Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 12 November 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Coredesat 07:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of McGill University people

List of McGill University people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article fails to cite sources. Delete' J 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Sourcing can be trivially obtained for this sort of thing, including via the bluelinked articles, and that's what tags are for. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This issue of references - or lack thereof - on lists of university people/alumni has been the subject of discussion the talk pages of List of University of Saskatchewan alumni, List of alumni of the University of British Columbia, WikiProject Education in Canada and Verifiability in "Lists of People" discussion in WP:BIO's Talk page. Thus far, there has been no consensus. Until such time as one is reached, I suggest application of the reference tag. This was done for the List of alumni of the University of British Columbia - I see no reason why List of McGill University people should be treated differently. I must add that this matter is not particular to Canada. There are well over 100 similar lists concerning non-Canadian universities. The vast majority are either partly referenced or completely lacking in references. Victoriagirl 03:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • With proper sourcing, a list such as this one can aspire one day to be a featured list. See, as one example, List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. Failing to cite sources is not a reason to delete, given the potential in this case. Keep. --Paul Erik 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No insurmountable problems here. Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I cannot see why this would be proposed for deletion. Editors have taken considerable effort to put this list together. There is a "unreferenced" tag on it — a much more respectful way to approach the lack of references, IMO. If we were to go around deleting all the articles without references, WP would lose a great deal of worthwhile content. That is unconscionable. Sunray 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. "The article fails to cite sources" is not itself an acceptable deletion rationale. An article that isn't verifiable is different, but an article that isn't verified needs tagging, not deletion. AndyJones 09:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The article cannot sit there forever not having any sources. There has to be a time limit. J 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • {sofixit}? AndyJones 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No there does not have to be a time limit. This encyclopedia is written/edited by volunteers, not robots. Sunray 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DEADLINE. Rray 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • It doesn't, but it needs one. It can't sit around forever without references. J 00:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
            • You should bring that up in the appropriate place, which isn't here, or on my talk page. Maybe you can convince the consensus that you're correct about this. Good luck if that's what you choose to do. Rray 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator didn't provide a valid reason for deletion. Lack of citations is a reason for an unreferenced tag, not an AfD. (Reviewing the valid reasons for deletion might be helpful in the future.) Rray 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Assume good faith, please. I don't appreciate your venomous words. J 00:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "Venomous words"? I don't see anything venomous in my comments. Sorry you feel that way though. Rray 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep These kind of articles provide valuable information, especially the type of people a university graduates. I find it interesting you chose the McGill article to put up for AfD—I hope you don't have anything against McGill, as not many "Lists of people by university" articles have had references. I also hope this is not a case of trolling. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • WOW. So it's okay to add the {{Unreferenced}} tag to the Ryerson University article but not the same tag to the McGill University article? See this revision. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • See WP:WAX and WP:AGF. I started here because of the constant additions of unsourced items. Gotta start somewhere. J 11:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • See WP:NOEFFORT. I'm still waiting for a valid reason to delete this article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:08, 17 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. I'll note that Quatloo's comment about the lack of sources is serious, but we can give the article time to improve first. Mangojuicetalk 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screaming Viking

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

No idea whether or not this is notable. Maybe so-- a drink from Cheers with a multitude of G hits. I de-speedied, cleaned it up, and added a citable recipe. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge with ??? I had speedy'ed the article to start with, then it was cleaned up but is just short. I have no idea where it belongs, but I think it may belong somewhere, I just don't know where. I am not convinced that the "somewhere" is an article of its own, however. Pharmboy 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are about 90 other Mixed drink stubs. Hopefully, we can find some verifiable sources. . . . Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • change to keep and cleanup If there are that many cocktail stubs, then maybe we just need to reorganize them a bit. I looked and found more than enough categories (wow..) for cocktails and such. While recipes for cocktails is a bit outside normal encyclopedias, Wikipedia is Not A Paper Encyclopedia, and I guess that is ok. Hope this isn't a Pandoras box. Sounds like Dlohcierekim just volunteered. ;) Pharmboy 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Actually WP:NOT#GUIDE specifically says "Wikipedia articles should not include … recipes." I don't have a problem with articles that include encyclopedic information about mixed drinks, but the ones that consist primarily of instructions for making them seem to me candidates for prod or AfD. I think I've prodded one or two myself. Deor 02:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply True, but we've a category for mixed drinks. It's just a stub now. Perhpas encyclopedic information could be added. Whether or not it's enough of a "pop culture" icon for an artilce could be something we discuss here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
comment In this case, the reference to pop culture via Cheers would be enough to keep it. Policy in this case isn't perfectly clear (to me, anyway), so I have to default to keep under "wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Pharmboy 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • REdirect to Cheers. 132.205.99.122 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question The original speedier has changed to keep and I just brought it here because I did not know for sure one way or another (and !voted keep). Should we speedy keep or let it run? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I wouldn't speedy keep because there are legit reasons to object and this isn't a case of a mistaken AFD as much as I just changed my mind after award winning persuation ;) I hate to speedy keep unless there is 100% agreement, excepting the AFD nominator. We aren't quite there. Pharmboy 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Let it ride. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks non-trivial source. Quatloo (talk) 13:24, 18 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. — Coren (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ETSS

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ETSS and its parent. Was speedied twice previously. This is another Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#GHG_Corporation_spam_abuse GHG
Hu12 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability is substandard, and the allegation of COI seems reasonable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks and is likely to forever lack independent sourcing. Quatloo (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 19:42, 18 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. Coredesat 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GHG Corporation

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to GHG Corporation. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#GHG_Corporation_spam_abuse
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep as lacking any independent sources, but possibly notable as a minority-owned NASA contractor. Tag and rescue? Bearian 01:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely unverifiable spam - Google News only brings up what appears to be reprinted press releases, duplicates and directory listings (all subscription only). MER-C 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per nom, move to /dev/null. Andante1980 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as with ETSS above: the same arguments about notability and COI apply to both articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:00, 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. --Coredesat 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ExactSpent

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ExactSpent. Hu12 23:25, 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 Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Carroll

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

Used to be the oldest person living in Iowa is the only claim to notability. In addition to this being insanely specific, notability is not temporary. SmashvilleBONK! 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Very Weak Keep notability not being temporary means that if she was once notable, she remains notable. and therefore would lead to a keep, but whether oldest in a state rather than a nation is sufficient is admittedly borderline. DGG (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm also going on the opinion that oldest in a state is not sufficient. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per her media coverage. Epbr123 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What media coverage? I see two obituaries, a geocities page and a church newsletter. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • One of the news stories covering her death states, "She has been a frequent subject of media coverage". Epbr123 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Can you find any of them? I can't... --SmashvilleBONK! 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Guiness Book of Records entry establishes notablitly.Hammer1980·talk 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that the same person created both the article and the entry in Guinness sort of affects the independence I would have thought. ---- WebHamster 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wghere does it show that ? Hammer1980·talk 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does it show what? The article's creator or the "senior gerontology consultant" for the GBoWR? ---- WebHamster 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is this "Guinness Book of World Records" entry? "Oldest person to ride in a hot air-balloon?" That is seriously the most obscure record I may have ever heard... --SmashvilleBONK! 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: If she had been the oldest in the country then that would be a different matter, but oldest in a state? When we run out of states will it be the oldest in town next? Is this Wikipedia or RYoung's personal version of the Guinness Book of World Records? ---- WebHamster 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How is she notable and where are these sources? All that exist that I can tell is her obituary. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A longer article is justified but thats not Emma's fault.Victuallers 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. Rray 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep + comments Can I just point out that a couple hours ago, the Marie-Rose Mueller AfD was just finished as 'keep,' and she was highly noted for only being the 2nd oldest person in the U.S. state of Connecticut, at 111. Now we see Emma Carroll is 112 and oldest in state. Plus 2 other nobilities, she sets the world record for the person to ride in a hot air balloon, and their combined age of her and her spouse of 212 years. Neal 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Withdraw Nom. Apparently it looks like the consensus is that merely being really old is enough to meet WP:BIO. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Statistician (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Oldest in a state, several other records associated with her longevity, cited references. Other bios have been accepted Marie-Rose Mueller for example that have not been as well cited or as with as many records associated. Jbarco (talk) 04:05, 17 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. Fram (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic Square, Zejtun

Republic Square, Zejtun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There is already an article on the (minor) town, which covers this content. thisisace 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge - either way works. I don't know how large the town is, or if the square is special for a particular reason. A quick glance at the parent article reveals that it does not cover the subsidiary article in the same level of detail. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 23:10, 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 Redirect to Theory of forms. Balloonman (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC) \

[edit] Eidos

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

The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Miremare 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and merge and redirect to Essence (or a different philosophy-themed article that's more appropriate.) ~Eliz81(C) 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Theory of forms, where the word and Plato's use of it are discussed, and merge a one-sentence version of this article's explanation to Eidos (disambiguation) to replace the first entry. Deor 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Be Bold? I'm always a bit surprised when stuff like this arrives at AfD. It's clear we are going to find an editorial solution to this issue, rather than deleting the page, so can I suggest someone boldly does what they think is the right thing with this article? (Both !voters above me have ideas.) Then we can speedy close this discussion. AndyJones 09:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to what? I don't know the first thing about the subject or maybe I would have done. ;) But experience tells me that boldly redirecting usually results in someone reverting and an AfD being necessary anyway... There was also discussion on the talk page and other language versions of the article, so I thought AfD was best. Of course deletion isn't necessary, and if redirect is the result, then that's great. Cheers, Miremare 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I wasn't criticsing you for making the nomination, merely pointing out the alternatives. AndyJones 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Theory of forms per Deor, as this is the origin and basis of all other uses of the term. Per AndyJones, I would certainly have supported an editor simply changing it to a redirect, but now I suppose the AfD should be allowed to close properly. Wareh 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into DAB. 132.205.99.122 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to theory of forms, as suggested by Deor. This article was never much more than a dictionary definition, and is merely a pedantic way to refer to Plato's forms. Pastordavid 20:58, 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. Coredesat 07:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plants in Harry Potter

This article is completely hollow; it is a repetition of plot information from the books in an in-universe way, coupled with explanations from other articles about what the plants are, so its entirely duplicative of those articles, contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Written in universe and is completely useless listcruft ffm 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Astroview120mm 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No This article must stay.. show me one page where all the plants in the Harry Potter series are listed.. Yes this page does take information from others but it is a unique page and must NOT be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sai2020 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
But it needs notability and critical commentary, and I don't believe there is any hope of getting that. If you want to know what a specific plant is, go to that article. Judgesurreal777 21:27, 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. WP:NOT#GUIDE wins in the absence of third party sources to establish independent out-of-game notability. The author(s) are directed to www.wowwiki.com as an alternative outlet. — Coren (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarlet Crusade

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

No third-party sources, unnotable to non-Warcraft players, and is gamecruft with plot summaries.

There is only one source on this article, which is to a Warcraft-related book. That with no independent third-party sources, it is most likely not notable to non-players and the real world.

It also contains gamecruft, which is a likely attractor of original research, adding more of unsourced material to the article.

There are plot summaries in this article, something Wikipedia is not and should not have. IAmSasori 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This argument is WP:HARMLESS, and therefore irrelevant. User:Krator (t c) 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant? I think not. It seems like a very good argument, much better than yours.--Neverpitch 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This page contains information that is excessively detailed, and out of proportion with the notability of the topic of World of Warcraft. User:Krator (t c) 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge to Warcraft universe. The Scarlet Crusade is a major feature of the game, being the antagonist in a number of plot threads. The source given certainly indicates notability within the scope of the game, but there's not enough external notability to justify more than a redirect to a larger article that mentions the S.C. in passing. -Harmil 15:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be just a "Merge" then, not a "Keep and merge". Powers T 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article asserts no notability, doesn't have any references from reliable sources, provides no critical commentary, and has no hope of any showing up. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Neverpitch and Harmil are correct on all points above. Rray 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to let this article get deleted. It's notable, as Harmil has asserted. IronCrow 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Neverpitch has used several essays to justify keeping it, while those in favor of deletion have used actual wikipedia policies. I would suggest searching for some actual policy to argue in the articles favor, and if you cant, perhaps you will agree its not notable afterall. Judgesurreal777 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Lack of reliable secondary sources means that this fictional organisation is not notable outside of the Warcraft canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 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 wasNomination Withdrawn. Beyond my belief, reliable secondary sources have been found. Non-admin close. SmashvilleBONK! 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noah Raby

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

Let me preface by saying that I recognize there is some heated debate going on from a Yahoo Group related to this subject matter. And I have participated in one said AfD. That is actually what allowed me to find several articles such as this.

This person's only claim to notability is that over 100 years ago, he most likely claimed that he was older than he was. That doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BIO. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep He was quite celebrated in his day, and I have added three contemporary news stories about him to show this. I think two write ups in the New York Times makes him notable, even if he was quite obviously lying. Katr67 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The media coverage he has received makes him notable. Epbr123 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, numerous Google Books results, including (mainly skeptical) medical journals. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Being dead at 81 whilst lying that he was older is not the stuff of encyclopaedias. My Gran died at age 92 (verifiable) can she have an article too? Old folks making out they are older than they are is neither unusual nor notable. ---- WebHamster 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If they were the subject of multiple newspaper/journal articles, then they are notable according to Wikipedia standards. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well researched. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient number of sources to establish notability -from both before and after his death. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Infamy is notable. Well-sourced as if a BLP. Bearian 16:39, 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 the potions blew up the place (delete). Kwsn (Ni!) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Apothecary Society

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

Unsourced, unnotable gamecruft containing plot summaries.

There are no sources in this article, which may suggest there is no real world notability of this article relevant to non-Warcraft players.

It contains gamecruft that may spawn original research, adding more of the issue of unsourced material.

This article contains plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not needed here.IAmSasori 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Redirect to Worshipful Society of Apothecaries. User:Krator (t c) 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
  • Delete - Completely un notable, has no references, and no hope of being anything but a poorly composed stub. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:11, 19 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, because no policy-based reasons to keep have been advanced. This article has been around since 2004 apparently without ever having any sources, from which we can infer that it will not likely acquire any soon. WP:V alone mandates deletion, let alone the WP:NOT and WP:NOR / WP:N arguments set forth below. Sandstein (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horde (Warcraft)

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

An entire year has gone by without an attempt at adding sources. Along with this, it has plot summaries and unnotable fancruft.

With the lack of sources, this article is most likely unnotable to non-Warcraft players and the real world.

The article contains WP:CRUFT which may develop original research, continuing the trend of increasing cruft with no sources.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, something Wikipedia is not. These issues are most likely not to be resolved without an Articles for deletion and is justified a discussion. IAmSasori 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep but trim substantially. I know that there's a tendency to react strongly to video games because they're video games, but when a game has 9 million active subscribers and continues to be the world's most subscribed video game after 3 years, we kind of have to accept that it's more of a cultural phenomenon than your run of the mill video game. That said, this article should be trimmed and sourced. I'm sort of surprised that wasn't done, since sourcing information about the horde isn't exactly hard with 600,000 google hits, I'm sure we can find a few reviews in decent publications to reference and there's even a book of essays from various authors that's likely to stand up as a secondary source on some topics that would touch on this. A couple of references to prime the pump:
From there I think it should be fairly easy... -Harmil 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - obviously notable, lack of attempts to find sources does not indicate lack of sources. Furthermore, a good candidate for merging other articles into. User:Krator (t c) 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
  • Keep per Neverpitch and Harmil. Rray 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". Edward321 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as these stock characters have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game.
  • Delete No sources, unlikely to find sources. Warcruft. Quatloo (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 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. Coredesat 07:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matfact

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

Appears to be a single source and therefore fails notability guidelines; possibly original research. Previous PROD removed. MightyWarrior 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete At best, original research. At worst, well, I think the author is just yanking the wiki chain. I would have speedied for nonsense if I found it first. Pharmboy 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NFT, WP:NEO. Listing of a "source" likely precludes A7. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G2/A7/G3/something! this is a small bit of nonsense made up one day. ~Eliz81(C) 00:50, 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. Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forsaken (Warcraft)

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

Unsourced, unnotable gamecruft containing plot summaries.

There are no sources in this article, which may suggest there is no real world notability of this article relevant to non-Warcraft players. It even has a chart depicting the various classes avaliable to the various races, something irrelevant outside of Warcraft.

It contains gamecruft that may spawn original research, adding more of the issue of unsourced material.

This article contains plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not needed here. IAmSasori 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARMLESS again. User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, which is a good argument.--Neverpitch 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No, it's not; hence the existence of the link. JuJube 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That link is bullshit. Just the opinion of someone, not even a guideline or policy.--Neverpitch 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:WAF and WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game.
Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no valid arguments for retaining this page have been advanced. AnteaterZot 10:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wholly an in-universe plot description without any reliable sources. Notable within World of Warcraft itself, please to redirect if you will. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Please review the article I've made some changes and cited it a bit. The article is poorly written, and I've had to re-write the intro to assert the notability of this race, but this pertains to one of the primary races in what is currently the world's most popular MMO, hosting over 9 million active players. That's really about as notable as something involving a video game can get, and based on previous Featured Articles of the Day, such notability is more than acceptable on Wikipedia. -Harmil 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but it has to be further noted that all of this could be written in the space this topic has within Playable races in the Warcraft series#Undead_(Forsaken). The primary races (or, in a layman's terms, the primary plot elements) of a game of such a scope are indeed notable, however, this line of reasoning does not extend to showing why each should have a separate article. User:Krator (t c) 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. Why is this race notable in the real world? Have secondary sources discussed it? The article has almost no out-of-universe information. There should at a bare minimum be a section about the design development of the race. Take a look at Master Chief (Halo), particularly the "Character design" and "Impact and reception" sections. If there is no available information of this sort, there is nothing to warrant a separate article. Pagrashtak 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Harmil. Rray 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The massive amount of problems this article has, chief among them a complete lack of notability, make this a sure delete. Judgesurreal777 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Lack of notability is not this article's problem (though it has many). Being one of the two playable factions in the world's most popular video game played by 9 million people worldwide is as notable as anything in a video game ever gets. Sorry... it's early for me. Yeah, I'm commenting on the wrong AfD. -Harmil 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "redirect" is not an option with respect to external Wikis. You meant "transwiki". -Harmil 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Edward321 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this fancruft does not have reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 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) 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escape Velocity Override

Escape Velocity Override (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I like the game, personally, and the other versions of it... But I'm not sure its notable enough on its own to warrant an article here. I don't know the precedent on including a page on every shareware game in the ether, so other commenters can clue me in if I am incorrect. Additionally: No sources, written like an advert aside from the inclusion of some mild criticism. AvruchTalk 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no assertation of notibility ffm 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. The Escape Velocity series is probably notable enough for inclusion, but a page for every game in the series is overkill. -- Kaszeta 13:27, 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, discounting the opinion of now-blocked user Neverpitch. Note that cross-site redirects are not possible. Sandstein (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Legion

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

Unsourced, unnotable gamecruft containing plot summaries.

There are no sources in this article, which may suggest there is no real world notability of this article relevant to non-Warcraft players.

It contains gamecruft that may spawn original research, adding more of the issue of unsourced material.

This article contains plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not needed here. IAmSasori 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Delete - Article needs references and notability, and has neither, so we don't need an article about it. Judgesurreal777 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Edward321 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this list of game characters have reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Plot summary with out proper primary or secondary sources are good for fansites but not an encylopedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:28, 18 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. Coredesat 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forest Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall. Of a fairly moderate size, nothing special about it, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ffm 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Firefoxman. Hmmm. Sounds like a nice place to spend time and money, but it is not notable. Bearian 16:52, 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. If anyone wants the page userfied for a transwiki, drop a line on my talk. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argent Dawn

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

No third-party sources, unnotable to non-Warcraft players, and is gamecruft.

The only source on the article is to a player's guide. That with no independent third-party sources, it is most likely not notable to non-players and the real world.

It also contains gamecruft, which is a likely attractor of original research, adding more of unsourced material to the article. IAmSasori 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect As noted above, there's not much to merge that's well sourced (which is unfortunate), but this is a major contingent within the game, and the primary protagonist non-player group for "tier 3" (for those not initiated tier 3 represents about 6 months of the game's real-time history, from the time that the Naxxaramus dungeon was opened until the first stand-alone expansion (The Burning Crusade) was released. That period was dominated by the in-game storyline surrounding the Lich King, Scarlet Crusade and the Argent Dawn. There's not a lot of information available yet, but almost certainly there will be a strong Argent Dawn plot thread involved in the soon-to-be-released second expansion, Wrath of the Lich King. As such, a redirect will aid searching that is certain to be performed from both external search engines and Wikipedia's search in the future. -Harmil 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Harmil and Neverpitch. Rray 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect - As long as this non notable article no longer has its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as primary sources demonstrate this comes from a game guide. This fictional organisation has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game guide. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 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, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerontology Research Group

Gerontology Research Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure whether this article should be deleted or just radically trimmed, but I think that it has so many problems that deletion should be considered.

First, the article was created by a member of the group, User:Ryoung122 (aka the recently deleted Robert Young (longevity claims researcher), see the AfD). Given the amount of COI editing involved, I have been doing some checking on related articles. As it stands, the article uses some peacock terms, such as the claim that it includes "top names". That's easily remedied, but I checked up the claims that GRG has offices in New York, Atlanta and Washington D.C. I looked for sources for this, and the only thing I could find which came close was http://www.grg.org/contact/ ... which doesn't mention any offices at all. I added a few {{fact}} tags, but further checking suggests that even the opening sentence is untrue (or at best highly misleading): it currently reads "The Gerontology Research Group is a gerontology group headquartered at UCLA in Los Angeles, California", but it seems that "headquartered" is another peacock term.

This article from UCLA's "Daily Bruin" says:

  • "Members of the Gerontology Research Group, which meets at the UCLA Medical Center, work to share and gather information" ... and
  • "The group meets once a month to disseminate information and to discuss recent news in regards to aging.//At each meeting there is also a guest speaker who presents information on a topic that relates to aging – no matter how remotely."
  • "Though the group does not conduct group studies, many of the members are currently conducting their own research."

In other words, the Gerontology Research Group is in fact a monthly meeting of academics interested in a particular area, who maintain a website; it does not have "headquarters", and it does not have "offices". Per http://www.grg.org/contact/ it's contact details are basically c/o Stephen Coles. Academia is full of informal groups like this, which are an important part of academic life, as vehicles for collaboration. But they are are rarely notable, and their impact should not be exaggerate by making them out as something they are not.

In this case, we have a claim that "While most of the significant media coverage has focused on this aspect, other areas of gerontology research have continued, such as research into amyloidosis." That's a neat form of words which narrowly avoids claiming that GRG conducts research, whilst giving the impression that it does.

