surviving. Lugnuts 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense, made up one day. JJL 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, no sources at all. NawlinWiki 00:00, 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 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law Office of Xavier Morales

Law Office of Xavier Morales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nonnotable company [35][36] Chris1321432 05:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Notable for the fact that lead attorney was ranked #1 Trademark Attorney in U.S. by the Trademark Insider Report, which is the authority on the Trademark industry (link provided in entry, see page 8 of report for ranking). The Trademark Insider Report constitutes sufficient evidence of non-trivial coverage in an independent source. The fact that the law office has been in existence for 10 months is irrelevant, as there is a whole category devoted to "Law firms established in 2007". There are plenty of other law firm entries with substantially less content (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_Angell_Palmer_%26_Dodge). - Anon80 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.221.214 (talk)

• Delete: Per nom (non notable company). - Rjd0060 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the single claim to notability is simply a list; such a list amounts to a trivial coverage. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent sources per WP:N and WP:CORP, so should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete for being unashamed advertising. A law firm of one attorney, in existence for all of 10 months, no way notable. Eddie.willers 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Bearian 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. It is possible that the person is notable, but that is not a given from this article. In any case, notability does not transfer from the individual to a company. Vegaswikian 06:51, 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 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Lagoons

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

nonnotable company [37] Chris1321432 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Manufacturer of the worlds largest swimming pool? Not notable. - Rjd0060 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, *yawn* --UnleashTheWolves 06:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to demonstrate notability. UnitedStatesian 02:59, 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 Speedy delete g3 vandalism, cut and paste of Richard Leech. NawlinWiki 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Leech

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

Article is a duplicate of Richard Leech, right down to the link to Richard Leech's IMDB entry. User has created other articles with believable but very inaccurate information ([38] [39]), leading me to believe this is a hoax article. Toohool 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom as it is a copy. Probable hoax as a google search turns up nothing related to an actor from Dublin. - Rjd0060 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as vandalism, i.e. creating a hoax article. The other articles that the author created will need to be dealt with too. --Malcolmxl5 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's fairly obvious this is a hoax --UnleashTheWolves 06:19, 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 Speedy delete a1, virtually no content; WP:CRYSTAL; no sources. NawlinWiki 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4:3 (film)

4:3 (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete wp:crystal Chris1321432 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom (CBALL). No sources to verify. - Rjd0060 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete', as above, also unreferenced --UnleashTheWolves 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Crystal - no IMDB or AMG listing, no independent proof it exists as of yet. SkierRMH 07:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "It will be newly present the cast originates them" uh.... wut? Dookama 19:11, 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 REDIRECT to Boulder Valley School District. Nothing apparent to merge given the treatment of other schools in that target article. -Splash - tk 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan Middle School of Arts and Academics

Manhattan Middle School of Arts and Academics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable four year old middle school Chris 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. (NN school). - Rjd0060 04:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 11:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn school per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per established precedent to Boulder Valley School District. Delete is not possible for GFDL reasons after merge. TerriersFan 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per TerriersFan. Noroton 23:46, 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 11:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mu Iota Alpha

Mu Iota Alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted or evident. Decoratrix 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Was unable to find any vestige of notability. Simply being a fraternity or sorority is not notable. Decoratrix 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Close Delete: Article deleted No assertion of notability, very short article containing little context, no sources. - Rjd0060 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note The article has not been deleted. There was a problem with the links, which is now corrected. --Malcolmxl5 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete An article about an organisation that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. --Malcolmxl5 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Feels hoaxy. (Though given that there's a picture, it's a well-thought-out hoax.) Google search on "Mu Iota Alpha" (in quotes) returns only WP mirrors, spam pages and unrelated results. "Mu Iota Alpha"+Puerto Rico only returns WP mirrors. There is a sorority called "Alpha Iota Mu," but it was not founded in Puerto Rico or in 1936. I would think that any sorority founded that long ago would have at least one non-wiki Google result. LaMenta3 05:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL 22:59, 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 speedy close, AFD isn't for talk pages. Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Chris Marcil

Talk:Chris Marcil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Close: This isn't the proper forum to discuss deletions of talk pages for existing articles. - Rjd0060 05:02, 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 speedy close, AFD isn't for talk pages. Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 05:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Susan Wald

Talk:Susan Wald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

removing pointless infos Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Close: This isn't the proper forum to discuss deletions of talk pages for existing articles. - Rjd0060 05:02, 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 REDIRECT to Sawmills Studio following the merge. -Splash - tk 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous Records