If we stripped away the hype and the unreferenced assertions in the article, all that would remain there is a list of names, much the same as would be available for thousands of other informal academic collaborations which do not have wikipedia articles.

However, the reason I suggest that this might not a clear delete is that the group gets a steady series of brief mentions in news articles related to supercentenarians, with 478 hits on Google News.

What do we do with this sort of thing? WP:ORG seems like a more appropriate guideline than WP:PROF, but whichever we apply, it seems that there is very little significant coverage of the group, but a lot of trivial mentions. Is that sufficient to keep a radically-trimmed stub article, with all the COI-driven hype removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep This group publishes lists of long-lived people in REJUVENATION RESEARCH, which has the highest impact factor in the ISI category "gerontology" suggesting that it is the leading journal in this field. The article is rather terrible, but the group seems to be notable. --Crusio 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)**Question. Are those lists published in REJUVENATION RESEARCH by the group, or by individuals who are members of the group? The references I have seen attribute the articles to Stephen Coles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply They are attributed to the "Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group". --Crusio 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply What lists are you talking about? The tables from Tables.htm? None of them were made by Stephen Coles. They were made by Robert Young and Louis Epstein, respectively, with exceptions. Neal 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Reply I was referring to the lists published in the "Baron von Münchhausen journal" Rejuvenation Research. --Crusio 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Like you, I was replying to BrownHairedGirl. Anyways, I don't know a thing/never heard of, the Baron Münchhausen/Rejuvenation Research. Neal 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
  • keep per Crusio. While the article doesn't cite reliable secondary sources, I believe they ought to be pretty easy to find. I understand worries about COI edits, peacockery etc, but I think those amount only to content dispute, and the topic of the article remains notable. Stubbify if need be, but I don't see this as being a slam-dunk delete by any means (unlike some of the other related articles to come this way recently). Pete.Hurd 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) *cringe*! I thought 8 was a high impact factor for a journal not in my library, I ought to have been more sceptical. Full props to Crusio & DGG. Changing to delete below Pete.Hurd 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- if the nom is in doubt whether it should be edited or deleted, the first thing to try is editing. DGG (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. Done. In this edit, I have remove all the unreferenced hype and reduced the article to what can be sourced. There's not much left. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have now found that this article is one in a determined effort of self-promotion, going even way beyond Wikipedia. For more information on why I changed my mind, see the remarks that I posted at the Stephen Coles AfD. --Crusio 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: An "informal" group with references that don't stand up to WP:RS. If they were indeed notable it seems strange that they have to rely on a student newspaper to demonstrate it. As BHG put it, it's all about self promotion, it sounds like a case of "look at how notable we are, we're even in Wikipedia" to me. ---- WebHamster 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt - Self promotional group of little or no significance who have used wikipedia for their own ends and who are now running a campaign to trash many good articles by way of revenge against this encyclopaedia. - Galloglass 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to be a coathanger to link to other non-notable articles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete, changed from keep, see above. Pete.Hurd 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I strongly agree with the nominator's statement, "Academia is full of informal groups like this, which are an important part of academic life, as vehicles for collaboration. But they are are rarely notable, and their impact should not be exaggerate by making them out as something they are not." In addition, there seem to be no real nontrivial third-party sources that would stand up to WP:RS. —David Eppstein 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Moderately notable and verifiable. Remember I am looking at the trimmed version. I am also formatting the references. They seem to be the source people go to to confirm ages of people, so they should have an entry. If deleted, and Wikipedia doesn't have an entry, then all that will be left is the puffery that is elsewhere, and no countervailing editorial control. Keep it just so you can keep them honest. They have 478 references in Google News [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm not comfortable with the idea of an article just to "keep them honest", which I'm sure was well-intended but sounds potentially a little pointy. What we seem to have here is an informal group of academics and others, which has gained attention overwhelmingly for the least academic aspect of its work (viz. the verification through public records of claims of extreme longevity by a former census official), but very little attention for anything else. That work has attracted 478 trivial mentions in the news media, but very little in-depth coverage, and I have to wonder to what extent the modest clippings file has been bloated by the extent to which wikipedia has been used by Ryoung122 to create a walled garden of articles linking to the GRG; it's very hard to disentangle cause and effect here.
      If we had some substantial and reliable coverage examining the GRG's work, there might be something to go on, but as David Eppstein notes, that isn't available. Without it, I think that the best editorial control we can exercise is to say that in the midst of all the hype, there isn't enough reliable material to make an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to Closer Take note of all the changes made to the article after the voting to delete. Remember this isn't a vote, it should be based on Wikipedia rules for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. There are a lot more references now, but none of them seems to involve any external assessment of the GRG: all commentary on the GRG seems to be sourced to statements by GRG members about their own group. Given the evidence of all GRG's self-hype, it seems unwise to assume that the GRG is a reliable source on itself. For example, the news reports repeat GRG's claims to be involved in research into the processes of ageing, but Crusio's search for the publications list threw up only lists, not substantive research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Your confusing Truth with Verifiability, if there is a source contradicitng a fact, add it. So long as all the facts pass the editorial policy of the media used, it should be good enough for here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - Everything about this group is smoke and mirrors as has been shown by the diligent research of several people, especially Crusio and Pete.Hurd. I think the decider for me was the boosting of their own academic papers by themselves which Crusio uncovered. So my opinion is still Delete and Salt. - Galloglass 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Aside from "visiting scholar" vs "professor", what else do you have? I know from writing biographies that people have been misidentified by the title or rank in the New York Times and by the Washington Post. On one I am working on now the Washington Post called him a "captain" no other evidence backed it up. Sometimes people use the term generically. If newspapers didn't make mistakes, they wouldn't need an erratum column every day. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not THE Gerontology Research Group ... its a group. There will be more than one of these. If the name was accurate then it would be clear that this did not warrant this article. Victuallers 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton - the Google News hits are just too high for us not to have an article on them. If it means stripping away some of the content, then fine - but there are plenty of sources here, and we should remember that there is no direct correlation of any kind between the existence of a WP:COI and non-notability - just because someone in the group wrote the article doesn't mean it's not notable. Still I take the point that some of the mentions of this 'informal academic group' are trivial coverage, but with several hundred Google News hits alone we should really, easily be able to have an article on them.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes the Google hits, even I was rather impressed by how they had boosted those. Still just smoke and mirrors. - Galloglass 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How do they boost Google News hits? We are counting the number of hits not the pageranking in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you will have noted this edit by Crusio which demonstrates how their self promotion works. - Galloglass 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What does that have to do with any references used here? The argument is over academic padding of journal citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I would have thought it was very clear, every detail of this particular web group that has been examined has proved wanting to a great degree. May I ask which criteria do you believe this web group actually meets to deserve an encyclopaedia entry? - Galloglass 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:RS is about the media outlets, not the information provided. The media outlets listed are all editorially controlled and reliable. Every fact has a reference to it. "Extensive coverage" means all the facts come from reliable sources so that the info can be directly sourced to a media outlet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think "Extensive coverage" means that the subject of the article ought to be covered (as in the "subject of") extensively. That's certainly not the case with most of the information in this article, where the better the source (e.g. the Modesto Bee, and BBC articles) the more parenthetical the mention. The articles with the GRG as primary subject, are in the poorer quality (e.g. the UCLA campus paper article). I see enough reliable sourcing to confirm the existence of the group, but that does not immediately establish the extensive coverege required to assert notability. Pete.Hurd 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Extensive means all the facts are sourced. No rule says all the facts have to come from one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Query re: "The 14-year-old GRG, which the "Guinness World Records Book" now relies on to confirm longevity records", the claim was made on the Robert Young AfD that 1) Young was listed in the same way as any other person who mailed in a submission to the GBR and 2) that the GBR no longer reported the "oldest living person". I don't have a copy of the GBR, could someone verify that 1) the Guiness Book still reports this category, 2) that the GRG is cited as their official fact checker on this, and 3) that they have some status higher than the average person who licks an envelope and mails it to GBR. Given the misrepresentations and exaggeration seen in the GRG related AfDs I'd feel much better if these claims were verified by an independent source, one not taking the GRG at their word. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again this is truth vs. verifiability. A resume is verifiable but doesn't always have to be true. Wikipedia only concerns itself with verifiability. If you find a contradicting source, add that one too. I don't know of any publication company that credits the fact checkers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Every single claim made in the article, including the one that Guinness uses the group to verify age claims, is accompanied by a reliable and verifiable source to establish and support the claim. Given the exaggerations and misrepresentations made by those seeking to delete this article, the demands for a verification procedure that exceeds that provided by Wikipedia policy is entirely unjustifiable. Look at the article; look at the claims made; look at the sources. I think any objective reader would agree that notability has been established. Alansohn 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • In other words "no". When I write articles for Wikipedia, I do so by consulting sources. I look at text books, and I read scientific papers and secondary texts like books. Why is this an unreasonable thing to ask when it comes to this topic? Pete.Hurd 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The website of the Guiness Book of World Records allows one to search the 2008 edition. If I search for "supercentenarian", nothing comes up. Searching for "old" or "oldest" renders such categories as "oldest male stripper" and "Oldest Married Couple - Aggregate Age", but no "oldest person in...." hits. Perhaps somebody could check the print edition? --Crusio 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • To answer some of Pete Hurd's questions, back in the 1990s, the GRG followed Guinness as who was the oldest person in the world. However, today, the Guinness relies on the GRG for, persay, the top 10th oldest person in the world. The GBR stills lists the oldest man/woman, however, it did not do it in the 2006 edition because of someone's retirement. That's where they hired Robert. To say the GBR uses the GRG as their official fact checker, well now Robert Young works for both companies, so they're not really competing. In other words, Guinness book doesn't keep track off the 10th oldest person in world, the GRG does, so that's where Guinness uses GRG as official trackers. And apparently, Robert Young is the person in charge for both companies. So they may come from 2 different sources, but both sources come from the same person. Neal 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
          • Thanks Neal, that's very clear and helpful. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, the only verifiable "misrepresentations and exaggeration" in the Robert Young and related AfD discussions have been the wacky claims coming out of the delete sector. The Guinness Book of World records doesn't really rely on the GRG... The Wall Street Journal just got that wrong? Stephen Coles isn't really a professor... The Los Angeles Times just made that up? Robert Young doesn't really work for Guinness... USA Today just thought it would be fun to say so? Sorry folks, I trust the fact checkers at the major newspapers of the world a heck of alot more than this completely unsubstantiated witch hunt... and so far as Wikipedia policy is concerned there is no contest; information in multiple reliable sources trumps this original research stuff (if you can call, 'I do not see a web page at UCLA listing him as a professor - so he must not be one', "research") you are doing hands down. --CBD 07:27, 15 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. That's a very far cry from being a professor. If the UCLA directory is correct, then stating that he is a professor is a falsehood, and knowingly stating a falsehood is a lie. Robert Young doesn't really work for Guinness, right. Is he an employee? Does he doesn't get paid? Or does he just mail them stuff? Those are the open questions. Pete.Hurd 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking into this. There is a "Steven Cole" (different spelling of Stephen and singular surname) who is an associate professor at UCLA (see here). This may have caused some confusion. Newspaper fact checkers shouldn't be tripped up by this sort of thing, but it is not impossible. On the other hand, Robert Young did put the professor claim in the article from the start. One possibility is that he is a professor of something else or somewhere else, but the best I've been able to find is "Dr. L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Researcher, Stem-Cell Technology and Longevity Medicine, Department of Surgery, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California"[20] (2005, presumably now at the computer science department for some reason). As for Robert Young, "senior consultant" can be lots of things. Consultants are generally independent and not employed, and the GRB would have lots of them. This is why we (or Robert Young) should reflect the sources and say what they say, not turn "senior consultant" into "works for". Carcharoth 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I discussed the evidence for Stephen Coles's status at UCLA in a 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC) edit to that AfD, including a source, hosted at UCLA, listing him as an Assistant Researcher in the Dept. of Surgery. I think Coles' status at UCLA is pretty clear, he's not a Professor (a member of the Faculty, an employee of the University with duties and responsibilities), he's a visiting scholar (non-faculty member, most likely not on the UCLA payroll, but with a status that allows him to be on campus, etc). Note: I had a similar status at a top-tier US University. At that University visiting scholars weren't given permission to borrow books from the library, special permission had to be sought from the library administration for visiting scholars be be able to use the library. It's a BIG difference between the two types of status. Pete.Hurd 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the trimmed article. No need to over-react to the original padding and peacock terms by insisting on deletion. The article in its current form has been much improved since it was nominated at AfD. See the changes made to the article. I suggest a relisting or withdrawal of the nomination. Carcharoth 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I came here to !vote delete but see it has been hugely improved by trimming unencyclopaedic and self-promotional rants. Well done to those concerned. —Moondyne 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You seem to be saying that poor articles should be deleted unless they are improved at the gunpoint of an AfD. Seriously, that is not what AfD is for. If you think an article can be improved, do so instead of asking for deletion. I've said it before, but AfD should be about whether an article can be improved, not about its current state. Sometimes it takes 'editing by those willing to try and improve an article' to open people's eyes to the possibilities of the "edit this page" option. Carcharoth 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      Please re-read the nomination. I nominated without a recommendation either way, leaving open the question of whether it could be improved sufficiently, but concerned that after couldn't. Thanks to Richard Arthur Norton, it has been improved, but it remains unclear whether the GRG-derived claims in the secondary sources can be supported by primary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not what I meant but can see that you could read it that way from the way its written. The earlier version of the article was in bad shape and I felt that it was unsalvageable. I was wrong in that by removing the extraneous stuff it became a tidy, neutral and well-written stub. That's why I said well done to the editors. I'm all for improving articles and if you look at my contributions you'll note thats what I do. —Moondyne 05:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • OK. Sorry about that. Carcharoth 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • No need to apologise - you asked a fair and resonable question. I'll just try to be less candid in future. Cheers. —Moondyne 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This has been a very
    • ?? I think someone left a sentence unfinished! :-) Carcharoth 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That was me; dunno what happened there. What I was going to say was that this has been a very interesting AfD, because so much new has surfaced once the subject was placed under the spotlight. However, we now have a problem to which the guidelines don't seem to provide clear answers: that the GRG has been engaged in quite a lot of hyping of its work, both on wikipedia and to the media. Several points of fact contained in news reports (such Coles being a professor) are not supported by the primary sources. In this comment, CBD asks whether The LA Times "just made that up?". I would be astonished if they did make it up, but that doesn't alter the fact that the university records don't support the claim. Which do we prefer here on the point of fact, the primary source or the secondary source of the news report? WP:NOR seems to me to allow us to note discrepancies between primary sources and secondary ones.
        As to how the LA Times came to get it wrong, we can only speculate; but one possible explanation is that the LAT accepted in good faith what it was told, and didn't check any further (it would not be the first tine that a newspaper has done that). We are not faced here with some of stark choice between accepting the word of major news sources as gospel truth, or on the other hand dismissing them as garbage; the real question is the more subtle one of to what extent we accept their reliability on this subject. There is so much evidence of self-promotion around the GRG that to accept sources as reliable in this subject we should look for some evidence that the facts reported have been verified and do stack up, and are not simply drawn from the GRG's own claims about itself. If we don't have that evidence, the news reports should be handled in a more neutral way, as a claim subject to verification. So instead of saying "the GRG is X", wikipedia should be reporting that "the GRG says that it is X" or "it is reported that the GRG is X".
        The reason I think that the guidelines don't help much is that I don't recall a previous case where there has been such a barrage of hype, and where usually reliable sources have been shown to be lacking. To denounce this as a hoax we would need a secondary source making that claim, which we don't have; but on the other hand there are solid reasons to question the reliability on this subject of the sources we do have. Can anyone suggest any policies or guidelines which address this dilemma? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Most interesting. My suggestion would be that BHG writes the guideline or policy and that it is then chewed over by others (and BHG). - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's probably been discussed somewhere in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Carcharoth 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There is one, it's called Wikipedia:Original research. :-) If you feel a statement is contentious or questionable, you can rephrase "<normally reliable source A> says that ..." or "<other normally reliable source B> writes that ...". You can not just delete the article because your own research implies that normally reliable sources are wrong. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've come across similar issues in other articles, where a WP:RS newspaper article parrots a statement of fact which is either demonstrably (or extremely likely to be) false given other reliable sources of information. Journalists sometimes get it wrong, or they present a simplified version of the truth... A draft guideline would wind up having a far greater application than it might seem at first glance at this GRG related material. If a sensible rule can be crafted, that would be very useful, but I think it's going to be very hard (but maybe therefore a very interesting experiencec at least). Pete.Hurd 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per CBD. Remember, our mandate isn't to write Wikipedia:the truth, as much as to write what the world thinks about a subject. Major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, and so forth are pretty good for that, that's why we call them Wikipedia:Reliable sources - that doesn't as much mean they're right, as much as that the world relies on them. If it happens the GRG is a hollow sham with a successful publicity machine (Milli Vanilli), that's notable too. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

keep Statistician 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

keep I have been a member of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) for more than 10 years, a fact that will undoubtedly label me as “biased.” Nevertheless, I will attempt to describe the GRG in a factual manner without hype or exaggeration.

The activities of the GRG can be categorized as follows:

1. Validation of supercentenarians, maintaining lists about them on the GRG website, and making this information available to the media.

2. Maintaining the GRG website.

3. Holding monthly meetings at UCLA on aging that include a guest speaker.

4. Operating a free E-mail newsgroup.

5. Related activities by the Executive Director, L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D.

Validation of Supercentenarians

The validation process requires that at least three documents must exist that support the age of a supercentenarian. These documents may include an original birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, school records, travel records, military records, a marriage certificate, or perhaps others. At least one should have been issued near the time of birth of the individual, and others should provide evidence that the claimant is the same person as is named in early documents. This process may be fairly simple when family members provide appropriate documents, and census records confirm the supplied documents. It may also be very difficult when various records are in conflict or there are typographical errors or misspellings in the documents. The investigators also look at family records of the names of parents, siblings, and children to resolve such discrepancies. For example if the spelling of a name is slightly different in two different census records, but the names of the parents and siblings match, the subject is identified as being the same person in both records. Naturally, it is impossible to reconcile some discrepancies. Thus there are some individuals who correctly claim to be 110 or more, but who can’t prove it. The lists of supercentenarians by country are biased by the lack of birth records in the 1800’s in some countries and/or the lack of investigators to conduct research in some countries. A rigorous validation procedure is necessary because of many false claims to extreme age. See Table G, the “Table of False and Exaggerated Claims,” at http://www.grg.org/Adams/G.HTM for a list of those who failed the validation procedure.

The names of those performing the validation of each supercentenarian are listed in Table E (http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM) and some other tables at www.grg.org. If any validation is questioned, inquiries can be made of the person responsible. 23 different individuals performed the validation of those listed in the Validated Living Supercentenarians in Table E as of Nov. 18, 2007. Of these 23 individuals, Robert Young was involved in the validation of 30 supercentenarians, more than any other person conducting validations.

The popular media frequently rely on the GRG for information on the oldest living people in the world. Examples previously given include the AP, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, ABC, and CNN. Local newspapers also refer to the GRG in connection with the birthday or death of a supercentenarian.

The family of Maria Capovilla saw a reference to the GRG that came from the LA Times concerning the oldest person in the world. Because they knew that Maria was older than the person then thought to be the oldest, they contacted Guinness World Records and inquired what documents were necessary to prove her age. Maria’s granddaughter told me that Guinness sent them a form that listed their requirements. The family fulfilled the requirements for documentation, Guinness had an investigator check on the claim, and Guinness then announced that Maria Capovilla was the oldest person in the world in December, 2005. Subsequently an investigator visited the church in Guayaquil, Ecuador, to view the original record of Maria’s birth.

The GRG Website

The GRG website at www.grg.org contains lists of validated supercentenarians, many pictures of supercentenarians, information about them, and information on other issues related to aging. It is maintained by Dr. Coles and Johnny Adams.

Monthly Meetings

The GRG holds meetings once a month at UCLA at which a guest speaker usually presents information on some aspect of aging or biology. Some of the notable speakers have been George Martin, Judy Campisi, Alexei Olovnikov, Ulf Brunk, Alexei Terman, Stephen Spindler, Peter Anthony Jones, Rita Effros, Tomas Prolla, Alexander Capron, Aubrey de Grey, Douglas Green, and many others.

The GRG E-mail Newsgroup

The GRG E-mail Newsgroup is an open forum in which users can express their views on aging or other topics. Control of expression is limited to non-existent. Abstracts of scientific articles are often quoted, as are news items of interest. Too often discussion of off-topic items is extended beyond reasonable limits. Nevertheless, the newsgroup is a valuable resource for keeping up to date on aging and related biological research.

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D.

In addition to being involved in all of the activities listed above, Dr. Coles engages in several related endeavors. He has visited at least 6 supercentenarians that I know of. He has given a number of presentations on supercentenarians and chaired a session on supercentenarians at the Integrative Medical Therapeutics for Anti-Aging Conference in Las Vegas in October, 2004. As has been stated elsewhere, he has published lists of living supercentenarians in the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine and in Rejuvenation Research. He has participated in 4 autopsies of supercentenarians and one 106 year old. Only 3 other autopsies of supercentenarians have been performed.


I hope this recitation of the substance behind the name, Gerontology Research Group, will help clarify understanding of the organization for those who are less familiar with it. I wrote this description before reading “A History of the GRG by Dr. Stephen Coles,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerontology_Research_Group, and therefore was not influenced by it. StanPrimmer (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this summary. I think it will be helpful to people in deciding notability. The discussion got heated, but I think there is some consensus coming on this group (if not the articles on particular researchers yet). Some of the contention came from the original article not being well worded, and that few university research groups tend to pass notability. But with the new phrasing/description, I think both issues have been addressed adequately. (already argued for keep below). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pissing match

  • Reply Notability by the number of references in Google News, and verifiability because every fact is matched to a published reference from a reliable source. I think what this is really over is the articles written by someone at GRG on the old folks were systematically tagged as NN, or something like that. They got angry, and nominated an article by one of the people suggesting the tags, as a form of disruption, and now this is just further spleen venting and revenge against GRG. At this point it is just using the powers of Wikipedia to get further revenge, and its nothing more than a pissing match to see who is more powerful, all involved should be ashamed for using Wikipedia to get revenge and vent anger and frustration. The article has to stand on its own based on notability and verifiability, all the other issues involving clashing personalities are not relevant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You can follow the chronology of the bad feelings from User:Bart_Versieck and how the pissing match got started here: Versieck edit history. Here Versieck added a deletion notice to an article created by Brownhairedgirl. I think the cycle of revenge deletions should end, and the articles stand up based on issues of Notability and Verifiability alone, and the pissing match should end. It is not the first or the last time. Even Wales got into a pissing match with the author of a reference work, Jay Robert Nash and ordered that all articles that used his books as a reference had to be deleted. Does anyone remember that issue? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm so much for the assume good faith ethos eh? Ho hum. Bold always makes a difference eh?---- WebHamster 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Assume Good Faith, but verify. Humans all have egos that can get hurt, and people can lash out on both sides. You should probably avoid sarcasm, its not your strong point. The bold is to bring attention to a thread thats in the middle of the article [Note: Now moved here]. Wikipedia sysops should recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest, or a possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. Its like the adage about Caesar's wife, even the hint of impropriety isn't acceptable politically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark Richard, I take exception to your statement about this being a pissing match. I have not been involved in anything like that. I was actually on the verge here and in the Coles AfD to change my vote from delete to keep when I started to uncover all kinds of "smoke and mirrors". Even the impact factor of their "pet" journal Rejuvenation Research is boosted in ways that will probably get them bumped from the Science Citation Index sooner or later. If you read through the whole AfD debate here and the debate around Coles, what one gets is a systematic pattern of lies and deception. AnonEMouse wrote below "If it happens the GRG is a hollow sham with a successful publicity machine ... that's notable too." I kind of agree. But that leaves us with only three options: either we delete this article, or we let it stay as it is (fully well knowing that it contains things that are not true), or write in the article that this groups engages in systematic distortions (which would constitute original research, I guess). From among these three unpalatable options, I prefer delete. --Crusio 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The number of hits isn't relevant, the quality is. If they are merely "speaking heads", just there for a quote then that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. ---- WebHamster 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A few points here.
    1. I don't think that using a term such as "p***ing match" in any discussion, let alone in a headline does anything to develop a consensus. There is plenty of guidance that terms of abuse should not be used in discussions, and although I understand that Richard Arthur Norton feels strongly about this issue, I hope that he will consider editing his comments to make his point in a more civil fashion.
    2. I got involved in this issue by accident, when I discovered an orphaned [:Category:Suoercebtebarina trackers]] and nominated it for deletion as one of about 70 similar categories nominated that day (I found homes for a roughly equal number, and tagged lots more empty one for speedy deletion). What I didn't expect was a firestorm response from an editor who turned out to be the subject of one of the few articles in the category: screenfuls of copy-pasted google results, long rants, and wild accusations. So I got curious, and started checking. I found that the biography concerned was largely an autobiography, and been nominated for AfD before, and after being given time to improve remained full of unsubstantiated assertions with unproven notability. So I nominated at AfD, and found another firestorm, clearly designed to drive way any scrutiny. I don't like being intimidated, and by this point I was very concerned that with so much CoI editing involved from an editor who seemed utterly unconcerned by any wikipedia guidelines, that other related articles might have similar flaws. Many of them did, so I nominated some of them at AfD too.
      Now, there have been plenty of suggestions that I should have talked to the editor concerned, and I tried, but it was an utterly fruitless exercise. So I kept on looking, and revisited this article over several days, before nominating it as a problem without having a clear opinion on whether to delete, because I believed that there were sufficiently serious tangles around it that wider assessment was justified.
    3. You may call all this a "p***ing contest" (though apart from the coarseness of language, you might want to consider whether it's a useful analogy outside of an all-male environment), but I think that the question is more serious. When someone has created a walled garden of articles written with repeated conflicts of interest and referenced in many cases to sources which he himself has published (to GRG and his yahoogroup), what should we do? Step back because the reaction is heated, or treat the problems as warning signals and start scrutinising despite the heat? Maybe I'm used to stricter standards than some others, but I take WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO etc rather seriously. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tangential issues being brought up

one are related to this article, all involve part of the ill will around the GRG group:

[edit] Rejuvenation Research
  • Argument: The citation index formula gives them a high score, because Rejuvenation Research use many references to their own articles. Reply: Thats a flaw in the citation index formula. Its no more sinister than optimizing your pagerank in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • response the citation index is used to judge whether people are citing the research, making it notable within the scientific community. The Rejuvination Research impact fact numbers (whose magnitude was being used to buttress an argument of notability) were shown to be greatly inflated by the systematic self-citation within the journal. That means that the implied impact of this group's work on a greater community of scientists is entirely illusiory. It is akin to the wikipedia criterion for notability that reliable sources be independent of the subject. The inflation of the RR impact factor was not due to use by sources be independent of the subject, but by self-promotion. The chain of argument supporting notability is refuted if the proxy measure for notability, citation, does not indicate the use it is intended to measure. The inflation of RR impact factor is therefore not a tangential issue. Pete.Hurd 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, you have to demonstrate a few things first: (a) where is the evidence that this self-citation was systematic or intended in any way to inflate the impact factor? - it could just be normal citations to previous articles in a small field. (b) who was using the impact factor to determine notability? If it is just us, then we should realise our error and not use impact factors in cases like this (small field). If they were trumpeting the impact factor as meaning anything, then there would be reasons to be concerned, but if not, then we shouldn't focus on a flawed measurement. All this means is that we shouldn't use the impact factor to determine notability in this case. That's not a reason for deletion, though. We just look for other ways to determine notability. Similarly, with the Coles 'professor' thing. We just remove the 'professor' bit from the article and remove anything else that can't be verified, and work with what is left. Problem solved. Carcharoth 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I really LIKE this suggestion! We remove everything that cannot be verified. So what does that leave us? Oh, right.... Nothing.... --Crusio 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong. What you are left with is this:

    "The Gerontology Research Group (GRG) was started in 1992, and is a group of researchers in gerontology who meet monthly at the UCLA in Los Angeles, California. [1] [2] [3] The group tracks people over the age of 110.[4] [5] The group was co-founded by L. Stephen Coles who is the Director and Treasurer of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation. [6] [7] The other cofounder was Steven M. Kaye. [1] The Wall Street Journal and other papers wrote that Guinness World Records uses the group as its authority to verify supercentenarian ages using birth and marriage certificates. [8] [9] The New York Times wrote that the GRG has been recognized as "an authority on the matter" of verifying supercentenarians. [9] [10] The group started out as an organization to investigate the limits of life spans in all mammalian species, and around 1998-1999 they started a committee to investigate claims to find out who was the oldest person at any point in time.[3] As of 2007, the organization claims to be monitoring 77 people whom they have validated as living supercentenarians, 69 women and 8 men.[6]"

    That's called editing an article to fix its problems. Carcharoth 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coles
  • Argument: Stephen Coles listed as a "professor" when he is now a "visiting scholar". Reply: Half the mail I get lists me as "Dr.", because of my work. Its a very common mistake in business and journalism. Just read any newspapers erratum column. Harry Shearer has a segment on his radio show, Le Show, where he reads the errors from the LA Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment the claims to notability made in this article are just that, claims. Assessing the notability requires either believing what is written there at face value, or assessing their truth. The history of the quality of the contributors to this article seems spotty. I initially !voted to keep this article, but after examining the veracity of the claims made I changed my position. The issues raised are "tangential" only if one doesn't really care whether the claims made by the authors of this article are true or false. Pete.Hurd 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • query Qo you mean this? article by Jeffrey Zaslow, the word "Professor" doesn't appear in it that I can see. Pete.Hurd 19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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, most votes were cast before the article was in its current state:

Since when are we required to vote twice on the same AfD? If any of us wished to change in the normal manner then we have done and would do so. Votes stand as per normal practice. - Galloglass 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing is required, nor has anyone suggested it is required. This is to see who has read the new version of the article, and to see if they think it fits either of the two categories presented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the problem with the below is that it is "opinion based," rather than factual. So you put your 4 tildes in 1 of the below choices. This just causes confusion on whether the article "is" or "isn't" notable and verifiable, or whether in your opinion you think the article "is" or "isn't" notable/verifiable. See the difference? Neal (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Everything except mathematics is opinion. If "notable and verifiable" could be determined without soliciting opinions, we could arrange for a bot to make the decisions, and remove the human element. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that just makes this article for deletion a popularity contest. Do you like the Gerontology Research Group? Then sign your name in the proper place. Do you not like the Gerontology Research Group? Then just vote in the deletion. In other words, people should be able to defend and support, and be responsible for, their opinions. But I see you wanted to summarize the above pages into the below. I think you meant to use "vote" and "veto" rather than "this article is notable and verifiable" and "this article is not notable and verifiable." That would be the easier way to sum up the keeps and non-keeps. Neal (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
[edit] The article "is" notable and verifiable
[edit] The article "is not" notable and verifiable
  • Comment - Typically what people do in such cases, when the article has been thoroughly rewritten during the AFD, is either ask previous participants to look at it again, or ask the closing admin to take that into consideration, when closing or even relist the AFD. Starting a new "Vote" section is not usually a good idea. For what it's worth, I don't see any reasonable closer finding a consensus to delete here, so I wouldn't worry about the technicalities too heavily. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. AfD is not a vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thats why it says its not a vote, right in the disclaimer, for the vote. Its all explained in the new Orwellian wikispeak dictionary. Aside from notability and verifiability, what other issues exist, that concern this AFD debate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Citations by a variety of national (BBC, NYTimes, WSJ) and important regional (Pittsburgh P-G) media sources suggest a notability substantially beyond a normal informal group of professors. The cleanup has left a mostly readable and reliable page. (May also be useful for the media who cite the GRG, since there seem to be errors by the media in understanding what the GRG is). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:53, 17 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. W.marsh 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Burning Grail

The Burning Grail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Like Battle City RM2k, this game was created with free RPG Maker software for a contest. It was never published, and the information does not appear to be verifiable. shoeofdeath 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not verifiable, and nonnotable ffm 00:13, 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. The only attempt at finding sources (first "keep" below) shows only trivial, passing mentions. An article which has been tagged as unsourced for a year, and for which no good secondary sources are found (plus the other reasons from the nom), has no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance (Warcraft)

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

An entire year has gone by without an attempt at adding sources. Along with this, it has plot summaries and unnotable fancruft.

With the lack of sources, this article is most likely unnotable to non-Warcraft players and the real world.

The article contains WP:CRUFT which may develop original research, continuing the trend of increasing cruft with no sources.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, something Wikipedia is not. These issues are most likely not to be resolved without an Articles for deletion and is justified a discussion. IAmSasori 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's academically interesting enough to be used in research about MMORPGs in general, as well as coverage in articles in the New York Times. Therefore, the article subject itself is notable regardless of the contents. Cleanup may be necessary but deletion is not. Subdolous 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
  • Keep - what's next, nominating Mario? User:Krator (t c) 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horde (Warcraft) which hold just as true here. Interestingly, any source that is cited for Horde (Warcraft) is almost certain to be equally valuable to Alliance (Warcraft) and visa versa. -Harmil 15:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per almost everyone else here. Rray 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You meant "transwiki" not "redirect". -Harmil 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but Subdolous has found several. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as fails WP:FICT. The so call sources are only fleeting mentions; harldly sources at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete As per Horde deletion, lacks sources and likely to continue as such. Quatloo (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, I don't know whether articles without sources should be deleted or not. I thought articles with no sources, citations or references SHOULD be deleted, however I'm trying to get Metalcore and some related articles deleted seeing as how they have NO sources or any of that, and the people show no interest of putting any up, HOWEVER, everyone who has talked about the issue seems to be in favor of keeping the article, and most are even saying that it's okay to have articles with no sources or references, just because they are notable. If this is the case then this Alliance article should be kept and the Horde article should be brought back. Navnløs (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Folks, if you want to rescue this, find and add cites. I know nothing about this game; fill me in. 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Bearian (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no point to this article from what I could read. Tavix (talk) 04:56, 22 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 sources offer do not adequately offer verification of the contents of a list that remains substantially original research and continues to be entirely unsourced. Spartaz Humbug! 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Warcraft humanoid races

List of Warcraft humanoid races (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, very likely unnotable fancruft with some plot summaries amongst it.

Despite a notice since June 2007, there were no sources added whatsoever to the article. This greatly questions the article's notability, along with the likelihood that the real world and non-Warcraft players would have no interest in this article.

Along with this, the article appears to be cluttered with fancruft only notable to Warcraft players. With this along with its huge size, it is very likely to attract original research, which would only increase the amount of unsourced material in the article.

Finally, there are plot summaries describing the incidents in many of the various races within this article. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and thus should not have this type of material in it.

The size of the article is 84 KB long at the start of this AfD, and with the many issues in it, gets nominated for Articles for deletion. IAmSasori 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article could use some cleanup and sourcing, but deletion is not necessary.Subdolous 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that four sources will be able to cover the entire article, even with clean up. IAmSasori 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That information could easily be added to the Warcraft Universe article, without any need to keep this one, especially since that article isn't exactly bursting at the seams yet. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming guide. As per nom, its mostly fancruft and not encyclopedic. Collectonian 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - "Unencyclopedic" is not a valid argument. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. If a subject receives significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which I have given, then it is notable and should have an entry. That the subject is related to gaming does not change this fact. Subdolous 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable. No real world references. Phil Bridger 22:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I just gave 4 real-world references. Subdolous 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
  • Delete: all the notable content here is redundant with the article Playable races in the Warcraft series. Requesting User:Subdolous to respond to this. User:Krator (t c) 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The sources given do not only cover playable races of world of warcraft, they cover the topic of races in warcraft in general. Consider this quote: "One of the secrets of creating a believable fantasy world is to create humanoid versions of every animal you can think of. World of Warcraft, for instance, has cow people, boar people, dragon people, horse people, bear people, bird people, hyena people, rat people, wolf people, fish people and lobster people, and I'm probably forgetting a few." Clearly the subject of the diversity of races in this game, both playable and non-playable, is notable to a reliable, established source. Subdolous 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Interesting, but coverage of this kind does not warrant a "List of Warcraft humanoid races". The way this subject is discussed in the source you cite (and without doubt in the others) does not warrant a list of races, but rather a discussion of the topic of "Race in Warcraft". This can be better done in prose form, probably in a few paragraphs in the Azeroth article. Why? Because this list consists of plot summaries and trivia, in an amount that out of proportion with actually discussing the subject in an encyclopaedic fashion. I would be interested in writing such a discussion of the subject in cooperation - leave a note on my talk page if you think this is a worthwhile effort. By way of summary: the subject may be worth discussing, but this list should still be deleted as it does not and cannot do that in the proper way. User:Krator (t c) 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's no doubt that World of Warcraft is a notable video game, and an article which can serve as a redirect target for its many races makes a fair amount of sense. This page was created by User:St.daniel in order to shorten the parent article which was over-long. Such child articles, which contain information that would otherwise be included in the parent, are not stand-alone topics, and should be treated as per the parent. -Harmil 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: I'm attempting to reduce the article to just the notable humanoid races (no, floating eyes aren't humanoid, nor notable). -Harmil 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Harmil and per Subdolus. Rray 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No notability, no references, no out of universe information of any kind, and thus totally duplicative of the character sections of several warcraft articles where they are already mentioned. Judgesurreal777 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but Subdolus has found several. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The cruft/original research is a sign of a lack of notabililty, and that, coupled with a reasonable understanding of the topics obscurity, is enough to know it doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as these Stock characters have no reliable sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Warcraft canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lack of sources isn't a reason for deletion, only lack of possible sources. Also, "the likelihood that the real world and non-Warcraft players would have no interest in this article"? What kind of a deletion criterion is that? The vast majority of the articles on Wikipedia are only of interest to a very specific subgroup of the total readership, it would be silly to delete stuff for that reason. If the article needs cleanup then clean it up, AfD is not cleanup. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, a lack of Possible references, and so far there is no demonstration or hope that a reasonable number will be found. If not enough are found, what does that say about its notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Playable races in the Warcraft series, gradually merge info into relevant game articles. Take out the races already in the other article and you're left with 1 part merge material and about 3 or 4 parts cannon-fodder. Races featured in the different games can get a short mention within those game articles if it's necessary.Someone another (talk) 09:58, 20 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. No justification for separate article, but it's worth redirecting as a plausible search term.Kubigula (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macro-man

Macro-man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Character appeared in only one issue of a limited series. Fails test for notability Konczewski 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JohnCD 22:29, 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 Keep. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of economics topics

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

We have here an alphabetical list of economical topics, that in my opinion would serve better as a category (perhaps it already exists). I though list pages should only be used if the data is not appropriate for categories. →AzaToth 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is no such rule. Nor should there be. But it would be nice in this case so see more use made of the opportunities for organization provided by a list. DGG (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the original creator of the list. The list was created long before the category feature was available on Wikipedia, when the only way of tracking categories of articles was lists like this. So there is a case that the list is no longer needed. Ultimately I think this should come down to whether readers find it useful - I have no strong views either way. However, if we do decide that we no longer need the list, I strongly suggest that this is done by a redirect to [[Category:Economics]], rather than a full delete, to avoid breaking links. Enchanter 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The ~10 redlinks in the list cannot be included in a category. I think that Category:Economics complements this list nicely, but doesn't supplant it because the category does not organize the information on Wikipedia's economics articles in an index-like manner. Bláthnaid 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator posed the question of "perhaps a category exists". Turns out it doesn't (the closest I see is a category on economics lists. Since there is no Category:Economics topics, and since nobody's volunteering to make one, I think this is an obvious keep. I'd pose the question to the nominator... given that there is no category, are you open to reconsidering the nomination? Part of it was contingent on whether a category exists, from what I understand. Mandsford 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful and non-duplicative list, per DGG and Mandsford. Bearian 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lists should not be sacrificed for categories. Categories are not a replacement for lists. Quoting WP:CLS: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other." The Transhumanist    07:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't this or shouldn't this be part of the Wikipedia:Contents navigation scheme? 132.205.99.122 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the Transhumanist. -- phoebe/(talk) 03:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per it is notable and not all terms will have an entry---thus a category wouldn't work.Balloonman (talk) 23:53, 18 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. Coredesat 07:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling arena

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

An indiscriminate list of arenas that hosted a wrestling event at some point. Given that the vast majority of indoor arenas in the US (and maybe Canada?) have hosted a touring wrestling act, this list is rather meaningless. ccwaters 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JohnCD 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of these seem to be venues used mainly for other events (as the article points out) - I can name several in my town, but it doesn't mean there should be an article about it. Merge any interesting information (the "Preparation" section, possibly) to Professional wrestling, and categorise any venue that's truly notable for wrestling; although I note that Category:Wrestling venues is up for CFD at the moment. -- Kateshortforbob 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete and only because a lot of work was done and there was a section (unsourced so far) on preparing an arena for such a show. I think the author is going too broad however. The list section is not much diffeent than making a list of arenas that have hosted a rock concert or a monster truck show. Mandsford 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indiscriminate listing. Virtually any indoor arena could host a professional wrestling event of some type. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate list cruft. A reply to above: the amount of effort going into an article isn't a reason to save it. Also, there is no sourced information to merge. Nikki311 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nikki. Also, see WP:EFFORT The Hybrid T/C 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments and nominator-- bulletproof 3:16 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Davnel03 15:18, 17 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 - if you need to merge/add something from this to Serie A, please send me a message. --JForget 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-time Serie A table

All-time Serie A table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:N and is WP:CRUFT along with WP:OR Davnel03 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Serie A.--Ahonc (Talk) 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and only because (a) it's ripped off without credit being given to the person who tallied all this stuff up and (b) no effort to update this after 2005-06. How lazy do you gotta be to not adjust it when the '06-'07 season is over? The first part is worse. The list came from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure Speirdyke didn't tally this up himself. Several contributors, and not a single friggin' source. A lot of typing went into this, and maybe the table can be incorporated into a merger. Mandsford 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think its a great resource of information, and about the OR I really doubt that. There are all time tables out there that can be sourced. A quick google search gave me this, if you want more all time tables from the same source click here. Chandlertalk 02:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per all the delete votes above, and also noting the fact that it's built on a wrong assumption. By awarding two points for a win in all seasons, the table ignores the fact that the Serie A table has been calculated on the 3-points for a win principle since 1994. If this goes, all the other articles in the category should be vulnerable too, as the same policies would seem to apply. As for the rsssf link above found by User:Xhandler, well the rsssf is the best place for articles like this, not Wikipedia. - fchd 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per fchd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup; split into 2 sections, those which had 2 points for a win, those which have 3 points for a win. --Howard the Duck 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - much too unwieldy to be Merged with Serie A. Wikipedia articles and lists do not exist to provide resources, they need to be notable and to prove notability. This isn't and doesn't, it's merely a raft of figures built on incorrect information (see the above comment about "2 points/3 points for a win"). It may be a statistician's dream, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public. Ref (chew)(do) 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Serie A - I don't understand the rationale for the nomination at all. All-time tables ("maratontabell" in Swedish) is a common and useful way of comparing current and former clubs who have participated in a certain league and add extra information to the topic (Serie A in this case). For example, I didn't know that Triestina was the 16th most successful club in the Serie A, or that Alessandria is more successful than Lecce. Why wouldn't this information be notable? Why would it be WP:CRUFT when we have articles about English level 10 football? I'm also pretty sure that information by reliable sources can be found, perhaps it's even gathered officially by the FA. Even if there are issues with sourcing and updating, these issues could be resolved and the article kept or merged. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - tables and lists are not strictly encyclopedic, and that's what Wikipedia content must be. If the Speedy/AfD system had been historically more diligent, there would be very few of these in Wikipedia at all, if any. Encyclopedias were developed to record details about subjects in a prosaic style, not in the form of figures and statistics designed as reference pieces. Yes, small tables and lists are sometimes valid within a written article, but not as standalone entries IMO. So, merge if you must try, or else delete. Ref (chew)(do) 12:08, 20 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. Coredesat 07:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviatik (band)

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND at every turn. From the article: "They plan to release their first full-length album... in early 2008." No mention of a record label. No tours mentioned. Media mentions seem to be restricted to kentnewsnet.com. The article claims that they have two singles added to several regional radio stations and that they have opened for some notable bands (presumably they did not tour with these bands). -- Swerdnaneb 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:BAND, per nominator. The article can be recreated if the band becomes successful in the future. Bláthnaid 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not even close to meeting WP:BAND. ---- WebHamster 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've been watching this page, expecting this nomination to happen... As lead singer of the band, even I would say we're not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I'm flattered someone took the time to create this entry, however, and hopefully sometime soon we'll reach the point of meeting WP:BAND. Moderators: Delete away! (if anyone does happen to think we're notable enough, I'm pretty sure there have been a few mentions of us in Cleveland Scene magazine as well, if you're looking for more references! :-D) 76.190.214.169 15:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodegisel II

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

No solid evidence he was a historical person, no reliable sources (for purported father of a saint), certainly not notable. Mdbrownmsw 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am inviting an editor or two from purportedly related articles to comment. - Mdbrownmsw 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I invited the original author of this article [21] to this discussion. Additionally, since this is not my area of expertise, I invited anyone who made substantial edits to Arnulf of Metz‎ (claimed by the article to be son of Bodegisel II) in the last 6 months. [22][23][24][25][26]
Mdbrownmsw 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I discovered no mention of Arnulf's mother in the little research on him I did. Many minor figures can be handled with a redirect to the encyclopedia-worthy main figure and dealt with in a footnote. --Wetman 16:09, 7 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 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Week Keep being a governor of a province seems to assert notability. Sourcing can be difficult for someone that far back. A Google search seems to confirm existence. This site [27] disagrees with the article about who his father was, but agrees about his wife and son. These sites agree with the article [28] [29]. Edward321 (talk) 02:35, 17 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. CitiCat ♫ 04:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norstead:

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

May not be notable, seems to have some sources though h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain this a little further please ? I am currently searching for the other references I know exist, including a TV interview with the site principles.