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

Very short article that the PROD and speedy deletion were declined. Tasc0 04:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't assert any notability as of now. - Rjd0060 05:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails to establish notability Lugnuts 09:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Dangerous Records released the first 2 EP's by Muse, which may indicate some notability. The article needs more than that - I'll see what I can find.--Michig 12:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for the Muse connection, or at least merge to Sawmills Studio, which company it is an offshoot of. ELIMINATORJR 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: there's also a record label with the same name that operated in the U.S. Check "What links here"; there's a lot of hip-hop related articles. This may be confusing for some users.--Tasc0 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless any further evidence of notability can be provided. The Muse connection is not enough to support an article. -- Terraxos (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have merged what little content there is from this article into Sawmills Studio. Can I suggest that this article is either changed to a redirect to Sawmills Studio or a disambig page, given that there are other labels with the same name, and that the AfD is closed.---- Michig (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that merging the information to the article you just named is a good decision.--Tasc0 22:49, 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 henrik•talk 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth radiation

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

Procedural nomination. Expired prod but strikes me as as something worthy of a debate especially given the debate on the talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I'd definitely like to see some more references if possible, but assuming it is accurate, seems like a notable theory. - Rjd0060 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A crackpot idea that doesn't seem to have received much notice (thank goodness). No references other than the creators of the theory. Clarityfiend 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Manfred Curry Mandsford 12:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is junk. If this is a notable theory then my goldfish is Moby Dick. Nick mallory 13:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In Sweden these theories have (unfortunately) a large following. The paper Folkvett which is a publication by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning published this issue dealing exclusively with these ideas. We need the article to present a sceptic view if nothing else. Nixdorf 15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't read Swedish but assuming Nixdorf is correct, that Folkvett issue is more than enough reason to keep the article. Actually, it would probably be good to expand the article using that source. Note also that the French wiki article, which has a slightly more general focus, is quite developed (though not entirely in the direction of solid science). It includes (unfortunately dead) links to scientific views debunking the concept as well as a few books by proponents of these theories which suggests that this is a somewhat notable crackpot theory. I have to agree that it's worth keeping the article to provide the scientific counterpoint. Pascal.Tesson 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - sources I found were all books of dubious publication, or personal webpages. No indication of coverage in secondary sources or skeptic sources like skepdic. I'm beginning to believe that the use of non-English sources as justification of notability is invalid for notability on English wikipedia. The entire article lacks inline citations, making it impossible to link any statements to a source and therefore impossible to trim out sourced information from unsourced. WLU 16:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Non-English sources are perfectly fine in the absence of English sources. (please take a look at the relevant guidelines) There's also an article about it in German at skeptiker.de. Pascal.Tesson 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As sources, yes, but as the primary justification for notability? Taking information from a non-english source seems different than justifying notability where there does not appear to be any significant coverage in any english media. It does seem a bit english-chauvinist though; I'll review WP:N. The only source I can read that I could use to add information to the page is the Bachler book. Also, do the non-english sources differentiate between Earth radiation, curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines? With a non-tested, non-empirical subject like this one, it's important to make sure that the translation is to the correct concept when there's so many linked pseudoscientific ones that have no real tests for verification. WLU 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability as it is understood on Wikipedia is basically the existence of sources. That these happen to be in a foreign language is largely irrelevant. As for differentiating between earth radiation, Curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines, I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in understanding the subtle nuances between various pseudo-scientific concepts but "earth radiation" seems as good a title as any to discuss all of them, though I can see an argument for merging everything into radiesthesia. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Swedish sceptics refer to Edwin Robinson and Cahit Coruh, 1988, Basic Exploration Geophysics, John Wiley & sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-61297-0 and Steven Weinberg, 1993, Dreams of a Final Theory, Hutchinson radius, London, ISBN 0-09-1773954. Nixdorf 17:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable pseudoscience, which is (or was?) also influential in the Netherlands. /Pieter Kuiper 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Pieter Kuiper if you can find some good sources. Think outside the box 13:00, 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 MERGE to Animaniacs. This has been done (thanks to Gak Blimby), so now I will turn this into a redirect to Animaniacs as is usually done following a merge to retain authorship attribution. -Splash - tk 19:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animaniacs Title Sequence