What other references would be acceptable for a site which is brand new like this one ?

Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthroth (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing correctly Guthroth 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Can the author plead in this case ? The original article which was deleted earlier in teh week was written by someone with no Wikipedia experience. I have replaced that article and now shown references to the project in local and electronic media. An expansion will follow in a day or so. Guthroth 13:34, 8 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 21:25, 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. GRBerry (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Columbus United Methodist Church

East Columbus United Methodist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article seems to fail Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. The subject is not notable and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. NatureBoyMD 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several churches that are represented on Wikipedia. Although not every entry is of interest to everyone, it would be of interest to some both locally and those who want to know of different ones in Indiana, Southern IN or Columbus. Columbus is also a haven of architecture and many people come to see buildings. It is also noteworthy that it celebrated over 50 years in the same location and over 100 total. ECUMC 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unfortunately, while this church may have some local historical significance, the problem is notability at large. I might also direct those curious to WP:LOCAL which may also apply. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Being a church is not inherently notable.Balloonman (talk) 23:55, 18 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. Coredesat 07:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gianna Dalla-Vecchia

Gianna Dalla-Vecchia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable child entertainer. No sources are provided to assert her notability, and there isn't much to be found on Google either, other than this. Should her career take off, then an article could be created. Mattinbgn\talk 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant coverage found. Epbr123 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would recommend redirection to the group Charmz but that article has been deleted as speedy back in October. Given the group has been sponsored by Mattel [30] and Billabong [31] and has survived for over a year performing at a Melbourne event[32], I suspect it meets notability guidelines. However the group's website http://www.charmz.com.au/ now directs to the Mattel site so perhaps it is all over. Moreover I don't want to write the article!--Golden Wattle talk 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If sources were found it seems her career is already notable, but none seem to be available. Hammer1980·talk 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - the sources I have linked to above plus that provided by Mattinbgn would do - ie there are sources available.--Golden Wattle talk 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment -Maybe if it can be established that the group is still in operation I may be inclined to change my mind. Hammer1980·talk 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Wattle. Twenty Years 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this person is only notable in the context of the group "Charmz", which I suspect does not meet notability criteria anyway. Lankiveil (talk) 06:23, 17 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 - Its not possible to delete something under gfdl if the information is to be merged into another article. I have therefore redirtected this to the film and left the history intact. Feel free to go ahead and do the merge. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic (1997 film) DVD releases

Titanic (1997 film) DVD releases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

DVD releases is not notable, information about DVD releases should be kept strictly to movie articles in DVD section Anakinjmt 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge the relevant info to the movie article, mostly likely using one of the standard table formats, or tightened up prose. Collectonian 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge per above. Individual DVD releases for films are not notable. 23skidoo 18:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete not notable release.Balloonman (talk) 23:55, 18 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 nn video collection. Balloonman (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Complete Superman Collection

The Complete Superman Collection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

DVD releases is not notable, information about DVD releases should be kept strictly to movie articles in DVD section Anakinjmt 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; merge the relevant info to the movie article, mostly likely using one of the standard table formats, or tightened up prose. Collectonian 22:27, 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 nn video collection. Balloonman (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Park DVD releases

Jurassic Park DVD releases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

DVD releases is not notable, information about DVD releases should be kept strictly to movie articles in DVD section Anakinjmt 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; merge the relevant info to the movie article, mostly likely using one of the standard table formats, or tightened up prose. Collectonian 22:27, 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 Keep (bad-faith nom). — Scientizzle 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Craig (Irish Professor)

  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}}
James Craig (Irish professor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. No 'reliable, secondary coverage'. Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:PROF. Extremely sexy 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Elected politician. Nominator is making WP:POINT and not acting in good faith. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. This voter is too closely tied to the article creator to be able to vote unbiased. Extremely sexy 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • And Kittybrewster is entitled to speak on this just as much as BrownHairedGirl. Based on the note below, this entry, AND your bit of lawyering, I hereby call obvious bad faith. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. You are supposed to vote regarding the deletion of the article, not regarding the nominator. Extremely sexy 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close.. Clearly meets WP:BIO#Additional_criteria: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. This voter is the article creator, so he is not allowed to vote here himself, and every article has to be sourced, while this clearly one isn't at all. Extremely sexy 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply Bart, I should have disclosed that I am the article's primary author, but I am not constrained from voting. You should read an article before nominating it for deletion. The source is at the bottom of the article: This page incorporates information from the Oireachtas Members Database.
        I would be the first to acknowledge that this article is a weak, single-source stub; but it meets WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Speedy keep as bad faith nom. There is no policy preventing an article creator from participating in AfD. In fact, it's practically expected. Not to mention, I highly doubt BrownHairedGirl is a he. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. Actually, I do know that it's a "she", but the "he" does refer to the voter in general, hence. Extremely sexy 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note canvassing. I have direct evidence that this AfD was planned off-wiki as part of the campaign of disruption by the nominator's friend User:Ryoung122. The text of the email from Young says:
Greetings,
I find it ironic that almost all of the articles listed as created by user Brown-Haired Girl are either UNSOURCED or poorly sourced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrownHairedGirl/Contribs-2006-05
For example,
Not a SINGLE source for this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Craig_%28Irish_Professor%29
Someone should nominate this deletion, and tag the others as 'unreferenced'.
Fair is fair. Play by the rules, if you are enforcing them on others.
Regards
Moderator

There are many other similar emails on that mailing list, mostly under a thread starting at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9065 -- the latest email gives advice on how to join wikipedia to participate in the AfDs listed by Robert Young, with advice such as "Look, it is good to be 'active' and establish yourself first, with a user page and ID, before going to 'vote.'"

It seems that the nominator just took the email, and didn't even do his own checks to see if the article was sourced. Not a good idea. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I did my own checks, and nominated them accordingly (just as you did with all the supercentenarian related articles), since only a couple have sufficient references, yes. Extremely sexy 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You have just tagged as unreferenced a whole series of articles which were referenced; and you have tagged as refimprove articles in which every fact is covered in the listed sources and where notability per WP:BIO is established through being a member of a national parliament. Bart, but that's not adequate checking. You are simply working through the target list which Robert sent you, without assessment, in a classic WP:POINT exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. That's not true at all honestly, since I did not tag all of them, because they have enough (= at least 2) references: refimprove means to ask for more references, right? Extremely sexy 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You did, for example, tag Denis Allen with a {{refimprove}}, even though everything in that short article is in the listed sources; and you tagged many others as {{unreferenced}} when they had one ref. I note on your talk page that you describe this as a war, which is is never clever, and doing it as a proxy for a blocked editor is very unclever indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. No: not me, but you are acting yourself as if it is a war, since you specifically tagged all articles about supercentenarians particularly, and a source template is not a reference though. Extremely sexy 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per BHG of course, as elected national politician. Title perhaps not ideal, as "Irish politician" or whatever is main notability. And should Professor not have a small "p"? Johnbod 20:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed so, and I just fixed this. Extremely sexy 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course, and censure nominator for frivolous and vexatious nomination. -- roundhouse0 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I acted just like the article creator did. Extremely sexy 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close. Obvious - a member of a national legislature will always meet WP:BIO. Valenciano 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - legislators who sat in a national body are inherently notable, and the evidence suggests this was a WP:POINT issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Nationally elected politicians, especially ones who served six terms, are notable, and comments from the nominator like "I acted just like the article creator did" make it hard to see this as anything other than a WP:POINT nomination. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close, on account of what seems to be the nom trying to prove some sort of WP:POINT. I'm not impressed by their lawyering about BrownHairedGirl's commentary, and even less impressed by what seems to be general pedantry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You are supposed to vote regarding the deletion of the article, not regarding the nominator. Extremely sexy 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should heed your own advice. You should not be telling people how they are supposed to vote. If you are warring against the author, then you bet that's prevalent to the situation. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Where did I tell people how they are supposed to vote, huh, man? Extremely sexy 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close, gains automatic notability through the politician criteria - specifics as he is a politican who " held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"--Vintagekits 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close - per Vintagekits above. John Carter 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Vintagekits. --Crusio 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:40, 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 Redirect to Kim Jong-il which has actually already more information on her.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Young-suk

Kim Young-suk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge and Redirect to Kim Jong-il. Not enough info to warrant her own article. EndlessDan 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't it be expanded a little though and be kept?--Cartman005 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of available sources, probably due to her being North Korean. Epbr123 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Kim Jong-il. A slightly plausible search term, but of no official importance other than as a spouse. There may be interest in having some information regarding potential succession issues, e.g. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Kim Jong-il. per nom. Hammer1980·talk 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Kim Jong-il per Dhartung. Note that "delete and merge" is not allowed as an outcome, pursuant to the GNU Free Documentation License which covers Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab 03:57, 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 I can understand TexasAndroid position. 12,000 is very small for a city to establish notbality, but Iain99 makes a very strong case that can't be ignored. This is a national capital and thus the mayor would be well known in that part of the world. Balloonman (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simeon López

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

I speedy deleted this, but was persuaded to give it a chance. Biographical stub about the mayor of a city of only 12,000 people would not generally be notable. Except in this case, the city happens to be the capital of a small central American country, Belize. So, does the fact that it is a national capital confer notability that would not otherwise be conferred on small town mayors? I'm inclined to think not, but I have been shown to be wrong at AFDs before, so we shall see. TexasAndroid 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to say keep because I find it very hard to believe that the mayor of a capital city could NOT be the subject of numerous reliable, independent sources. Admittedly given the subject the sources are unlikely to be the UK/US press, or even readily available in the internet, but that shouldn't matter unless we want even more systematic bias on Wikipedia. The article at the moment is a valid stub, and its few facts are verifiable from Google; it can remain so until someone with knowledge of Belize feels like expanding it. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Iain99. This person would be well-known within Belize, so I think he is notable enough for Wikipedia, regardless of his country's size. I don't think a person's notability should be weighed against the size of the country they come from. Kudos to TexasAndroid for a very thoughtful nomination, though :-) Bláthnaid 00:45, 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. GRBerry (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PICA - Principle

PICA - Principle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

System apparently used one time? No description of the system itself (only its effect) is in this article, no references or citations. A short description of this principle is included in the Columbus article here, no individual article for this concept is necessary. AvruchTalk 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Used once, wasn't a success, but not such a disaster as to be a notable disaster. JohnCD 22:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:25, 18 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 nonsense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engina

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

Zginder 20:15, 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, CSD A7, by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Derry

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

Zginder 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as non-notable. Typical teenage vanity article. Why in the world does this need to go to AfD? --Finngall talk 20:12, 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. Coredesat 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revolution-based

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

Articles exist about turn-based games, the term 'revolution-based' does not seem to be widely used. Accepting that the concept is one widely used in games, there is no assertion of notability for the term. No references, either. AvruchTalk 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, protologism or perhaps even non-existent term. Axem Titanium 20:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I marked this as an orphan about two weeks ago. A couple editors and a couple bots have made very minor edits over the months, but this article has remained essentially as it was created over a year ago. If anyone wants to rescue the keystrokes, perhaps they could be put into Video game genres or something similar. Hult041956 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & Redirect to turn-based strategy where there is pretty comprehensive coverage of this type of game. There doesn't seem to be enough material in the article to require a merge. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:00, 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. Coredesat 07:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Hebron

AfDs for this article:
    Patrick Hebron (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    NN (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) Subject IS NOT 1) the subject of any secondary source material (reliable or otherwise) 2) a widely recognized....part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field 3) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors 4) published a significant and well-known academic work (or any), nor a body of work which merits notbability (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 5) received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Subject is unknown. undistinguished. Article is either vanity or hoax True theory 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • KeepDelete - per True theory. I don't know much about the art scene, but he seems to have done us the service of collecting a number of references. He just mistakenly added a link to a page where he listed them, instead of listing them in his article. I've fixed that. WP:AUTO seems to have been tromped on, but he added useful info, which we can cull anything non notable out of. -Harmil 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply - - Of the 11 sources only 2 mention his name. They are not Independent sources. They are not Verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Those references would be better suited for an article on Heide Fasnacht, which does not exist. This would also increase Mr. Hebron's notability, since the only evidence of his writing concerns her. Still, it would not be enough because notability requires a lot more than authoring an article, or even many. This has got to be a hoax. True theory 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    You're incorrect about your definition of verifiable sources (verifiable includes sources that you can't find via Google, you may recall), however you're ABSOLUTELY correct with respect to what they're sourcing. I got very turned around here and thought that this was an article about Heide Fasnacht, not Patrick Hebron. I've revised my sentiment accordingly. -Harmil 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Um, all the references (as well as the external link) seem to be about the artist Heide Fasnacht, not about Mr. Hebron. Is there any evidence that the subject of the AfD'd article is notable? Deor 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Trying to answer my own question . . . No sources establishing notability are to be found via Google (including News, Books, and Scholar). There is, however, a really scary picture of him here, about halfway down the page (assuming it's the same guy). I say delete. Deor 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply the young lady he's with is cute. maybe he should write a page for her instead. True theory 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The references appear to show that Heide Fasnacht may be notable, but it's hard to see how they show the notability of Mr Hebron. - TexasAndroid 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. and TexasAndroid. JohnCD 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete He seems to have written a single 4 page article--no books in OCLC or LC. Created by an spa. DGG (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I believe part of the misunderstanding here is caused by the fact that someone changed the "References" section to reflect the citations found on Heide Fasnacht's website. In fact, only two of those citations are by Mr. Hebron and he is not accountable for any of the others. As the original creator of this article, I can tell you that Mr. Hebron has indeed written and been published beyond the subject of Heide Fasnacht. A google search returned no other online documents of his, but I will attempt to contact him for a better list of citations. In the meantime, the article which makes no false statements that I can see, should be kept (with the possible revision to the incorrect reference list.Wikiart0010 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Misunderstanding? Please read the reasoning behind the Afd nomination listed at the top of the page. The issue of citation isn't mentioned. Notability was the initial problem. Please make sure to review Wikipedia:Notability (people) + Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons + Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well familiarize yourself with the whatever other policies and/or guidelines referenced in the previous posts from users in favor of deleting this page (which is everyone except you). There is an overwhelming push for deletion with the only "keep" coming from the article's creator. If Mr. Hebron is well-published, and you're able to verify this, you will also need to write an article demonstrating why he is notable or distinguished in his field. Refer to the criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and see how Mr. Hebron fairs. Based on my own research and that of other users here, I'm pretty convinced this is pure vanity.True theory (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Google is failing??? Contact the subject??? Oh Delete. Victuallers (talk) 19:06, 17 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 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Moonblade

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

    Failed PROD due to same editor removing multiple random prods. Original Prod note: Non-notable fictional object. Collectonian 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: notable, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper.--Neverpitch 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Those are not "keep" reasons. Axem Titanium 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - per nom, no real-world significance to this fictional object. Suggest that Neverpitch be referred to whatever the appropriate venue would be for some counseling on the whole AFD process, focusing especially on the concept of offering articulate reasons for taking actions like deleting prods or opining keep. Mass-deleting prods with this sort of generic "reason" is completely inappropriate and borderline disruptive. Otto4711 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - !votes which do not provide support for their reasoning in the context of this debate on this subject may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. That's why we make recommendations on a course of action and a rational for that action, rather than simply voting yea or nay. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I did provide a reason, and they are much better than your irrational, illogical, and disruptive delete "reasons."--Neverpitch 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Two links to flexibly interpreted guidelines and ye olde catch-all "notable" is a good reason? JuJube 07:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as non-notable fictional item, per nom. If the item is notable, I can find no sources which demonstrate this. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. No out-of universe information, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per original PROD. No real world notability. Possibly mergable into the main article for the game, though probably not necessary as Wikipedia certainly isn't a gaming guide Collectonian 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, fails notability for fictional items. Axem Titanium 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as insufficiently notable. -- Satori Son 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete sheesh. JJL 00:55, 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. Coredesat 07:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology

    Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    The page is for a DVD collection. The information is not notable, as the movies in the selection already have their own article. Information regarding each movie in the set can be included in that movie's article Anakinjmt 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Delete per nom; merge the relevant info to the movie article, mostly likely using one of the standard table formats, or tightened up prose. Collectonian 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete nn. JJL 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete non-notable DVD collection. Doczilla 06:40, 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. There is no consensus for a particular redirect target, and no clearly reliably sourced material for merging anywhere. So the close is delete.

    I also remind any who might propose to create a redirect that "Nazi" is a problematic term, with multiple meanings, so we should not use it unless we can make the specific meaning clear - which can't be done on a redirect (and was never done in this article). This tends to indicate that we should not have a redirect. GRBerry (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ex-Nazis in the CIA

    Ex-Nazis in the CIA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Failed PROD due to same editor removing multiple random prods. Original Prod note: Has remained a poorly unreferenced stub since December 2006 and makes serious and potentially damaging claims Collectonian 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Merge and redirect properly sourced information to Operation Paperclip. Otto4711 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Most of the information relates to the Gehlen organization, which already has its own its own page here. What's left is about one sentence of unsourced allegations. Dchall1 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Reinhard Gehlen rather than to Operation Paperclip. A lot of empty calories in this article, which essentially reveals little except that there were some Ex-Nazis... in the CIA. Mandsford 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A redirect to Gehlen is fine by me. Otto4711 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, as a redirect lets the implication of the claim live on. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:59, 18 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. Coredesat 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Bolvar Fordragon

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

    Failed PROD due to same editor removing multiple prods. Original Prods note: No out-of-universe information, not notable Collectonian 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Notable, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper.--Neverpitch 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Perhaps the subject is notable inside the game, but Wikipedia requires real-world notability. If this character indeed has real-world notability, why does the article not indicate this? I have no idea what bureaucracy has to do with this. Notice that the link you provide says "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Pagrashtak 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as per original pro. Nothing notable outside of the game. Character didn't even appear in the main list of Warcraft characters, which would seem to indicate he isn't even that notable in the game. Collectonian 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Usually, I am not a hit and run delete person, but the obvious lack of any value in this article is enough to make me one. User:Krator (t c) 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge per WP:FICT's guidelines into List of Warcraft characters. Which, yes, has notability concerns of its own, but the set of characters has a better chance of establishing that than a single (minor) character. —Quasirandom 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even notable within World of Warcraft, certainly not enough to have its own article. -- Atamasama 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Notablility=zero. Judgesurreal777 23:12, 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 no !votes, so treating like a prod. Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Acumen Solutions

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

    Article written like an advertisement, no assertion of notability, no references. It does get 202,000 google hits, but I don't think that necessarily qualifies it per WP:N. AvruchTalk 19:57, 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 merge and redirect to List of games in Star Trek, a new article provided by Fayenatic. Very good work. Cool Hand Luke 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Kadis-kot

    Kadis-kot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Delete - there is no real-world significance to this fictional game and no reliable sources establish its notability. Prod removed with the comment that a merger to a list article was planned, but the resulting list of Star Trek games would itself not be notable. Otto4711 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Merge to a list of Star Trek games. No, notability is not inherited, but to some extent things can be kept in separate articles that might be mentioned in the main article except for space concerns, as described in WP:SUMMARY. Pinball22 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. WP:SUMMARY does not allow for the creation of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Jay32183 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to new List of games in Star Trek. Several fictional games form recurring plot elements, spanning multiple Star Trek series, including Parrises Squares and Dabo (Star Trek). In such a highly notable franchise, recurring plot elements are themselves sufficiently notable, and a list of games will be of navigational value, e.g. for people who are not big fans but nevertheless interested enough to distinguish one game from another. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that these games rise to the level of "plot elements." I'm hard-pressed to think of any episode in any incarnation of ST in which any of these games couldn't have been replaced by any other of the games or for that matter a real game. Harry Kim for instance was a Parrises Squares champion during his Academy days; is our understanding of the character any different for knowing that he was a champion at this game versus say football or squash? Otto4711 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, certainly in that case. It is consistently implied in multiple episodes that playing Parrises Squares carries a high risk of serious personal injury. Being a champ therefore does imply more about the character than being a football star or squash champ. Thanks for offering such a clear example. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Rugby league and American Football carry high risk of personal injury. The important parts of the game for the character can easily be covered within the character page. Jay32183 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect to List of games in Star Trek, article is not sufficiently notable to stand alone, but would make a good group article -- Maelwys (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per lack of real-world notability. The notion that "In such a highly notable franchise, recurring plot elements are themselves sufficiently notable" is WP:OR --EEMIV (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The above argument (made in this AFD, not an article) doesn't seem like WP:OR to me, but feel free to explain why - best on my talk page, as this is due to close. I do accept that it was a claim for inherited notability, and therefore fails. I also acknowledge that Kadis-kot is the least notable of the 3 Star Trek games in current AFDs. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect as discussed. Thank you for fixing this problem. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect per Fayenatic. --Fang Aili talk 03:26, 22 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 and redirect to List of games in Star Trek, a new article provided by Fayenatic. Very good work. Cool Hand Luke 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Parrises Squares

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

    Delete - no real-world significance and no reliable sources establishing the notability of this fictional game. Otto4711 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete No secondary osurces to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect into one of the ST:TNG articles. Those of us who watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation" are aware of this running gag. The series ran for several years, and they never DID explain how the hell "Parrisses Squares" worked, although one inferred that it was a sport of some sort. Every so often, a character would mention it as something they knew about, but that we 20th century people had to wonder about. I agree that that's not enough for a stand alone article, but this is nicely written and might fit into one of the many TNG articles in Wikipedia. Mandsford 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to new article List of games in Star Trek. It certainly seems sufficiently notable to me to retain a brief explanation of this game somewhere in Wikipedia, although Otto has already expressed his disagreement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadis-kot. It was mentioned in multiple episodes in ST:Voyager as well as ST:TNG. I don't think it would fit naturally into any existing character/episode article within Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation, so the most appropriate article would be a new List of games in Star Trek spanning all the TV series of the franchise. However, if there is a consensus agreeing with Otto that every item in a Wikipedia list needs evidence of its own notability, there will be no point me creating the list only for it to be deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Otto raised a question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadis-kot: is our understanding of the character Harry Kim any different for knowing that he was a champion at Parrises Squares versus say football or squash? The answer is certainly Yes in this case. It is consistently implied in multiple episodes that playing this game carries a high risk of serious personal injury, so being a Parrisses Squares champ therefore does imply more about the character than being a football star or squash champ. The game is therefore of some notability as a plot element. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And as was noted in that same discussion, rugby and American football carry a high risk of personal injury, as do any number of other sports. It does not increase our understanding of the character to know that Kim was a P.S. champion and, even if it does, that doesn't mean that an article is required for the fictional sport in the absence of any reliable secondary sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect to List of games in Star Trek, article is not sufficiently notable to stand alone, but would make a good group article -- Maelwys (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect per Fayenatic. --Fang Aili talk 03:25, 22 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 & Merge Feel free to do the merge yourselves. Spartaz Humbug! 14:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Atlantis Attacks (Fantastic Four)

    Atlantis Attacks (Fantastic Four) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet notability requirements and has no real world sources, just a short plot summary that could easily fit in a single article listing the episodes of Fantastic Four or lists for each season. PROD removed for reason of "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper" (possible vandalism, but sent to admins for review) Collectonian 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Please read WP:EPISODE and please stop your disruptive behaviour. Otto4711 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I find your behavior disruptive. Furthermore, your block log speaks for itself.--Neverpitch 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge Per Otto4711. Rray 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect. per Otto4711.Kww (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect Not notable, still a possible search term Mbisanz (talk) 10:56, 22 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. GRBerry (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Colby Weekend Television

    Colby Weekend Television (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    There are no significant hits on Google for this, nor for the alleged Cusper, Beaning of Atlanta, or Castletown Weekday Television. If it was an "on demand service on the Internet" as it claims, it would be visible on the internet. It isn't, so apart from being NN, I'm sure it's a hoax. Smalljim 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. Several comments feel hoaxy, like "I'm sure they're out feeding their chickens" and "Local news is featured as and when it happens, usually 2 or 3 times a year". Absolutely ZERO related internet hits (outside the wiki article itself). Keeper | 76 20:12, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] America Undercover

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

    Does not meet notability requirements, only a single sentence article that is already covered by articles on the individual documentaries. Another failed PROD as some editor is going behind removing several of my recent PRODs with the same reason of "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper" Collectonian 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Notable, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper/--Neverpitch 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep. I have expanded somewhat and properly referenced. Article needs more work, but subject meets notability requirements. -- Satori Son 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep AU is one of HBO's prestiege series and is usually the umbrella title for all of their documentaries. There should be expansion of the article itself because there's many more titles that the show is known for beyond those referenced in the article. Nate 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Each documentary, however, appears to have its own article, so should those then be merged into this article? Collectonian 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Probably not, but a general description of each series can be left in this parent article. Nate 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Article has plenty of references to demonstrate notability. Rray 23:25, 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. Coredesat 07:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] War of the Spider

    War of the Spider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Excessive plot detail, no out-of-universe information, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Delete per nom Collectonian 20:07, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus and WP:OUTCOMES#Places RMHED 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Colbert, Washington

    Colbert, Washington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Does not assert notability. Also, no relaible secondary sources; in fact, no sources at all. Could be a hoax for all I know. Plusstudy 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep - while it is a stub, the article could be expanded fairly easily as it is indeed a real city :). From a quick web search, it appears to have a population of almost 8000, several schools, etc. Collectonian 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, or even Speedy Keep. Towns/locations/blips on a map/generally all named places - are notable. A simple google map search proves its existence. Note that this nomination is the ONLY contribution from user:Plusstudy. HIGHLY unusual level of wiki-competence for a new user's FIRST EDIT, possibly a sock? Keeper | 76 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Real places are always considered notable, and this one appears on maps and has weather, so I'm pretty sure it's real. Pinball22 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I can't find WP:N that covers geographic locations, but it has a real ZIP code. -- Mikeblas 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Except for copyvios, I have never seen a town get deleted. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as a real place, per Pinball22. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • (possibly Snowball) Keep; it definitely exists, has listings here, exists on Google Maps... not a hoax, not a super tiny place. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep WP:OUTCOMES#Places says that "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size." and I'd say a town of 8,000 is therefore notable. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:37, 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 if there are no sources then this is simply not going to be pass WP:V or WP:OR. If third part reliable sources can be found then there is no objection to recreation. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ericsson R290

    Ericsson R290 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable product. WP is not an Ericsson catalog. This produict has few substantial third-party references. Mikeblas 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Strong keep — presuming this isn't an AfD for all Ericsson products, the model in question is one of the most notable of the lot, since it's a technical curiosity combining two different communications systems. The article has a technical reference; finding further third party references will probably be hard because (one imagines) retail sites won't maintain pages to products they no longer sell. We could come up with a bunch of anecdotes from aid workers and diplomats but where's the relevance? I'd be interested to see the kind of references which the proposer desires. (Could you perhaps point to the "ideal" product article, to help this one be improved?) Incidentally, the Ericsson R310 went through this process a while ago, and was kept because it too is a technical curio of note. – Kieran T (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete since Kieran T just attested to its lack of sources and lack of potential to ever get any. If there were a newpapaer article highlighting the importance of this product in humanitarian work then I'd say keep, but since that's not very likely, delete. Handschuh-talk to me 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Deleteas per nom.--Quek157 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I do not understand why somewants wants to delete "all" the cell-phone entries. They are really examples of what this encyclopedia is about: we need them. This phone in particular is very notable, being a rare satelitte-phone in addition to a GSM-phone. The fact this is not very good sourced in the article is not an argument for deletion, but for improvement. -- Greswik (talk) 20:10, 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. Coredesat 07:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Eve Teschmacher

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

    Delete - prod removed by SPA. Character does not warrant separate article to describe her role in the plot of the two films per WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. No prejudice to recreation should she actually appear in the comics and with verifiable information beyond simple plot descriptions but as it stands the article should be deleted. Otto4711 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete but merge relevant info into one of the Superman film articles. Gene Hackman enjoyed yelling "miss teschMACHer!!" and like Ned Beatty's "Otis", Valerie Perrine provided some comic relief. Like Beatty, her role was created strictly for the 1978 film by someone, and maybe there's some interesting story there. Not enough for her own article, however. Mandsford 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • "Comment' One could make that argument about any article... nobody's forced to read it, it's not inconvenient, etc. The articles for deletion section is where the amateur editors become amateur publishers, debating on whether a particular article stays in Wikipedia. Nobody would say that Eve Teschmacher doesn't deserve any writeup at all; perhaps she would be in a paragraph in another article (about the Alexander Salkin film, or about Valerie Perrine). Just not her own page. Mandsford 03:08, 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 delete and redirect to List of Warcraft characters#Onyxia. Coredesat 07:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Onyxia

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

    No out-of-universe information, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete - I agree, there is no notability, no real references, not worth an article. -- Atamasama 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Generic gamecruft argument per WP:GAMECRUFT, there's not much more to it. User:Krator (t c) 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - The article was my first work on wikipedia, and sadly it has not improved much since then. The lack of references really makes it entirely original research (my bad) and well... It's bad articles like that that add fuel to the fire when it comes to gameguide discussions.Youkai no unmei 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters. Which, yes, still has notability concerns, but the set of characters has a better chance of establishing that than a single (minor) character. —Quasirandom 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Onyxia is already there, I don't think the information in this article necessarily has to be added to whatever is already in that article. In fact, considering that all this info is unreferenced I think it really shouldn't be added. In either case List of Warcraft characters is long enough already. -- Atamasama 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    You're right -- looks like most, if not all, the major points are covered in List of Warcraft characters. Changing my vote to redirect to List of Warcraft characters, so that links don't break. —Quasirandom 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete per consensus. The single keep vote shows a lack of understanding of wiki process. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Marie (EastEnders)

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

    Delete - prod removed by SPA without comment. This fictional character has little significance within the series and no significance in the real world. No reliable sources establish the notability of the character. The notability of the show does not impart notability to every bit character who trots across the screen with a cucumber. Otto4711 19:06, 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. Coredesat 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Xavius

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

    No out-of-universe information, not notable. Pagrashtak 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:WAF and WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game.
      Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
      Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games.
      User:Krator (t c) 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Delete - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 22:51, 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 merge and redirect to List of games in Star Trek, a new article provided by Fayenatic. Very good work. Cool Hand Luke 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Dabo (Star Trek)

    Dabo (Star Trek) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Delete - prod removed by SPA without comment. No real-world significance to this fictional game and no reliable sources establish its notability. The notability of the Star Trek franchise does not impart notability to every fictional element of it. Otto4711 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. No real-world notability, no out-of-universe information. Pagrashtak 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to new List of games in Star Trek, see existing proposal suggested last month at WikiProject Star Trek. For future reference, it would be appreciated if deletion proposers would notify relevant WikiProjects. If immediate action is required, just redirect to Ferengi as was done in the case of Tongo (Star Trek) - leaving the categorisation - as this preserves the edit history and nav links for the benefit of a better future merge. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • But the list of games would also require reliable sources that establish the independent notability of its constituent items as well as the concept itself. The game doesn't become any more notable for being on a list of other non-notable games (the only notable ST game that comes to mind is 3-D chess and that has real-world notability in addition to its in-universe significance). See for instance the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek in which the collection of non-notable items was itself not notable. Otto4711 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to a new list of Star Trek games -- see commment at the AfD for Kadis-Kot. Pinball22 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: is it possible (and desirable) to redirect to the Memory Alpha article? I've never seen a redirect to an outside site, but it seems like that might be the most helpful option if someone actually wants to read about this. --Explodicle 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • We could link from an existing article, but we shouldn't inter-wiki redirect. Pagrashtak 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, then I agree we should delete.--Explodicle 01:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge per above. While it does not warrent its own article, it would still be useful. ffm 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
    • This game is notable at least for the role of Dabo girl (redirected to the game article), which has over 100,000 ghits. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • While I didn't look at all 100,000 of them, a cursory look through the first several pages indicate that the ghits are such things as credits lists for actresses who played Dabo girls and interviews with Chase Masterson who played Dabo girl Leeta on DS9. They do not appear to be about the topic of Dabo girls. Otto4711 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I would expect that to be the case. It establishes that the term Dabo girl is worthy of explanation within Wikipedia, either as a separate article or at least a redirect to an explanation within a longer article. Is that common ground? A separate article Dabo girl would requires some explanation of what Dabo is, either in its own article or a paragraph/section in a longer article/list. At the moment Dabo girl redirects to the article nominated for deletion; would you allow the content to be rewritten and transferred there, making the nominated article redirect there? This would preserve edit history and nav links. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't establish that the term is worthy of explanation within Wikipedia unless there are independent reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the concept "Dabo girl." Having a lot of Google hits does not mean that the subject of those hits is independently notable. "Dabo girl" is only relevant in ST in the context of the game "Dabo." "Dabo" is only relevant in relation to Quark's bar (the only place IIRC we see the game played). Quark's bar doesn't even have a separate article on Wikipedia or even a dedicated section within Quark (Star Trek). Otto4711 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Request for clarification: Are you saying that Dabo (Star Trek) and Dabo girl may not remain in Wikipedia even as redirects to Ferengi#Culture? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no opinion on Dabo girl but I don't think Dabo (Star Trek) is a likely search term. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Your draft doesn't include secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context either. In the future, you should draft in a sub-page of your userspace, rather than on the talk page. It makes it easier to sort out the edit history when it's time to move the content. Jay32183 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I've done what I can. Time's up tomorrow, and I don't expect to be available then. Let an independent Admin decide. I hope that the nominated article can remain as a redirect, and I still hope that the proposed List is sufficiently notable to be created; see also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadis-kot. If Dabo (Star Trek) must be deleted, I suggest that it be moved to Dabo girl to maintain page history; then my revised article can be copied & pasted. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you aren't getting the "reliable secondary sources" part. Memory Alpha is a wiki, it doesn't meet WP:RS. Finding sources is the key. Jay32183 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect to List of games in Star Trek, article is not sufficiently notable to stand alone, but would make a good group article. -- Maelwys (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per lack of real-world notability. The notion that "In such a highly notable franchise, recurring plot elements are themselves sufficiently notable" is WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEMIV (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 November 2007
    • Final case for redirection, not deletion: there are 14 articles on episodes, characters and actresses that link to Dabo girl. While I understand the logic above, It seems wrong to me that the outcome should create so many redlinks and leave the term without explanation. Redirection to Ferengi seems the absolute minimum acceptable outcome, not deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • New redirects can be made immediately after an AFD as long as they don't meet the deletion criteria for redirects. Jay32183 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you; I didn't know that. Even so, it seems unnecessary to delete the edit history. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
          • There's no reason to keep the edit history. If none of the content is kept, there's no reason to keep the history. Unless you argue that no article should ever be deleted, which you shouldn't be making. Jay32183 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
            • But some of the content IS kept at the redirect target: List of games in Star Trek if permitted, otherwise Ferengi. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Redirect does not equal merge. There are no adequate sources so a merger should not happen. When people say "delete" in an AFD, they mean "get rid of this article" not "hide this article under a redirect". Due to lack of sources, deleting the article is the only option. Jay32183 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
                • No, merger is also an option. I refer you to the quotation from WP:N in Carcharoth's post below. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • Without sources, there is no merging. Jay32183 (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • Which of us is misunderstanding WP:N? "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context". - Fayenatic (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • To be fair, the content, even if merged, does need sources. But lack of sources is not a reason to deny merging or delete. Lack of sources should be addressed with {{unreferenced}} or (better) fixing it yourself. I'll rustle up a reference to add. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • In a larger context, where is it not WP:OR, primary sources e.g. TV episodes may suffice. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                        • What you're missing is WP:NOT#PLOT. The article is enitrely plot summary, and merging will create an overly detailed plot summary. A lack of sources is a reason to delete or prevent a merger. Tags aren't magic, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. The game is shown in many DS9 episodes. The actual game is not so significant, but the culture around it is. This is the Star Trek equivalent of the casinos you see in "Casino Royale". I would add to the article that Quark recently hired a dabo boy (as suggested by one of his dabo girls) but that's outside canon. JIP | Talk 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The appearance of the game in in-universe episodes doesn't suffice in the absence of any reliable secondary sources that are substantially about the game. I note that the fictional casinos in Casino Royale (2006 film) do not appear to have independent articles, nor should they in the absence of reliable secondary sources about them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge. This is verifiable non-notable information that can be merged to an article on a notable topic (a suitable Star Trek article, such as Ferengi or Deep Space Nine) to provide the wider context that is needed. Otto is partially incorrect to say that a "list of games would also require reliable sources that establish the independent notability of its constituent items as well as the concept itself". All that is required is that the concept being listed is notable. The individual items do not have to be notable. I'm not clear why Otto (and others) persist in spreading this misleading viewpoint, when I said this in the past and Wikipedia:Notability quite clearly states the following:

      "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context" [...] "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event."

      It is quite clear here that a merge into Ferengi or Deep Space Nine is viable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to List of games in Star Trek, or Ferengi (preferably the former), per Fayenatic. --Fang Aili talk 03:29, 22 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. Coredesat 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Well of Eternity

    Well of Eternity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Excessive plot detail, no out-of-universe information, not notable. Pagrashtak 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Merge to either Warcraft universe or a List of Warcraft locations 132.205.99.122 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe Azeroth (Warcraft) would be a better target. Pagrashtak 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Target change' to Azeroth per shtak. 132.205.99.122 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete It has no sources and has little to none real world references. IAmSasori 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete fictional water sources need to be very relevant to something to be included. User:Krator (t c) 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Needs to demonstrate notability and it can't. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge to Ranger (Babylon 5). CitiCat ♫ 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Denn'Bok

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

    Delete - prod removed by SPA without comment. This fictional weapon has no real-world significance and no reliable sources that establish its notability. At best this merits a sentence at Ranger (Babylon 5), not an in-universe plot summary. Otto4711 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, violating policies and guidelines is a bad thing. Perhaps you should read some of those policies and guidelines and try to understand the reasons for them before spamming AFDs with largely identical comments that bear no relationship to the topic at hand? Otto4711 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And they bear no relationship to the topic at hand how? The only guideline this violates (it violates no policies) is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), a new guideline established after this article was created and which only the handful of deletionists on Wikipedia agree with, anyway. It is you spamming Wikipedia with this Articles for Deletion nonsense in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia and turn it into a redundant version of Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta.--Neverpitch 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • They demonstrate that you're putting no actual thought into the specific issues of the debate at hand but are instead seeking to make a point about your disdain for the consensus that the guidelines represent. The fact that you use the somewhat derogatory term "deletionists" and deem the entire AFD process to be "nonsense" further illustrates it. Individual AFD discussions are not the place to try to change policy or guidelines with which you don't agree. In the long run it doesn't really matter if you continue to troll AFD in this fashion because any admin who's paying any attention will recognize what you're doing and completely discount your "contributions" anyway, but it's still a nuisance. Wikipedia has standards and articles are expected to meet those standards. If you don't like the standards, work within the appropriate channels to modify them or start your own website for whatever you want. Otto4711 04:31, 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. Coredesat 07:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Calia Menethil

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

    No out-of-universe information, not notable. Pagrashtak 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:WAF and WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game.
      Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
      Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games.
      User:Krator (t c) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - no siginifcant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Lots of refs in wikis and blogs is not enough. - fchd 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge per WP:FICT's guidelines into List of Warcraft characters. Which, yes, has notability concerns of its own, but the set of characters has a better chance of establishing that than a single (minor) character. Sourcing is a cleanup issue, not cause for deletion. —Quasirandom 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Delete and redirect - Has no notability. Judgesurreal777 22:46, 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. Coredesat 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Allemaal baasjes

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

    Does not seem to meet or establish notability. Only a single sentence and an external link. "Failed" PROD, but prod was removed without the person addressing of the reasons for the prod (they also removed the orphan tag). Collectonian 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy it -no content can't be expanded seemingly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Any sources about the documentary would probably be non-English and hard for most Wikipedia editors to find, so I wouldn't mind giving the article the benefit of the doubt even without sources, if it implied the subject was notable enough for such sources to exist. Sadly, it doesn't. I've no objection to recreation if sources can be found. EALacey 20:19, 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. henrik•talk 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Austin Phantom Manhunt

    Violation of Wikipedia is not news, no sources beyond local, prod removed by author of article. Delete This is a Secret account 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • I removed the current issue aspect of the gun store stand off. Everything else is sourced from what people have added. Not sure why it should be deleted. Also, it only has local sources because thus far no one else has noticed this story. It's pretty big in Austin. Please keep. Thanks. Oddibe 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • See Wikinews, take it there, just because it's big in your city, doesn't mean it should have an article, also read WP:N, and WP:LOCAL. This is a Secret account 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It has implications far bigger than Austin. Also, there are thousands of articles that deal with events in just one area. I don't understand how that is the criteria. Does the event have to effect the entire state, nation, hemisphere, world? I believe this event will continue to grow. I'm confused by your attempt to delete this article. Oddibe 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it also needs to be published by multiple sources, preferbaly ones that aren't local, like CNN, or some place that isn't AustinThis is a Secret account 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It does have several multiple sources, but no national news organizations. Does this mean it must be deleted if the national corporate controlled news groups don't cover it? I'm afraid for our freedom of speech and the press if such is the case. If all our sources have to come from Fox, CNN, etc then we are in trouble! Oddibe 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If they don't cover it, that means it's not notable other than locally, that's why WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikinews exists, as this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. This is a Secret account 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It just got picked up by the CBS News and here's a link from the CBS station in Sacramento, CA. The story from the previous week was on the AP Breaking News Wire as well.

    http://cbs13.com/national/Austin.Gun.Shop.2.566362.html

    I still strongly disagree with your belief that unless the national corporate-controlled media reports on a story that it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Anyhow, this does meet it. Also, when the Capitol of the nation's 2nd largest state is shut down for hours because of a gun man that dissapears, then that is big news. Are you working for the govt or something? Why else the need to delete this thing? Why not go after vandalism that is so rampant? Oddibe 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

      • I don't work for the government, I'm saying that this is just a local event and there isn't notabilty, let other people comment on this article This is a Secret account 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Belongs in Wikinews, even if it gets "national coverage" Good example of how Wikipedia is plagued with recentism. Keeper | 76 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. this is interesting info especially the part that relates to conspiracies and other events. army helicopters, a missing gunman, a gun store standoff. very very interesting. i enjoyed reading this. more to this methinks. ChesterCharge 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Being interesting (and I agree the story is interesting) does not necessitate a encyclopedia article. "Interesting" is subjective. Encyclopedias are objective. Belongs in Wikinews. Keeper | 76 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: See WP:INTERESTING. shoy (words words) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as local news that would do better on Wikinews. (Do we have a deletion criteria for when Alex Jones gets on about something yet?) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I don't agree with the interesting arguement for this article. However, I'm concerned about the Patriot Act and other forms of govt censorship. This story is one that to me falls in the category of Area 51 or the Roswell conspiracy. There are undertones to it that must be delved into further. I believe Ron Paul spoke about this manhunt recently on the stump in NH, but I can't find it on his website. This is certain a relevant and pressing issue. I'd like to see it remain and be expanded. EdRooney 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Everything you're saying here is an argument for deleting this and moving it to Wikinews. Encyclopedias are not places for "pressing issues" and to see what happens with the story. (see WP:CRYSTAL). Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Maybe the Phantom was in fact, Alex Jones trying to get his own ratings up for his local airplay. doesn't matter, don't care, not encyclopedic without reliable sources. And please don't tell me that Alex Jones is reliable....sheesh. Keeper | 76 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete This paranoid drivel has no place on a serious encyclopedia. Any article which cites Alex Jones is pretty much by definition bollocks. Nick mallory 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I have removed the information from the Alex Jones radio show since some consider, and I agree, that it detracts from the article. Also, why does Trapper-Keeper have to throw his two cents in on any vote he disagrees with. I vote keep and that's just the way it is. Good bye and good luck. LST421listens 19:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — LST421listens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep This line of thought has been used before to delete articles. I think some people would prefer wikipedia only had 500 articles in it. What makes us (wikipedia) so great is the massive volume of articles on such wide topics. This is a keep for me. Let's not make wikipedia as boring as the freakin' World Book people! Chancygurl 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Chancygurl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete. Who is going to care about this in a month? It's a non-story, and there's no reason to keep it around. Rebecca 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Just because it was a slow news day in Austin, Texas, USA, does not mean that this is an item worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The fact that as I write this the article is still an orphan[33] reinforces its lack of notability. Looking more widely, all sorts of stuff gets posted to WP simply because it's the best-known wiki. The other wikis need better advertising to attract the items that are appropriate to them. --Smalljim (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I thought we are proud that wiki has so many articles on so many topics. Are we somehow running out of space? Since when has the criteria to delete been that an article may be forgotten over time? Don't we have a lot of articles that are obscure? This is a silly debate. Oh, and I'm also a former admin that quit for some time because of AfD debate death threats. Lots of lunatics on wikipedia I'll tell you!Ricksracks (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) — Rickstacks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. Do you have some reasoning for how this article meets the inclusion guidelines? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    Note I have blocked the three single-purpose keep accounts above, as socks. Thanks This is a Secret account 19:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Non-event, Non-story, non-article, belongs on WikiNews if it belongs anywhere at all, which is very doubtful. ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 17 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 Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lady Mara Fordragon