Animaniacs Title Sequence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability requirements and can not stand alone outside of the main article. Much of it is trivia information or self-sourcing. Some info could possibly be merged into the main Animaniacs article. AfD seems to be necessary as others have tried to merge with redirect and been met with reverts. Collectonian 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I don't think this article is that good either. It seems to be trivia, and stuff that isn't even that relevant to the Animaniacs article. I do not object to this proposal of deletion. Gak Blimby 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this articley JuJube 04:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Trivial information that lacks notability. - Rjd0060 05:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge some of top section into main article, the list could be summed up by a single sentence saying that "the last line of the theme song was changed periodically to reference something in pop culture," or something similar, as a list of every line is really quite unnecessary. --UnleashTheWolves 06:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and then Delete It's unfortunate that something this trivial has become an issue between Animainiacs "purists" and Anamaniacs "radicals", since attempted merges have been reverted. Mandsford 12:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to main article, otherwise the weakest of all possible keeps if and only if the article is re-written to be about the song, which is notable as an Emmy award winner. The "rotating lyrics" list needs to go as trivia, with a one- or two-sentence prose bit with an example or two. Otto4711 14:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Ready for deletion: All of the pertinent info in this article is already in the Animaniacs article. There is no reason to keep this anymore. I was the one who kept changing the merges back, and I'm sorry. I now realize that this article is one big trivia section, so please delete it. Gak Blimby 19:36, 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 keep. Sandstein (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Dessler

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

Not notable professor. Fails professor notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) on all line items. He's a professor with some scientific publications but this isn't anything distinguishing from the thousands of other professors. He is not significantly more notable than the average professorDHeyward 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep What rock are you living under? This chap is plenty notable, with numerous significant publications; moreover he is cited by loads of others. Decoratrix 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The only place I've seen him is on blogs and this bio. His article doesn't assert any notability that meets the guideline. I'd gladly remove it if substantial information is presented. But this has been here for a month with no assertions of notability beyond what I'd expect for an associate professor and publications. Please respond with notability as it relates to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Meets several WP notability criteria, including (i) collective works are significant; (ii) publication of a significant work on politics of climate change; (iii) regarded by peers as key figure (eg appointment to be keynote speaker at EPA conference). In addition his appointment to White House advisory post in the year 2000 sets him apart from the "average" professor. Decoratrix 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  The publication list in the article is average for a tenured professor. The EPA keynote speaker is not in his bio on Wikipeida or on his faculty bio page. What conference was it? What other significant researchers presented or attended? Was it a conference Keynot or a session Keynote? Not sure why he wouldn't list it if it was that significant. He was a Senior Policy Analyst in 2000 for the white house. I don't believe this a particularly significant position in the administration (i.e. Senate confirmation) but I haven't seen much on it. There are currently 18 policy analysts in that office. The director is probably notable. Maybe even the deputy director. But policy analysts - probably not. As for his book, it was very informative but also not particularly notable. For example, it's not a widely used textbook or a bestseller. --DHeyward 06:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Plenty of sources, unfortunately they are print sources. Putting that aside, I don't see any notability within the main context of the article. - Rjd0060 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  No reason to discriminate against print sources. Last time I checked they are as valid or better than on line sources. See also comments on notability above. Decoratrix 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. See the now-bolded statement in my comment. - Rjd0060 05:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Since the article was listed for AfD, there have been a number of new sources (and new article text} indicating the breadth of note and the clear satisfaction of notability criteria. Decoratrix 06:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--MONGO 06:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Key comment Only adverse comments below this line should be seriously considered, since the article has been significantly expanded with eight new line notes of reference since the AfD listing. Notability is now clear and documented. Decoratrix 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot void the comments here just because there have been new additions. If you feel like canvassing on the users talk page to inform them there have been changes, you can. I still say delete based on the changes. - Rjd0060 16:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Not notable. Nothing makes him standout from the average professor. --DHeyward 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) struck bolding - the nomination is your opinion unless/until the nomination is retracted. GRBerry 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Web of Science gives a grand total of 759 papers that cite Dessler. His h-index is 20. In itself, these figures are only borderline, although I admit that I don't really have comparative data for scientists in his field. It is not clear what "ecitor for the American Geophysical Union" means. If he edited a notable journal, that might tip the balance. Associate Editor or Keynote speaker don't really pull it off, there are 13 in a dozen of those. --Crusio 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It shouldnt really be analyzed by total number of citations, or h-index, both of which under-emphasize possible very important individual papers., Looking in more detail in WoS, His most cited 5 papers have been cited 65, 62, 60, 60, 60 times respectively. High, but not quite decisive. Looking at the journals he publishes in, almost all his work is in Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysics Research Letters, the two highest ranking journals in geophysics. I'd consider that a tie-breaker. I would also think Texas A & M did also when they appointed him to full professor. The Dept of Atmospheric Sciences there knows the standards in its own subject better than we, who can only guess at it. DGG (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  I've never used WoS as I don't seem to have access so this is just a question based on how this was presented here. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the data being presnted. I take it the number 65, 61, etc are the number of times his work has been cited by others in their own papers. And his papers were in the premier journal in his field? It's prestigious to be accepted to be sure, but wouldn't publication of significant work in that journal invite citation? Meaning that a middling reference number after being seen by practically every researcher in the field would seem to tip the other way in terms of acceptance. For example, being referenced 60 times after publishing in the "Journal of a Small Town in Iowa" would be quite a bit more impressive than being referenced 60 times after bing in "Nature" especially if those 60 other articles are in established journals. I'd be more inclined to say he is well known within his field based on his publications in JGR but I am not sure how to use the citation numbers as a tie-breaker for general notability? What's good or bad?