    Lady Mara Fordragon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No out-of-universe information, not notable. Pagrashtak 18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:WAF and WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game.
      Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
      Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games.
      User:Krator (t c) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge per WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters. Which, yes, has notability concerns of its own, but the set of characters has a better chance of establishing that than a single (minor) character. Sourcing is a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. —Quasirandom 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete or merge - Has no independent notability and therefore doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 23:13, 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 under WP:CSD#A7 Pedro :  Chat  10:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] John Parker (Mormon)

    John Parker (Mormon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No reason given for notability, non historical figure, just a person — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete Falls within WP:SPEEDY's A1 criteria ffm 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per ffm. Cumulus Clouds 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. So tagged. —David Eppstein 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete. Zero claim to notability. Furthermore, the claim that the BYU Press published a book about him in 1992 can't be correct, because BYU Press was not active from 1984 to 1997. [34] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 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 Unsourced OR. Spartaz Humbug! 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Comparison of Battlestar Galactica (1978) and Battlestar Galactica (2003)

    Comparison of Battlestar Galactica (1978) and Battlestar Galactica (2003) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article is unencyclopedic, unattributable, unverifiable and almost entirely original research. Could qualify as cruft. Cumulus Clouds 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. If this page qualifies we could have millions of non notable pages comparing various topics. Decoratrix 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep but add to relevant WikiProjects' cleanup lists central cleanup. The article is a legitimate one, and the general body is good, but some of the writing contravenes the MOS or is just inappropriate. It does need to be shrunk a bit, but as a wealth of relevant information it should be kept. If the final outcome of this AfD is to delete it, could someone please notify me and/or copy out the code of the article so that it can be moved to the Battlestar wiki - even if it fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of the writing is just too good to lose completely. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Instead of having this article as a clearinghouse for information on each of those characters, I would advise you to do things the right way and distribute them to each of the character's (or series') articles. If you do so, you must cite sources, otherwise it's original research and may be deleted. Cumulus Clouds 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The article is predominantly an unsourced pile of original research that is more suited for a fansite than an article in an encyclopedia.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki to the BattlestarWiki. 132.205.99.122 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki per IP above.   jj137 (Talk) 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete What an enormous amount of material! It's all unsourced, even if uncontroversial, so it falls somewhere into the "marshy middle ground" between original research and synthesis. I would change this opinion, of course, if an independent source made the comparison (rather than the article editor). Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki Not particualry useful, and violated WP:OR. Still would be valuable to fans of show, however. ffm 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki. Since there is a "BattlestarWiki", that's a perfect place for it. I enjoyed the article a lot, so it'll be nice if it survives somewhere. Interesting original research is still original research. Mandsford 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwikied to the BattlestarWiki. Move to Speedy Delete this article and Speedy Close this nom. Cumulus Clouds 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki -- only if released under this Creative Commons license. Since the GFDL and the CC-NC-BY-SA 3.0 license are different, there is no way Battlestar Wiki can accept that work legally. Aside from some of the policies we've copied from Wikipedia, which we've noted as being released under GFDL, everything else is released under the aforementioned CC license. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep it is rather unfortunate that the original research policy, originally designed to keep crackpot claims from being treated as legitimate encyclopedic facts, is being used to remove material such as this. The "claims" being made by this article are verifiable by anyone who has viewed the two series. This is as much "original research" as saying "the sun is hot" is; and while there do seem to be people who would demand a citation for saying "the sun is hot" (and sure, such a citation could be found, but that's not the point), common sense should override the literal application of policy. That's why we have ignore all rules. The fact that license issues forbid us from transwiki-ing this to BSW only intensifies the arguement to keep, instead of allowing a good collaborative article like this to be wiped out in the collateral damage of hyperenforcement of policies, an inexplicable hatred of "fancruft", and incompatibilities of licenes. DHowell (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Michael McGee, Jr.

    Michael McGee, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article on an alderman of Milwaukee currently under federal indictment and with a somewhat checkered history. Article is skating close to the WP:BLP/WP:CSD#G10 line, but I'm not sure that it actually crossed. While local politicians are not usually notable by our relevant standard, this one may be. I, however, think he isn't notable and the article should be deleted. GRBerry 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC) If deleted, Image:Michael McGee federal criminal complaint.pdf should also be deleted. GRBerry 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. It appears based on the sourcing and length of his career that he has been slowing gaining notability. The recent amounts of coverage simply confirm this, so I would say a certain keep per our notability standards. If some BLP clean up is needed, that is fine, but it doesn't detract in any way from the fact he's notable. This Google news archive search, if you look up and down the various pages, also shows many more sources than just the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that is heavily featured as a source in the article--he has national United States coverage. • Lawrence Cohen 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Definitely the most notable Milwaukee alderman currently, and he receives just as much coverage as the mayor and police chief in Milwaukee from the media because of his current problems and involvement in community affairs, along with the criminal probe currently going on. Some extra information should be removed because the article reads long as it is. Nate 22:14, 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 Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Drafa Plague

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

    Delete - disputed prod. This fictional disease has no real-world significance and no reliable sources that establish real-world notability. At best it deserves a sentence at Civilizations_in_Babylon_5#Markab and not an in-universe plot summary. Otto4711 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Non notable on its own. Decoratrix 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to Confessions and Lamentations, the episode about the plague. Pinball22 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:49, 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 keep. Coredesat 07:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    I have to admit that I was looking forward to being the admin who closes this debate, and not just to say Never repent, Harlequin! or The Revolution is Now!. In light of the above closer's noncomment close (and don't get me wrong: the majority of the hunderds of deletion debates I closed, at least as keept, were likewise minimalist or non commentary), I am taking the liberty of adding (yes, unconventionally), what would have been my closing comment, which consists of several interrelated, critical tenants.
    First, this isn't merely "keep," this is unanimous keep; and I would have discounted Tom Harrison's opinion to delete, because as the sole dissenting voice (which we welcome), he carried the burden of responsibility to at least touching on what anyone else wrote.
    The fact that this debate was resisted at deletion review is also a cause for concern about happenings there. I submit that anything, anything, that has been viewed millions of times, is automatically notable. Not to mention when this involves a two-hour piece of narrative. Hundreds of thousands is also, in my view, likewise notable (tens of thousands is more borderline on the notability threshold).
    Of course, an entry can be deleted for being simply "promotional," and I mean that in the non ideological, spamvertisement sense. Which is clearly and unequivocally not the case here; I have seen the movie and it is rather obvious to me that the entry is, basically, a brief and incomplete summary of its contents. Now, I knew that the conspiracy label, de facto, lowers the notability of subjects. What is, however, surprising is how far it could be lowered; how detached from reality and how bureaucratized deletion review has become to relist an entry to which the word millions of (downloads) can be applied. It takes a lot of inertia, a lot of circumvention of common sense, I challenge, for deletion review regulars and the admin who closed that debate, specifically, to have us arrive at this. I hope this note is read and understood in the constructive spirit it was delivered, and I hope both new and veteran editors find it to be of value. El_C 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Zeitgeist, the Movie

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie (second nomination)
    Zeitgeist, the Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article was deleted at its prior AfD for lack of sources. After several DRVs, a new revision with new citations was composed in userpage. DRV permitted a recreation and relisting here in light of this new information. Deletion remains on the table for notability concerns. It hardly seems necessary to add that the ideology (and factual accuracy) of the film is irrelevant. Only the article's compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at issue. Xoloz 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closer - I reopened this AfD after a non admin close. In view of the history of this article, it's AfD and DRV, this AfD should stay open until at least 16:13, 18 November 2007 to allow all those interested in commenting to comment. -- Jreferee t/c 23:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — I manage the Zeitgeist Facebook Group, which now has over 18,000 members. Regardless of the accuracy of content of the film, it deserves a Wikipedia page. The film has been seen by MILLIONS of individuals (Google Video 5.2 million). Most of them will be heading to Google the film and expecting a Wikipedia page to pop up and explain what they just saw. -Edward Greve 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - it does seem necessary to add that the ideology and accuracy of the film is irrelevant, because it forms the basis of many deletes. Fact is, this film--whether one likes it or not--is a phenomenon on the Internet. If Wikipedia is to be relevant, a proven phenomenon (even if one looks at the 2,000,000 downloads on YouTube) needs to be discussed. Precisely because the film may be inaccurate. This is the place to educate those 2,000,000 people who watch it what, exactly, are the criticisms of it. We are here to educate, and by denying a place at the table for something that may be inaccurate simply because we don't like it does a disservice to the goals of this project. --David Shankbone 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — unlike the last dozen or so times, this article seems to follow our guidelines for notability and the article is concise and reasonably neutral. --Haemo 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - With so much reliable source material, the topic meets WP:N. The present article seems to accurately reflect the collective of the independent reliable source coverage of the film. That is Wikipedia concern. From Wikipedia's perspective, it is irrelevant on how the independent reliable sources choose to cover a topic. If the collective of the independent reliable source coverage is POV, then Wikipedia need only accurately reflect that POV coverage for the Wikipedia article to meet the WP:NPOV policy. If the film itself reflects ideology, accuracy, inaccuracy, fantasy, hoax, etc., that too is irrelevant because the film itself is not independent of the topic per WP:N and not a valid Wikipedia source of information for the Wikipedia article. In other words, the truth of the film content itself is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article on the film. If the film served as a source of material for the Wikipeia article, the Wikipedia article would be nothing more than a WP:SOAPBOX for the film. Since the present article seems to accurately reflect the collective of the independent reliable source coverage of the film, WP:A no longer is an issue. -- Jreferee t/c 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. While I concede that the ideology is not an argument for deletion, I still question the notability of the film. The only notability marks I still see are The Stranger (which I question as a very reliable source, although a very entertaining one), Irish Times (which more ridicules the film than anything), and Globe and Mail - which is a pay site. I reserve the right to change my mind here, but that's where I'm coming from at this moment. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that you personally believe the film is not important/significant enough for there to be a Wikipedia article on the topic or are you saying that there is not enough reliable source material to justify a Wikipedia article on the topic? -- Jreferee t/c 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • At this point, it's more the reliable sources I think - I'm not sure that the source material is all that reliable, with the possible exception of David's note on the G&M below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The Globe & Mail is the New York Times of Canada. Not being able to read its article seems a poor reason to discount it (would you do the same for a Wall Street Journal article). You are still deleting based upon your problems with the film, as opposed to whether it deserves coverage. I have problems with the with the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, but they still deserve coverage because its a...phenomenon. Three sources, two of which are very solid, pass the source sniff test. --David Shankbone 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind, switching to Keep per note from Pdelongchamp (below). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I presented the revised article to DRV so I guess this goes without saying. I did want to mention that you can easily find a free copy of the Globe and Mail article by searching it's title on Google. and just to confirm David's comment, yes, the globe is the largest national paper in canada. Pdelongchamp 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Kind of flopping-back-and-forth weak keep. I'm not thrilled with the sources; a look at both the Irish Times and Globe and Mail stories will indicate that they're both opinion pieces, not actual coverage, and the Stranger gives it all of three paragraphs. However, they're in major publications, and they do devote the entire column to the film, so it may edge through. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and someone might want to pre-emptively semiprotect this discussion, considering how the last one went... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm still kind of traumatized from that last one, but I think at this point it looks pretty safe. Cross your fingers, though. --Haemo 23:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. What the hell. I am having a little problem with the categorization, which seems to be pushing the envelope a bit. False flag operations seems a particularly inappropriate category. - Crockspot 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      Looks like some kind soul agreed and fixed the categories. --Haemo 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      That would be me. I rarely wait around for someone else to do what I can do better myself. :) - Crockspot 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - demonstrates notability, insufficient reason to delete. Anchoress 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.197.244 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - A documentary is a documentary, regardless of it's mainstream acceptance and/or coverage. If it is important enough for ninjastrikeforce to write an article about how big brother-ish it is to delete this wikipedia article, then isn't that enough by itself to keep this? But seriously though, if every little internet meme gets to have an article that no one thinks twice about deleting, then why can't a controversial and thought provoking small budget documentary have the same respect? Tubeyes 12:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, a documentary is a documentary — but not necessarily a notable one. That's what we're discussing here — not whether other stuff exists or if it's thought-provoking. --19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      Well, to date 5,198,799 people have the watched the "official Google release", not to mention the various youtube versions, torrents and other alternative sources. It was reviewed by Jay Kinney

    (ex-EiC/Publisher of Gnosis Magazine) in the Boing Boing magazine. [35] It is on 'The Internet Archive', which is a member of the American Library Association. Zeitgeist was covered in the NewTimes of San Luis Obispo County, California, which is the largest circulated paper in the region. [36] There is a review on Newsvine, which is owned by MSNBC. [37] Illuminati conspiracy theorist Wes Penre wrote a review. [38] The Irish Times wrote an article. [39] As well as the afore mentioned Canadian Globe and Mail article and a slew of conspiracy and religious websites, forums and blogs. I'm sure there are other valid sources, and I'm sure some will consider a number of the above sources to be invalid, but the fact is that Zeitgeist is not going unnoticed and it is not "unnotable". This is apparent by the millions that have seen it, as well as those that have chosen to write about it in prestigious as well as not so prestigious news sources. Tubeyes 11:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, I am aware of the sourcing; which is why I recommended keeping it. However, I'm trying to make sure this discussion does not degenerate into the joke the last one was by ensuring that people stay on topic and don't focus on irrelevant side-points with have nothing to do with the discussion. ---- Haemo (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Clear keep nontrivial coverage in reliable published sources. <eleland/talkedits> 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Some people are quite offended by this movie, but NPR stations have been giving away a copy of the DVD as a fundraising premium. With KPFK, it has also been part of their "Critical Thinker's Pack" for larger donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I don't really edit wikipedia much but I feel that the purpose of Wikipedia is to let the truth out on subjects such as this one. I often go to wikipedia for information, as many people do, and I'm sure many have checked Wikipedia hoping for an article on Zeitgeist to get more info and weren't able to. --DatDoo 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Looks to be notable film and meets WP:V. JForget 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


    • Keep An encyclopedia should remain ideologically neutral. In this case declaring "non-notability" would practically equate to censorship, or would be equated to censorship by wikipedia's growing body of critics. Commenting on ideology or political relevance of a topic (no matter how obtusely done) ought to be kept to the discussion page, IF AT ALL. We all know that bias is inevitable in such comments , they can never be objective. Readers ought to be left to make their own judgments... after all this is an encyclopedia, not a politics site. BloomerBuzzer 12:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      No, it wouldn't. Wikipedia doesn't function to the tune of its "critics" and the only thing we're commenting on is the notability of the film in question. "Ideological neutrality" has nothing to do with it. ---- Haemo (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep This article is important since it allows disambiguation of the movie and clarification. Motives for deletion would be that the article promotes the movie, but the article remains neutral. Articles like this are vital to stop memes before they become viral and keep the readership of Wikipedia informed. Webslingr (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete promotional; not notable Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - This article cannot even be considered for deletion anymore: this movie is famous enough to have an associated Wikipedia entry. This deletion suggestion is made by wikipedians who are in fact just CIA/MI5 terrorists since these CIA/MI5 terror groups are employing censorship policies to try to hide information from us the people. These terror organizations are so ridiculous. In fact, their censorship wannabes are just giving more strength to this article. CuandoCubango (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, right. I argued to delete this last time — am I a CIA spook? --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Per sources - enough people seem to have been idiot enough to watch and buy into its claims that it has become notable enough through controversy. --Strothra (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Coverage in good sources, downloaded 5 million times. What a weird notion to delete this article Bishonen | talk 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Keep - passes WP:NOTE, per references in article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Certainly notable. Eeso (talk) 02:50, 18 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. Coredesat 07:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Universal Telecom

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

    Advertising by company insider Mayalld 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep It was already dismissed for speedy deletion on these grounds and the page as I see it contains nothing more than matter of fact. As the page was just created and is a stub, I don't see why it shouldn't have time to improve.--Chadamir 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. I may change my opinion if someone bothers to come up with reliable sources on the company, and rewrites the article. As it is, it's a self-posted advertisement, violating WP:COI. Mangojuicetalk 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. I'm not sure if it is by a "company insider" but it is definitely an ad.   jj137 (Talk) 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Written like an ad ffm 00:23, 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 (but only in a trimmed-down form) — Caknuck (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Philip F. Deaver

    Philip F. Deaver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced, few Google hits, appears notability is a minor award given by the Georgia Press Club. Main problem is few outside sources - it is mostly self referenced, and when I went to look for viable outside sources I found few that meet w:BLP notability guidelines. A related author to this one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Forrester. Two separate editors PROD-ed the article, but its creator just took it down without improving it where it needs to be improved. A lot of unnecessary unnotable minutia from the person's life comprises the bulk of the article, which was the same with the Forrester article that was deleted. David Shankbone 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. Gary Forrester most likely created this article as a means to make himself seem notable.Comment While he has more claims to notability, there are BLP vios abounding, the claim to notability may not be strong enough. And there also seems to be a COI problem arising. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Notable enough. Part of the nominator's argument is the abundance of personal data. That is not a basis for deletion. Let the article develope. One third party source calls Deaver the best living American short story writer. The article has sources. Why dont we concentrate on deleting thousands of trivial meaningless articles on cartoon characters and non notable video games that cluttr wikipedia instead of going on a witchhunt for notable intellectuals who are contributing to our society. Decoratrix 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • A very small part of my reasoning has to do with the largess of the article being about the minutia of this person's "Journey through Life". Several PRODs have been done and removed without the article "developing". There's no witch hunt here, please AGF - I'm not a deletionist and I think in the year and a half I've only nominated three articles for deletion. Fact is, this person doesn't seem particularly notable and if he is, then sources should be preferred - sources as in references. Being mentioned by Garrison Keiler (who mentions a large swathe of writers, many unnotable) and a minor award here and there isn't our bar. --David Shankbone 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment for Admin Several PRODs have been done and removed without the article "developing" - I think Shankbone needs an administrative notice on this point. The PROD is not a cattle-prod which contributers can use to startle other contributers into "fixing" an article.Yeago (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Paaaleeese "notable intellectuals who are contributing to our society"???What a load of horse sh#t. Save it for people who deserve that kind of praise please.--70.109.223.188 17:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep but cut down. Awards predate the internet and Google and much of his attention is largely from non-digital lit-mags. I agree with the 'Journey through Life' aspect that Shankbone mentions (but I'm not really sure that deletion is an appropriate cure). As for sources not being out there that fit w:BLP, he published an autobiography a little over a year ago. On a side note, I don't think its appropriate to delete an article for lack of sources before ever experimenting with the fact tag.Yeago 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    You were PROD-ed on this twice and never once supplied a reference, but just kept removing the PROD: so here we are. Improve the article, but as it stands now it doesn't seem meritorious of staying up. It can always be reconstituted later. --David Shankbone 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not on the Wikipedia payroll. Sorry buddy. Put a flag up and call for others. I've already done enough for this article. You can't just dish out editor ultimatums.Yeago 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you had left the PROD tags up somebody else could have seen the article was questionable and taken steps to remedy the problems. --David Shankbone 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you had left lack-of-source tags somebody else could have seen the article was questionable and taken steps to remedy the problems.Yeago 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not on the Wikipedia payroll. Sorry buddy. --David Shankbone 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    You don't have to be on the Wikipedia payroll to use the appropriate tags. You seem to have a dim understanding of the PROD tag you are so quick to use, education follows. Firstly, you cannot PROD a person; you PROD an article. This is a volunteer effort, and you don't get to issue decrees to other editors who are at least as lazy as you. Secondly, it is not a functional equivalent of lesser tags such as fact tags: one may agree with the reason for a PROD without agreeing that a PROD tag is appropriate (read the tag, it says more or less this).Yeago 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, now is my turn to educate you: I did some research on the individual, as I mention in my opening statement, and found few sources, if any, that indicate notability. Two separate people PRODed the article; only one kept removing it. --David Shankbone 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Right, but now you're just repeating things already addressed. End of wiki-spat, I guess.Yeago 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It probably doesn't bear on whether this should be deleted, but nominator David Shankbone violated procedure by nominating this article a second time for WP:PROD. Once an article has been prodded and the prod removed, it is no longer an eligible candidate for the prod process. This should be taken into account when reading the exchange above in which Shankbone berates a contributor for removing the second prod. —David Eppstein 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. He has had short stories appear in some well-respected collections. That's good enough. --C S 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Can somebody perhaps provide some evidence that the collections in which stories appeared and the (as far as I can see) one award that is mentioned are significant enough to convey notability? Thanks, --Crusio 10:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Tough thing to convey if you're unfamiliar with literary magazines. You'd have to do your own footwork on the topic of lit-mags. Suffice it to say these are by no means 'zines'. Also, Google 'Flannery O' Connor' if the existence of its article is not enough.Yeago 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Article has been significantly cut down, satisfying my (at least) anxiety over its bloat.Yeago 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Tough to say since there's not enough truly conclusive evidence in the article, and literary awards (particularly for poetry) are hard to judge from the outside. Nonetheless, an O'Henry Award is a major award for short fiction, as is the Flannery O'Conner award. The Kenyon Review and the New England Review are important literary magazines (I don't know the rest). Put with three published books (two by University presses) and a professorship, I'm willing to say that notability has been established unless someone more familiar with the literary world can argue otherwise. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • weak keep or, per yeago, cut down the vanity stuff... Tiptopper 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete --JForget 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Beau Gunderson

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

    Losing candidate for a district election. Previous related AFDs (or VFDs as they were called then - before my time!) didn't reach any consensus, so I'll relist this. See

    Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rick Barsky
    Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Carla Marie Dancey
    Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Magnus Thompson Montchav 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:BIO. A very minor candidate who received less than four percent of the vote in a district election. No achievements, political or otherwise, and the only sources are his own website and local news coverage. —dustmite 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. and dustmite. JohnCD 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Epbr123 16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Cumulus Clouds 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Lost not necessary gor unnotable ... but it helps Victuallers 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. ffm 00:24, 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. This is a Secret account 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Bouwfonds