  Keep Good point, DGG, and good question, anonymous. I think good or bad is relative here, DGG is right, we have to judge Dessler relative to his field (citation counts vary widely among different fields). I looked up Dessler's most cited paper (cited by 65 other papers), published in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS in 2000. I searched in WoS for all papers published in that year in that particular journal. There are 1040 "hits", Dessler's article ranks 22nd. The journal has an impact factor of about 2.5 (averaging over several years), ranking it 10th out of 131 journals in this particular field. So DGG is right, this is a prestigious journal in this field and Dessler's article was one of the highest-cited ones in 2000. This is the only article that I looked in further detail, but given that this is a field with relatively low citation counts (compared to, e.g., neuroscience), the citation counts given by DGG are fairly impressive (one of the articles with 60 was only published in 2001). This also puts the h-index of 20 into more perspective, because for this field that is apparently quite high, too. --Crusio 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - good research above. Well done. Victuallers 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets notability and reliable sourcing criteria. -- Terraxos (talk) 18:42, 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 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCaleb Burnett

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

Delete Appears to be vanity page, performer does not rise to notability standards Eleemosynary 03:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not even a hint of notability. Decoratrix 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Actors act, that's what they do. This is a guy doing his job, no more than that. --Malcolmxl5 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non notable actor. All those seem to be minor roles. - Rjd0060 05:17, 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—No prejudice against re-creation in a state where an assertion(s) of notability is presented in a verifiable manner. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mick_Meredith

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

Mick Meredith isn't notable at all. He's just some random comedian, this article is also extremely badly written. It has had the notability tag since March, nothings been done. Thmcmahon 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, all the article says is that he's appeared on a few shows which is not really telling us anything at all. Article should be deleted - if he ever does anything worthwhile then he might deserve an article.210.84.38.14 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not yet notable. Decoratrix 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable person. If you take away the trivia and the non-reliable sources, you are left with nothing. - Rjd0060 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The article quality needs to be cleaned up, and reliable sources added, but I lean toward keeping it if it can be fixed up. --UnleashTheWolves 06:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Montchav (talk) 00:20, 24 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 Robin Burger, Carla Kettner and Anna Fricke. Keep Susan Strickler, as, due to additional assertions of notability, no consensus established to delete. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Burger‎

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

possible series of vanity articles LeyteWolfer 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Carla Kettner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Anna Fricke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Susan Strickler‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The reasoning for the AfD is that the article was ghostwritten by User:Wilhelmina Will for an unregistered editor who hasn't established notability and, frankly, refuses to. When asked to improve the article, the original author instead chose to harass the various participants (including Wilhelmina Will) to the point of being IP-banned for 72 hours.