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

    Expired prod. For a foreign (to me, being from the US) I was hesistant to delete based on notability. Some evidence of its size in the Netherlands (70,000+ google count). Brought here for more discussion. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete This article about a real estate company does not assert the importance of the subject except for the organization's size. It certainly appears non notable. --Stormbay 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What? You say a company with a revenue of half a billion € is not notable? - Thank you, Esprit for sensitive handling. Keep, but expand. I added interwiki links.--Peter Eisenburger 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep view. I see no reason to delete the article at this point. Looking at the Dutch Wikipedia there is material that can be worked in for example from here. There are also plenty of news reports for example here. If kept, someone knowledgeable needs to rewrite since there is a complex history that needs unravelling. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Bridgeplayer. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 21 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. Coredesat 07:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Habib ibn Mazahir

    Habib ibn Mazahir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Firstly, there are notability problems. Secondly, it is difficult to tell if this is about a real person or a fictional character. If it's about a real person, then the page is full of personal trivia and non-encyclopediac info; and if it's about fiction that should be made clear Montchav 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 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. Coredesat 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] IPayOne

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

    Previously prodded, but I'm not sure whether to have it delete. Originally prodded due to "The article deals with a now defunct real estate company that is recognizable because of purchased naming rights for a stadium. It appears non notable. " I personally think that buying purchasing rights to a stadium, with caacity of around 15000 people, is notable enough for the Wikipedia. If not, redirect to San Diego Sports Arena. Montchav 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Redirect to San Diego Sports Arena. Little difference between the article and the stadium's naming rights section in terms of facts. Only difference is in perspective. - Optigan13 07:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Does not need its own article ffm 00:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The article deals with a now defunct real estate company that is recognizable because of purchased naming rights for a stadium. It is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:01, 17 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 From the looks of things, the nominator switched from delete to neutral, so I believe that can count as a withdrawal. Also, there seems to be no other opposition. Non-Admin closure. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Majster Kat

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

    I believe this band fails notability on several fronts, even though it is trying to assert one. Some of the arguments are e.g. listed on the German wikipedia. Notice also dates of creation in other languages articles (except the Slovak one) - this could be a (band)spam. If I would have the chance to vote, delete. MarkBA t/c/@ 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    It was ment not like spam, but like spreading new information cause of the current new release. The dates of creation have their meaning - unless the band doesn´t have the official release, it should not be here..The official release is only 2 weeks old. That are the reasons. I´m sorry if I have broken some wiki laws, that´s not my aim. Lossamo
    That's good to see you don't have any intention to break wiki laws, however, I'm still pretty convinced that this should be out mainly per notability and possibly relevance. And yes, such practice can and is considered spam. But let the community decide. MarkBA t/c/@ 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    OK, I'm reducing my vote to weak delete, as notability is at least proven somehow. But I'm still not sure about reliability of sources (except the link #10 and maybe #11). MarkBA t/c/@ 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    According to WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, any criterion is sufficient to proclaim a band notable. As to the sources, I think they are pretty reliable, given the genre. #1 refers to online charts, but virtually no metal music (including the most famous bands in the world) makes it to the charts of mainstream radio stations. #2 and #4 are major websites on concerts in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, proving the band's tours regardless of a less reliable #3. #5 is the personal website of the "member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (quoted from WP:MUSIC). I am not so familiar with the music style, so I cannot comment on the sources #6-9. You have accepted reliability of sources #10 and #11, so there is no need to discuss them. To sum up, this band seems to meet at least five (perhaps even six) criteria of notability in case, when one would be perfectly sufficient. Tankred 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, I'm changing my vote to Neutral, with yet possible change of vote. But believe me, when I saw first the title, I thought it was talking about some historical figure ("Majster Kat"=Master Executioner) and those interwikis - I'd thought it was another case of cross-wiki spamming (even though I'm assured it wasn't - well, who knows). I'd like to let this AfD run to see what the others think. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The criteria of notability are listed at WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. I am not sure whether this article meets any of them. I would like to encourage Lossamo to read these criteria and state explicitly which one can be met by this band. I will be happy to vote "keep" if notability is proven. Tankred 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    I´ll try to proof some of those notability criteria, although I think everything would be OK, if I didn´t write this article in 5 languages :-( I´m a fool.
    So:
    "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." [[40]] - A Czech metal music chart, Majster Kat is there for 5 months
    "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" [[41]], [[42]], [[43]]- Tour in Czech Republic
    "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" [[44]] - Los plays with an ex-singer of a very popular Rockband Metalinda, wellknown in Slovakia and Czech Republic
    "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" [[45]], [[46]], [[47]] [[48]],
    "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award." [[49]] - Majster Kat was a candidate in a category Music Group on the biggest Slovak Music Award
    "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Majster Kat is frequently played for example in this Czech and Slovak Rock Radio - [[50]]
    Lossamo 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. The evidence of notability provided above is convincing. Tankred 01:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ This is a Secret account 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Meets several of the MUSIC criterion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:30, 22 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. Coredesat 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Obadiah Knight Elementary School

    Obadiah Knight Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District. Vegaswikian 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 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. Coredesat 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Okazaki Fragments (band)

    Okazaki Fragments (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Totally non-notable band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermonkeynuts (talk • contribs)

    • Delete - The best claim they have: "During a two week flurry of creative energy in the summer of 2007, the Fragments were able to record a second EP and play two concerts in the Sea Girt area." That just doesn't make it per WP:MUSIC. --Evb-wiki 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete NN. Decoratrix 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete for notability, although the garage band in action photo is a nice touch. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 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. Coredesat 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Rui Kitamura

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

    Came 4th at the X Games, is that enough to warrant notability? Montchav 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete not notable. JohnCD 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment if the X Games are considered 'the highest level in amateur sports' then mere participation in the games makes them a notable athlete. Edward321 (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The subject does not appear notable given the nature of the sport and his participation in it. --Stormbay (talk) 03:17, 18 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 merged by TerriersFan. This is a Secret account 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Swarthmore College Computer Society

    Swarthmore College Computer Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    non-notable computer club Montchav 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:36, 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. This is a Secret account 00:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Tris McCall

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

    Has been prodded and de-proddeed, then re-prodded a few times, all by others and not me, so best take arguments over here. Montchav 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete The man was directly covered in a New York Times piece, but since he is an author a lot of the google hits turn up his(or closely related) websites and work. Article also appears to have some tone issues, and was written by two single purpose authors. So delete since we can't build an article out of a single piece of news coverage, and the tone issues would require heavy cleanup regardless. - Optigan13 07:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - I don't really follow the above line of thought by Optigan13 which amounts to not much more than "this article requires further refinement." The article's subject appears to satisfy notability requirements and also seems to have received reliable coverage in media and exposure as a musician both independently and through established commercial channels such as iTunes. Regardless of its origins as an article, I don't see reason to delete it outright and would rather see it retained and improved. D. Brodale 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete only one independent source, WP:N requires 2. iTunes is at best a catalogue, a primary source, doesn't particularly give independent reliable reviews of anything just fancruft. It would be as valuable a source for building music articles as MySpace is: useful, but not in isolation.Garrie 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - I've added a second (well, third if you count the link that has expired) independent reference for Tris McCall, and would ask that you reconsider your stance on WP:N. This took all of 5 minutes of work on Google. My mention of iTunes was not to suggest it as a proxy as a reference, but rather a measure that this fellow isn't just some random person off the street. D. Brodale 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The article lacks importance; notability not there! --Stormbay 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - can you elaborate on your statement? I was under the impression that WP:AfDs were to be discussions. D. Brodale 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        I didn't find anything either in the sources provided or in my search that raised the subject to a notable level. This is not a negative about the subject but rather a measurement, in my opinion, of the encyclopedic importance of the subject. --Stormbay 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, but perhaps there's some misunderstanding on my end of what would constitute notoriety for a musical artist with respect to Wikipedia. I have little to no invested interest in Tris McCall in particular, but if a focus piece in the NYT, naming as a top cultural figure in Jersey City by an area paper, and clear artistic contributions as an individual artist and band member don't meet the bar, what does? D. Brodale 04:52, 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. Coredesat 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Banks boyz

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

    Of the 37 Ghits for the band name, none are related: [53]. Of the 4 results for the debut album "If the streets don't kill me" there is one set of lyrics to a possibly unrelated song, and 3 refs to the sale (?) of an instrumental track. The references in the article are a deleted MySpace account, a flyer for an Estonian classical music festival, and a site that's gone offline. Fanfare Magazine, a reference without a link, appears to be a mainly a classical music mag; I don't know how likely it would be to write about a group doing "soulful rap ballads". A search of the websites of the British tabloids produces no reference to the "drug and fight rumours" apparently reported in them. IP editor removed prod without comment. Kateshortforbob 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete as unverifiable and possibly a hoax, unless somebody has better luck with reliable sourcing than you or I have. You'd think an album that sold that many copies would come up something on google. As written, I get only this article. Correcting to "don't", I get nothing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unverifiable, seems to be a hoax. ffm 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 08:00, 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 - WITHDRAWN per WP:SNOW Mayalld 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (non-admin)

    [edit] Ego Pharmaceuticals

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

    Clear WP:COI from the only substantial editor, who appears to be a representative of the company. Initially introduced plenty of material written in the first person. This has since been somewhat toned down. The article fails to maintain even a vestige of WP:NPOV, and goes through sentence after sentence of heaping praise upon the company. This is pretty blatant advertising. Only contributor is a SPA. Mayalld 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak keep Ad-style writing is a cause for clean-up, not necessarily deletion. The question is whether or not the company passes notability guidelines for corporations. I'm going to go and try to delete the advertising and see if there is anything left. (As an aside, I do enjoy the irony of seeing a company named "Ego" AfD'd for reasons of vanity...) - EronTalk 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Even after your sterling efforts to clear out the advertising fluff, the article remains totally one-sided and soesn't even attempt to portray the company in a dispassionate manner. As the only substantial edits have come from the company, it remains uncertain that a neutral editor will come along to put it right. {{npov}} tagged to give it a chance. Mayalld 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep It's quite obviously a notable company [54] (a 50 year old pharmaceutical company could hardly be otherwise), and COI and neutrality issues (which are not particularly severe now in any case) are not reasons for deletion. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\talk 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and cleanup. The company is clearly notable. While there are issues with NPOV and COI these are not insurmaountable and not grounds for deletion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and cleanup - notable Australian company - I believe it passes notability guidelines notwithstanding it is a private company. AfD is never meant to be a substitute for clean up.--Golden Wattle talk 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. Zero substantial coverage in reliable sources. The "keep" opinions are at odds with applicable guidelines. Sandstein (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Harry Tuffins

      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}}
    Harry Tuffins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Almost identical to the Four Lanterns AfD last week which was an article on a small chain of regional local takeaways. While the article does provide sources it does not asert any notability and they appear trivial in nature, which is the primary criterion from WP:ORG. Most of the information comes from its own website and as we know Wikipedia is not a PR wire to get a company's name out there possibly applies -- in short, nothing that proves its notability.

    Obviously, I have tried to raised the issue of notability on a number of occasions but there seems to be ownership issues as User:Maxburgoyne defends the article without wanting to discuss the issue and just removes any tags without discussion. I have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page but this editor seems to take it personally, so I thought the community should decide. Vintagekits 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Strong Keep, Of course I feel some connection to an article I largely created.I do not work in a the shop! Only 3 out of 13 references are to the company website.
    A brief review of Vintagekits behaviour on wikipedia will illustrate my reluctance to engage with him.
    I cannot see why this article fails the notbaility guidelines. Again, he who asserts must prove and not by citing an irrelevant example.
    Let the Admin decide?--MJB 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, Harry Tuffins. A few points:
    • The article is well-referenced,
    • The company is of real local significance,
    • It is referenced by 5 other wikipedia pages,
    • At least 7 users have contributed to it,
    • Finally, who asserts must prove. Why remove it?

    --MJB 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment, only five registered users (that includes both of us) have ever edited the article - 2 of which just made very minor edits, 2 others just to question its notability - each time you dismiss this, - the rest of the edits to the article were made by yourself. You refered to another editors questioning of its notability as nonsense, did you not want to engage with him also because of his previous conduct also? There is no need to personalise this - please focus on the article - if I had to guess I would say you either worked their or owned the shop. However, all of this is irrelevant and does not address notability. As for "who asserts must prove" - I have shown that if fails WP:N and WP:ORG but its not my decision to delete it, it is the communities - instead of arguing with me I would advise the you convince them of its notability instead of arm waving and bickering with me. regards--Vintagekits 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, Please note that User:Maxburgoyne has breached wiki policy by canvassing a number of editors talk pages to encourage them to !vote to keep this article. See here, here, here, here, here and here. And then deleted a notice to stop canvassing here. In order to attempt to depersonalise this for MaxB I am now going to withdraw from commenting on this AfD unless specifically requested to comment of something.--Vintagekits 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, I apologise for the canvassing. My talk page is my own business. I am now off to drown some kittens. --MJB 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep. To quote WP:N Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." The article deals with a subject -- a feature, amounting to an institution, of the life of the area in question -- which is worthy of being noted (no less so, than, say, a local sports club, huge numbers of which are written about in Wp) and one which has attracted and does attract notice. That the subject might be thought "unfamous" or judged "unimportant" by any individual user of the Wikipedia is irrelevant in the context of the proposal to delete the work that has been done here. -- Picapica 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, oh dear - the first of the canvassed editors to appear! and a "strong keep" without addressing why this these local shops are notable - very interesting.--Vintagekits 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Hmm. So much for your I am now going to withdraw from commenting on this AfD unless specifically requested promise. Shouldn't you be reporting that specific request here if you think that MJB should be disclosing his contacts with other editors? At least they are public. MJB could always have e-mailed me if he was trying to do anything underhand (I, for one, am always open to e-mail contacts from like-minded, or even unlike-minded, fellow editors). It is for you, who wish to change the status quo, to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. I have stated why I think this article deals with a noteworthy subject. So far all you have done yourself is mention a discussion about another article altogether. -- Picapica 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (Not "the first of the canvassed editors" by the way.)
    • Comment, I have quite clearly outlined in the opening paragraph why I feel the article fails WP:N - as I did almost identically for the Four Lanterns AfD, which was also a small localised chain of 5 or so outlets like this one. If you can give me a reason why these particular petrol stations are notable then I would be delighted to reconsider - however, I can see nothing of note which is contained within the article. As for you not being canvassed, on that score its case closed. regards --Vintagekits 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Other editors may be interested to note that User:Vintagekits has edited the wording of his point about my being "the first of the canvassed editors" after I had responded to it (compare [55]). Since he appears to be hot on spotting policy breaches, he might like to give us chapter-and-verse for this particular infringement, as it surely must be, of the rules of honest and open debate on Wikipedia. -- Picapica (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Fails WP:CORP/WP:N. SirFozzie 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. He owns half a dozen tiny shops, big deal. Complete lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Crazysuit 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep this supermarket chain is notable in the Shropshire area and is an example of a smaller chain of supermarkets, one which has not been swallowed up by the big boys. David 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reluctant delete I really wanted to say keep, as I agree with David's sentiments, but the sources in the article at the moment are just too weak - far too much is sourced from the company's own website, directory-style listings or bikers' blogs, rather than respectable secondary sources. My own fifteen minutes of searching, and the fact that the sourcing hasn't been improved in the six months the article's been up lead me to believe that the sourcing is unlikely to improve. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as it fails notability inclusion criteria. Handschuh-talk to me 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Very Strong Keep although User:Maxburgoyne did post a message on my talk page I'm extremely glad he did. This company has a very large image throughout Mid Wales and the Marches, such that it can almost be said to have gained 'folklore' status for its cheap prices. It shouldn't just be removed because some people haven't heard of it, or it doesn't have enough references. As has alredy been pointed out it does have a number of references away from the company website.--Fuelboy 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge. This is part of Nisa Today. It and any other small chains belonging to that group that are not notable enough in themselves should be mentioned on Nisa Today 131.111.228.219 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment. NISA is a buying group and not a company like Tesco. It would not be correct to merge. Can you sign your contribution? --MJB (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment. To merge the Harry Tuffin article with NISA would appear odd, as the Tuffin's article has a lot more info on it, it would be over powering. --Fuelboy (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep- well known English chain Astrotrain (talk) 21:16, 19 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) 03:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Franak Viachorka

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

    Contested speedy. A cv for a non notable. There are many claims made, but the majority are of the ilk of 'school newspaper editor, 'member of school students body', 'organiser of school student protests', 'winner of unnamed university prize', 'attendee of political rallies since age six', etc. There are a couple of claims that if they were referenced may establish notability, such as being involved in the dubbing of Pulp Fiction. However, since this would been around the age of six as well I need references. Nuttah68 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Resume-like. Requires sourcing to show notability of any of his activities. CitiCat ♫ 14:43, 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 all, if only because a merge to the now-deleted Alan Butler is out and almost nobody here is really persuaded of the notability of all this, but I'll restore the content on request if someone really wants to merge this into some suitable article. Sandstein (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Megalithic geometry

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

    Also nominating:

    Salt Lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Sylvain Tristan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    If you come up with some hokum theory, such as that the pharaohs were aliens, or that UFO's are manifestations of time travellers from the future, and write a book about it, you can be sure that there will be some readers who are eager to believe anything sufficiently weird, and quite likely you may get some journals and radio programs devoted to the paranormal and other pseudoscientific stuff to report on it. Such attention by itself does not mean that such theories and there authors have reached the level of notability and importance required for an encyclopedic article. At the very least, this would require an independent, critical treatment published in a reliable source.  --Lambiam 13:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Addition. The creator of these three articles is the author Sylvain Tristan, creating a clear conflict of interest.  --Lambiam 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    • I think these can be merged to articles about the books: Les Lignes d'Or and The Bronze Age Computer. I don't yet have any opinion whether the authors are notable apart from the books. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      Do you have an opinion as to whether these books are notable?  --Lambiam 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      No, I don't know, and could be persuaded either way with adequate evidence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      The Google search term ["Les Lignes d'Or" tristan -wikipedia -achetez] gives 43 hits, and ["The Bronze Age Computer" -wikipedia -buy] 66 hits. In both cases almost all are from book sellers, sites for promoting these books, blogs and forums. In terms of importance this does not amount to much. Evidently the purpose of creating these articles on Wikipedia was to promote these theories by boosting their respectability: if there is a Wikipedia article it must be notable and important.  --Lambiam 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. If sensational, gee-whiz fringe theories receive independent coverage in tabloids, radio shows, or TV programs, this establishes their notability for our purposes. This remains true even if one wishes it were otherwise. The article establishes at minimum that a French publisher printed this stuff. It does seem rather scattershot, and ranges from megalithic monuments to the Phaistos disc without really connecting the two, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It's more a question of weight. If everyone has just covered a theory in the context of a single book that promotes it, and there aren't other books or reliable publications that cover the theory, it makes sense to cover the theory on WP in the article about the book. This is no different than how we treat fringe theories that people have; sometimes these ideas are covered in individual articles, sometimes in the article about the person, depending on how much other coverage the idea has had. Based on the sources I have seen presented in the articles, it looks like merging the theories into articles about the books is a reasonable way to give them the proper weight. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I've read many of Butler's books and to me it would be a rather mistake to merge Salt Lines and Megalithic geometry, because Salt Lines are ONE of the applications of Megalithic geometry. That is, Megalithic geoemtry is the (presumed) geoemtry using a 366-degree circle. Butler claims this geometry is based on a 366-day calendar. Then LATER Megalithic people or whoever decided to materialize this geometry with so-called Salt Lines (meridians and parallels) and build cities along these lines. Among the other implications of 366-degree geometry, for example, is the assertion that the British (imperial) pints and pounds are derived from the Megalithic yard, the unit of measuremenr used by the Megalithic people (there has been a Wiki article about it for quite a long time now), and the Megalithic Yrad, in 366-degree geoemtry, is a perfect subdivision of the Earth cuircumference. That makes quite a hell of a lot of topics actually!

    As a conclusion, rather than merging, it seems to be that it'd be fair to even develop on each of these themes in Wiki. For example, the so-called Megalithic Yard, if hypothetical, has not been discevered by neither Butler or Tristan, but by notorious Scottish professor Alexander Thom. If all this remains hypothetical, Butler's theory seems more than troubling... PS: Can anyone dig up somewhere the "Guardian" (if I remember well) article about "Civilization One" published three years ago?--Mattripley 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Question. Are you a sock puppet of User:Snicoulaud, apparently Sylvain Nicoulaud who wrote Les Lignes d'Or[56] and published it under the pseudonym "Sylvain Tristan"?  --Lambiam 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I have begun to address this here after my warning not to make sockpuppets was ignored.—Cronholm144 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Mattripley and Bobrenner have been blocked. Snicoulaud has been warned. —Cronholm144 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    At best, let's merge them. This set of theories is not widely accepted in academic archaeology. It seems perfectly possible to explain the archaeological evidence withour resorting to it (Occam's Razor). The whole could be added as a subsection to Pseudoscientific metrology, which already contains some relevant information. It doesn't seem to me that these topics are notable enough to merit more than one separate article. I have been a student and a practitioner of Neolithic archaeology for over a decade, and I have never come across salt lines or the 366 degree idea, not to mention the Phaistos Disk link. The disk is not even a deteable artefact. athinaios 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, a merger/redirect to pseudoscientific metrology might be the best way to deal with this material, even if that article has a few issues at present. (Remember, folks, SI=666). Ideally, the merged text should deal with the substance of the theories, rather than a mere history of the claims made. If the text becomes too long as a subsection there, it can always be forked back into its own article. The entire subject of megalithic geometry would seem to compass the whole history of speculation that ancient monuments were sophisticated calendars and such; not just these two writers. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Are the books notable? The publisher, Alphée , of both of Tristan's books (at http://www.editions-alphee.com/ ) doesn't have a listing on the French Wikipedia, and I don't know enough French to determine whether they are essentially a vanity publisher plus French translations of English works from other publishers, or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The Bronze Age Computer was published by Quantum (Google books) or Foulsham (Amazon), neither of which is a reputable science publisher. I recall Quantum as being an imprint of a line of re-issued classic science fiction books.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect There is also an article about the megalithic yard. I think the two should be merged into a single article titled megalithic measurement or similar. The theories may not be widely accepted but they are widely known. Handschuh-talk to me 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      The MY may be widely known, but can you give some references showing that "Salt Lines" and Megalithic geometry in the sense of "366-degree geometry" are widely-known theories? The Google search term ["megalithic geometry" 366 -wikipedia] gets 11 hits, which is not much for a widely-known theory.  --Lambiam 01:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've never read the book but I have heard of his salt lines before. Purely anecdotal, I know. My google searches turned up about as much as yours did. Handschuh-talk to me 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • merge to Alan Butler. I agree if they stay the articles should be merged as the text is almost identical. Of the lot I think Butler is the probably the most notable, he has written numerous books of related topics and the Guardian has reviewed some [57]. Lack of google hits and reliable sources outside the authors web-site, don't encourage claims that these are widely held fringe theories. --Salix alba (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and "gaming wikipedia for notability in real life" issues surrounding these articles are clouding my judgment, but I think that a merger of some of the content to Alan Butler would be acceptable, provided it is done carefully. However, I would object to merging with Megalithic yard or any of the other "established" fringe theories as they might bestow some their notability onto this more dubious fringe notion, violating WP:UNDUE. I suppose such a merger could be done right, but the undue thing won't even be an issue if merged and presented as a part of the an Alan Butler article. —Cronholm144 09:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unnotable. Advertisement. Spirals31 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merging these to articles about the authors, rather than articles about the books, would be fine with me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      Are you thereby implying that, in your opinion, Sylvain Tristan (Sylvain Nicoulaud) meets the notability criterion for people?  --Lambiam 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete the whole walled garden. Per WP:FRINGE, I'm not seeing the mainstream attention to these fringe theories that would make them notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Mr Eppstein, please see the copy of my letters to Dr Rubin on your talk page. I sincerely think there's much more to 366-degree geom than meets the eye. Believe it or not, but there's something here that so far nobody has been able to explain rationally. I'd love to, believe me, but still, nobody has. What is more this so-called "fringe theory" has been covered at least twice by the British paper "the Guardian," once by the "London Daily Mail," once by the French magazine "Sacree Planete", once by the French radio "Ici et maintenant," and once by the radio "Radio France International."--Snicoulaud (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you have actual references for any of those? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, but add Criticism section to the article for WP:NPOV. Perhaps it is pseudoscientific object, but sometime a real scientist needs info about similar objects for criticism, for historical review etc. For example, the article phlogiston theory should be kept as well. --Tim32 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      How do you propose to do that? Do you have a citation for such criticism? I'm not aware of any independent critical treatment of the theory; if such exists it might be notable, but lacking such we cannot substitute our "original research".  --Lambiam 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      No, I have no citation for such criticism. Looking for or waiting for the citation. If Megalithic geometry is pseudoscientific object then somebody from scientific community has to print something against this object ASAP. If you are expert, you can do it yourself. But Wiki has not expert functions: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” WP:V I did not read the sources about Megalithic geometry and so I can not say something about. My thought based on common sense and on Wiki rules. At the same time I am surprised: if there is no citation for such criticism, then why you are sure that this article should be deleted? May be other moot articles (UFO etc) should be deleted as well? Wiki is not the Nobel Committee to wait for very long time period, untill worth of any scientific achievement will be obvious for everybody. In Wiki “the editorial cycle is short. A paper encyclopedia stays the same until the next edition, whereas writers update Wikipedia at every instant, around the clock, ensuring that it stays abreast of the most recent events and scholarship.” Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia vs. paper encyclopedias--Tim32 (talk) 19:39, 19 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. I see no reason for voice actors having any notability distinct from WP:BIO, and this currently lacks any sources beyond 2 directory sites, but to close this as a delete would not be appropriate given the community input. — Scientizzle 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ruri Asano

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Most of the roles appear to be minor ones. Ohconfucius 05:17, 7 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 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. How busy must a voice actor be before they are notable? This seems to be an eminently sensible stub article for a person who has a seemingly significant body of work. However, as Ohconfucius notes, most of the roles appear to be minor characters. So borderline keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: Can articles on people such as this ever be anything more than mere lists? -- Hoary 11:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • keep per Tagishsimon-two dozen or more credits make this substantial even if the roles are minor-not a flash-in-the-pan. Chris 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: what is the notability requirement for actors/voice actors? Do we have one codified? —Quasirandom 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep pending a greater discussion on VA notability. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 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) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Bruce Khlebnikov

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

    Seems like a probable hoax (the link to the Pravda article isn't overly convincing either); even if not a hoax, notability seems questionable. Dsreyn 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak keep. I don't actually have time to look it all up, but the Pravda article claims 2 records in Guinness, and repeat coverage starting 8 years ago (12-4), so there certainly seems to be at least 2 or 3 substantial independent sources. --Gwern (contribs) 16:19 7 November 2007 (GMT)
      • Comment a search on GWR yields nothing, but this does not mean it is a hoax, as this is true of other records. Mr_pand 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete Boy, I'd hate to delete something like this, but I can't find a single source that supports it. If the only source is Pravda, then I don't think we have enough to satisfy WP:RS. My hope was GWR, but that seems to be a dead end. Is there another article where a mention would be justified? Russian Bodybuilding or Strongmen? I've got nothing, but - in the absence of sources, there isn't much we can do. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:RS or WP:V This is a Secret account 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, per no reliable sources, only one Google news archive hit, and only 384 Ghits. Mr Which??? 02:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Here are the Russian ghits. CitiCat ♫ 02:55, 22 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. — Scientizzle 16:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Citygrass

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

    Contested prod for a non notable nelogism that manages 10 GHIts, including Wiki sites and totally unrelated uses. Nuttah68 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. And while that's not a persuasive argument, everything else I'm saying is total fluff. S/he's right. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 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. Docg 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lillian Kaufer

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

    Biography of a losing candidate for state legislative office. She failed even to win the primary. Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Lincolnite 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:44, 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. Verifiability appears to be an issue and no concrete sources have been proffered to demonstrate notability. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] MatheMagic

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

    Someone removed my prod Moglex 12:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment - That is not a valid reason to delete. --Evb-wiki 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment agree with above. Moglex does not give a valid reason to delete the page. Doc Strange 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - marginally notable, but enough. JohnCD 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete the article fails to cite sources. Only links are to the organisation's own pages or to its daughter organisation's pages. Handschuh-talk to me 03:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There are quite a few different groups devoted to mathematical popularisation, for example the Funmath roadshow based in Liverpool, Millennium Mathematics Project, Plus magazine and I'm sure there are quite a few more. While each individual group itself may only be borderline notable, taken as a whole they represent an important phenomena in mathematical culture. So merge into Mathematical popularisation (yes I know it does not exist yet). --Salix alba (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep (but I may be biased as I am involved in this movement) but I agree with Salix Alba & will write up an article on Mathematical popularisation and even Science popularisation ikf this is the decision (could also include Cafe sceitifique etc. etc Johnbibby (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ This is a Secret account 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as it has no sources to back up WP:N, I relisted the debate because it's too early to see any consensus, the nominator as no reason for deleting the article, and the keep argruements for keeping the article. This is a Secret account 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The nominators prod argument was "Fails WP:N".[58] Presumably that is still the argument. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, per 132 Google News Archive hits, and 58K+ general Ghits. There are sources to be found for this topic. Instead of deleting, and starting from scratch, perhaps this shell could serve as the template for a better-sourced article. Mr Which??? 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)--change toDelete, per the discussion below.Mr Which??? 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Per the Google News search. Plenty of reliable, third party sources to incorporate into the article. PROD's removed, and the articles itslef being unsourced, are not reasons to delete articles, ever. All it took was a simple Google search here to establish notability. Sheesh. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. A brief look at the Google hits indicate few of them are about the organisation in MatheMagic. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - on policy grounds as failing WP:V. The two keep !votes above are misdirecting themselves since the "132 Google News Archive" are about all sorts of different organisations and shows. We still need references to back up the content as well as multiple, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      If you looked at the archive hits, you would see that there was a news article (WaPost, I believe) about MatheMagic. They weren't all organizations and shows. Mr Which??? 03:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      I did, this one from the WaP is about something different not about the UK organisation. Unless you can produce multiple reports from serious sources about this body the page will have to go on policy grounds. Nothing in the article has been verified from WP:RSs. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      You're right. I should have looked deeper into the search results. I am changing my comments accordingly.Mr Which??? 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      Thank you for taking a second look. TerriersFan (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      That's why we have these discussions, right? Sorry for not looking closer at the basic results hit. Mr Which??? 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Not notable enough for me Mbisanz (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Don't you just hate having the prod removed without explaination? This article has no primary or secondary sources, an the article itself suggests it fails WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 22 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 — Caknuck (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Cris Bonacci

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

    Non-notable musician and no reliable third party sources stating notability. Relationship with someone notable does not an article make. –– Lid(Talk) 12:44, 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. Coredesat 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Peter scheer

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

    Article created by the person himself, violating COI, no external references, possibly an attempt at self-promotion Andante1980 12:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete as advert, tagged as such.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I've removed the speedy tag, since there certainly is COI but the article is not blatant spam, so it seems better to conclude this discussion here.--Tikiwont 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I've declined speedy as it's not A7 and also reverted but agree that it is not G11. However it's all borderline and the WP:COI is a major problem. Pedro :  Chat  14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No independant coverage. Most of the info is repeated at California First Amendment Coalition anyway. Epbr123 23:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Perfect example as descibed by WP:AB. Hammer1980·talk 01:17, 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. Coredesat 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Alexandra Moore

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

    Being an Internet nude/glamour model with big tits is not notable. Doesn't really explain why the subject is any more notable than the many other porn stars we don't have articles on. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Lots of Google hits but you could expect that for an Internet softcore or hardcore porn star. As it stands, I don't see anything that looks like a reliable source that could be used here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. I couldn't have said it better myself. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)d
    • Still the subject of the article appears to be not that much less notable than Milena Velba who we do have an article on - should that be deleted too?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unless someone sources notability. MLA 14:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Alexandra Moore (born 1979) is an Italian nude model. She stands 5'10" tall and has very large natural breasts. She can be found on many websites across the internet like divinebreasts.com and others. This isn't an article so much as a piece of linkspam. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Shouldn't WP:HOTTIE control here? Joe 04:21, 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 deleted' following transwiki. --Haemo 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Have-a-go hero

    Have-a-go hero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable neologism - perhaps. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While I feel the subject of this article has some notability, it's a slang term mainly used in tabloid news reports and although there are many examples of its use, it doesn't merit its own article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. The article has been transwikied. I cannot see any further encyclopedic expansion of the material so it should go. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think that this comes under a dictionary definition and it's a term that's only used in one context. It's not a phrase that is particularly notable and there doesn't seem to be any sources which specifically discuss the use of this word. Seraphim Whipp 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as a transwikied dicdef. This is a notable phrase though. MLA 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete A5 (transwiki), per the transwiki tag and per delete concensus thus far. So tagged. As it has been TW'd, this should be fine; I'll leave this to admin discretion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 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. Coredesat 08:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Inertial degravitation

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

    Complete bollocks. (For starters, there's no such thing as centrifugal acceleration in space). Google confirms the diagnosis. MER-C 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy Delete - Tagged as WP:CSD#G1 for an unsalvageably incoherent page. --DAJF 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not quite a speedy, but it's confusing for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter (like myself).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - All pages that liberally use math symbols are in some sense equally incoherent. (Look at the history of B,C,K,W system for a prime example.) I'd want expert opinion before ;deleting them, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I know enough physics to understand it somewhat, but I have no idea how they even got to the first line. MER-C 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete It's fifty years since I was a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. A mysterious 1/2 appears between the two versions of the formula for g(r,v), and "the module of an isotropic distribution of speeds vectors" is (to use another old British expression) a load of old codswallop.
    In any case, even if the maths is right, what it says is trivial: if an object is not following a free-fall path, some force (or "weight" as the article puts it) is involved.
    Googling "Degravitation" finds a real, and trendy, subject, much more abstruse than this: "...an interesting new approach to solving the cosmological constant problem ...usually phrased as the question why the vacuum energy is so small. ...theories where gravity is strongly modified at large distances, above some distance scale L usually assumed to be of similar size as the observable universe." See [here], if you want more. "Inertial degravitation" on the other hand, just leads back to this article. JohnCD 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Unsourced, and seems to be bad science ffm 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: as per nom. Andante1980 06:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Contains nothing but patent nonsense. Gandalf61 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as per nom. As far as I know/can find out, he term 'inertial degravitation' doesn't exist outside of a few fringe antigravity 'theories', which makes it at best WP:OR and at worst WP:NONSENSE. Cosmo0 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • deontologically, cannot vote... Hi all. I'me the author of this article. To answer to JohnCD who said he was a mathematician since 50 years, the value 1/2 comes from [cos(pi/4)]^2. This term is a classical one in physics, particularly in thermostatistics, to reduce of one order the dimension of the energy (kinetic energy) - from 3D to 2D or 2D to 1D... I regret that the attached pictures have been deleted before the discussion... Deontologically - please restore them during the debate (version of Nov 4th)...User:FHol 22:37, 17 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. W.marsh 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Kitsune Ryu Jujitsu

    Kitsune Ryu Jujitsu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Tagged as: "Unverifiable information/written as advertisement" Carlosguitar 12:10, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus RMHED 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Cock and ball torture

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Cock and ball torture Articles for deletion/Cock and ball torture (2nd nomination)
    Cock and ball torture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article is nothing more than a restatement of the title. Do we need a separate article on each separate area of the body subject to BDSM activity? Nothing here establishes how this differs from any other kind of BDSM torture. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep - A quick Google search shows that the abbreviation CBT is widely used for this practice - implying sufficient notability. The article seems to explain in detail how it differs from SM and torture applying to other parts of the body. --DAJF 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep (weak as I think the subject is idiotic). Has books (CBT: Cock-and-Ball Torture in a Nutshell Dem-Lab Presents S/M Tech #4 ISBN 1887895086, + the one in the article) primarily about it and is noted in many other books. Has a few interesting hits in google scholar. Unfortunately the world at large seems to consider this a sufficiently notable alternative to tennis- Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is far more than a restatement of the title, and has been shown to be notable. Phil Bridger 12:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Seems notable within BDSM, from the sources that we know to exist.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Very Week Keep Despite the resounding results of the previous AfD, the sourcing is a bit thin. When AfD number 3 inevitably rolls around, I will likely switch over to delete if no additional sources can be located and added to the article to beef it up. I would strongly suggest that many of the articles for variant practices listed under "see also", most of which have no sources whatsoever, should be merged into this one, which just might help expand this article (without the benefit of weights). Thanks to Peripitus, I had never known that when the question "Tennis, anyone?" is posed, that this is the alternative. Alansohn 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep should be an easily sourceable and expandable artcile on a notable sex act. Not one I could possibly contribute to from work though... MLA 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep sadly, I must admit that this is notable. JJL 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I specifically mentioned this practice to someone today. It's not pretty (many sexual practices aren't), but it's notable and well-known enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry. --JimBurnell 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge into BDSM. Besides the definition, the article includes only a list of practices it can be combined with (adequately handled by adding a "these can be combined" sentence at BDSM#Various practices), and a paragraph about how it causes pleasure (which could be integrated into BDSM#Physiology). The article doesn't indicate that this is a distinctive enough practice to need a separate article. EALacey 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, not convinced by the reasons for deletion. User:Veesicle 22:25, 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. Coredesat 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Shingitai Jujitsu

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

    Questionable notability, primary sources only. Nate1481( t/c) 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 11:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be a notable jujitsu club. The only link out doesn't appear to be to the correct person which suggests that the founder is also not notable. MLA 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete just someone's school; nn. JJL 15:46, 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 keep Anthony Appleyard 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Bollywood film clans

    List of Bollywood film clans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    • User:Sarvagnya tagged it {{db-nonsense}}; it looks sensible, but is it notable? Anthony Appleyard 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as a verifiable though not currently verified article that appears to be notable. MLA 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Lists some notable families and stars, and links them together conveniently in a way not possible by the individual personal and family articles alone. Was this really an AfD candidate? --DAJF 12:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep as it's a marginally useful familial rendition of noteable film stars. Majoreditor 12:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep Clear use and provides a good understanding of the backbone of the Bollywood film industry. Article tagged as "nonsense" due to the vendetta of the nominator, again I'm disappointed but to speedy it is destructive, would an admin please warn Sarvagnya, this has gone far enough ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep as eminently notable and copliant with guidelines for lists. Just because someone vandalised the article with {{db-nonsense}} it doesn't mean it has to be AfDed. Phil Bridger 12:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep - The only think I can say when I see that, is LOL. Oh and not only when I see that. There is something else. In brief, an important list of film clans, with prominent actors. Its use is clear. Shahid • Talk2me 13:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, appears to be notable and seems to serve the purpose that lists should.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong and speedy keep - and notify user who tagged it that such frankly irrational nominations for speedy deletion are not acceptable by policy and guidelines. John Carter 15:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete - utterly unencyclopedic. Sarvagnya 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - "Utterly unencyclopedic" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion as pre WP:CSD. Strongly suggest that the above editor familiarize him/herself with those criteria before engaging in similar misuses of the template in the future. John Carter 16:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly John! :) Shahid • Talk2me 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment looks like a candidate for a WP:SNOW keep to me. Phil Bridger 20:00, 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. Coredesat 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Singapore Chinese celebrities by dialect

    List of Singapore Chinese celebrities by dialect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article features lists of Singapore celebrities (mostly actors and singers) who are, apparently, native speakers of particular Chinese dialects. However, the majority of the persons listed are either redlinked or unlinked, calling into question their notability. Furthermore, the article is completely unsourced, and most of the listed people who do have articles have no indication of their native dialect in those articles. This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. However, the same person who removed the PROD tag also improved the article by replacing all the names shown in Chinese characters with the celebrities' names in the Roman alphabet. Nevertheless, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete, not particularly notable groupings of celebrities.--Vsion 05:26, 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 withdraw. Carlosguitar 12:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of computer and video games with female protagonists

    List of computer and video games with female protagonists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    List is virtually unmaintable. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: I suggest renaming to "List of notable computer and video games with female protagonists" (emphasis mine), and updating the criteria for inclusion appropriately. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 10:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Requesting an admin close debate, since the original reason for deletion has been fixed. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:03, 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. Coredesat 08:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Arhebis

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

    An article about a neologism (WP:NEO), which has been created by an author of the same name and which by coincidence happens to be the name of a company founded by the two individual named in the article as having coined the word. 16 ghits[60] all for this company, Arhebis Systems. Malcolmxl5 09:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete as an protologism, not able to be reliably sourced. Neovanispam - Peripitus (Talk) 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Alberon 10:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not only a neologism and the name of an apparently nonnotable company, it's completely malformed. The Greek word is APXH (arche, as in archaeology or archaic), not APHE. Deor 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong/Snowball delete. Not an encyclopedic article - and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the AfD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - spam. Hal peridol 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 14:50, 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. Coredesat 08:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Western Air Temple

    The Western Air Temple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Unconfirmed episode of TV series Avatar: The Last Airbender. It seems the source of the episode are leaked spoilers however it has yet to be officially announced and the article has been deleted four times so far, three via speedy and one via prod. This AfD is to decide whether to delete the article entirely until the episode itslef is confirmed. –– Lid(Talk) 08:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be re-created when the episode airs. Bláthnaid 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that it's so short that it's barely an encyclopedic article at all - also fails WP:V and WP:NOR, badly. No prejudice against a recreation of a proper article in due course.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete THeir is not one good reliable source that gives us the mane of this episode, and the rest is just speculation coming from leaked episdoes online. --The Placebo Effect 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    I say we delete it. There is not one reliable source for it and if any information is accurate, it is from illegally obtained information. I'm deleting any spoilers in the summary, accurate or not. 68.175.106.168 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete per above. ffm 00:33, 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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. Will create redirect for Aljaž Tower to Aljažev stolp. RMHED 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Aljažev stolp

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

    Possibly a Non notable tower, No References to stat that it is, and possibly a bad translation. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 07:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment - I have notifed a few of the editors of the article about the AFD going on. Hopfully it might help the article or get it merged with another one. Otherwise its just a Canidate for Deletion. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP. Sawblade05, thanks for having notified me. Aljažev stolp is one of the most known Slovenian towers. Slovenia has declared it a cultural monument of special significance. Many references can be found about it. I won't object merging it with Triglav (in its current state) but it will be split out sooner or later. --Eleassar my talk 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • (Edit conflict) [Speedy] Keep. AfD is not a cleanup, (although it can occasionally help one, such as here). I added a couple of reasonably reliable sources. It's one of true national landmarks, with lots of history and emotions behind it (do you know what is featured on Coat of arms of Slovenia?). Merging with Triglav is a reasonable action, but that's an editorial decision. (P.S. Please do not take this as nominator-bashing; (s)he did exactly the correct thing by notifying the editors). Duja► 08:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP. The Aljažev stolp is one of the most recognisable Slovenian symbols. I would object a merger with Triglav, but I would suggest that the article be moved to English title- Aljaž Tower. --Jalen 09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP. Aljažev stolp is not one of the most known Slovenian towers, but simply the most known Slovenian tower.--AndrejJ 12:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP --Slodave 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep, seems notable to me.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per the Slovenian contributors. Seems to be a notable landmark. MLA 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP. English title can be used, as Jalen had proposed. If a translation is bad, one English native speaker can simply improve it. As a non-native speaker of course I can't see details of bad manners of expression. --xJaM 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep ack Eleassar, Duja, Jalen, Andrejj, His and Jani. --Smihael 18:27, 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 as G1. ELIMINATORJR 08:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The KIS Triplets

    The KIS Triplets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Bored-in-class fiction. Contested PROD. No clear category justifying speedy deletion. Alvestrand 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Article doesn't hide the fact that it's pure fiction created by the author. dr.alf 08:52, 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 Redirect to cold fusion. Being bold here a closing early - Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Cold fusion theories

    Cold fusion theories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Yet more original research from a user trying to promote his non-notable physics theory. This page has been cleaned up a bit, but it is still riddled with bias and OR and anything useful can go in Cold fusion anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Borghi's experiment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion". Hut 8.5 07:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Redirect as this article is named after a topic that is covered in sufficient detail in cold fusion. Despite its name it doesn't even seem to concern itself with cold fusion but rather with electron capture. Handschuh-talk to me 08:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete As above. It's a platform for the user pushing his personal theory. It's not an article about Cold Fusion Theories in general. The main Cold Fusion page makes this one irrelevant. Alberon 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Cold Fusion per Handschuh. MLA 09:44, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GreenFacts

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

    Prod removed with no reason given. Non notable company, All references are from company website. DPCU 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep, notable. Hesperian 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Please note the debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. DPCU 12:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I know the debate is not a vote, and I also know that that is a ridiculous shibboleth and at the end of the day it is too a vote, no matter how much we protest. My recommendation on the course of action is "keep", and my argument is "it is notable". Hesperian 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep It is a non-profit organization, not a company. One of the reasons it is notable is that the European Commission commissions it to write reports. I've added sources from the BBC and the European Commission to the article, so it meets WP:N and