I see no reason to speedily delete, but my doubts arise from concerns that the other ghost-written articles all revolve around other Hollywood writers whom previously have not established notability. The cynic in me is concerned that these might be second-person vanity articles, due to the timing with the current writer's strike in the US. Needless to say, I am not emotionally invested in it, so will not fight for a pro-deletion consensus, if the intent is clear to keep it. Thank you. --LeyteWolfer 03:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete CSD A7, does not assert the significance or importance of the subject. All this tells us is that this is a guy doing his job. --Malcolmxl5 04:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: CSD-A7. ANothing more than a resume here. - Rjd0060 05:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Qworty 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I highly doubt that these articles are second-person vanity articles due to the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike. This user (under various IP addresses) has been around for some time, before this strike, asking editors to create specific writer (as well as producer) articles. Asked me twice. Flyer22 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, as I've said before, what must be done, must be done. I thought at first that it could be improved, but a google search didn't even give me the gender of this writer, let alone much else in the way of useful. But perhaps it doesn't have to be deleted. Maybe TTN, who has expertise in this sort of thing, could just redirect it to one of the pages of a television program "Robin Burger" supposedly worked for. Wilhelmina Will 20:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP SUSAN STRICKLER!!! She has been nominated for how many Emmy's and you people want to delete her from Wikipedia??????? Give me a break this is supposed to be an encyclopedia for celebrities large adn small!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stricklerfan (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Stricklerfan is a single purpose account. But he or she does seem to have a very valid point. —David Eppstein 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Stricklerfan and David Eppstein. These articles just need improvement, not deletion. Flyer22 04:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Susan Strickler - she is certainly notable, by virtue of being Emmy-nominated - and delete the others. Wikipedia is not IMDB, and we don't need an article on every single writer/producer in Hollywood, unless they're particularly notable for some other reason. As an aside to the nominator, the incivility of the creator of these articles should not be justification for their deletion. -- Terraxos (talk) 18:33, 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. Sandstein (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 9 (US)

Big Brother 9 (US) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dbed it, but it was removed. It was then proded, so I decided to put it here. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Still too early for this article. I also removed the PROD, since AfD was started. - Rjd0060 05:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, also quite promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Jak (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is purely WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty 09:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Need I mention WP:CRYSTAL? •97198 talk 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to future creation, as strike version could be a regular or celebrity version, but we don't know for sure yet. Nate 07:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too early for this. Just because there are reports that CBS may air a winter edition doesn't mean that we need an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucard 16 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite and remove the list of casting calls. The fact the series has been officially announced by the network removes it from crystal ball contention, and establishes sufficient notability for it to have an article. Plus there has been media coverage (CNN being one) regarding the new season being fast-tracked because of the strike. However the casting call list has to go. It should also be checked to make sure that previous seasons have been treated in this way. If they haven't, then merge with the main article. 23skidoo 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The winter edition is speculated due to the strike. Sources close to the matter reported to Variety the possibility of Big Brother in the winter. There hasn't been anything official from CBS to confirm Big Brother's return. Also guidelines of WP:BIGBRO state that until there are promos on television the article shouldn't be created beforehand. All pages that are created before promos or just a few months away from an announced edition are deleted until it is very close to the season's launch. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice - at the moemnt it reads liike an advert. Restore when the show actully airs.--Lucy-marie 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Way too early, I havn't been able to find anything to support this except for a fan website. I think the only way this page should stay is that someone should come up with some links to prove that the show has at least been confirmed. Seth71 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Falls into the same class as Survivor 16, which also has an article. The only thing speculative about this is when it will appear, not whether it will appear. --Silverhand^Talk 16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. What's the date of the airing and recording of it, just to be curious? Critical info missing, obviously which it makes an automatic WP:CRYSTAL failure.JForget 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion I was just thinking lets keep the page for now. I have re-written the article to have key information such as info released from CBS about casting and when it airs. And that it won't be a Celebrity edition. I know a bunch of us say delete, but lets keep this page up for a while so we won't have to go through people recreating the page and us wanting it deleted until needed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:23, 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. It is very clear that these are considered over-granular and superfluous to their categories. (Note that cats+lists together are retained at times, but rarely at such a superfine granularity as this). Procedurally, it is a bit unfortunate that there was an expansion of the nomination partway through, but it has clearly not made any difference to those who came afterwards since everyone was very well aware that there was a long list of articles being considered at once whenever they personally arrived at they AfD. As such, the AfD could be viewed as being closed on the 'before' nomination and 'before' deletes and then the 'after' nomination and the 'after' deletes and the outcome would be the same. Otoh, we could just recognise a consensus when we see one... -Splash - tk 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Turkish dramatists and playwrights

List of Turkish dramatists and playwrights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These were all mostly deprodded (seemingly in bad faith, but WP:PROD says that ain't no excuse to revert). They're all perfect examples of WP:LISTCRUFT, and are all redundant to corresponding categories. Closedmouth 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have added many more similar pages to this AfD which I believe can appropriately be considered under the same discussion. I found them on Ozipozi's contributions — people can check it out to see if I missed any. I did not list articles which had any content beyond category-listing; those can be probably be handled best in seperate AfD(s). Going to go nurse the carpal tunnel now. — Swpb^talk.edits 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The rest: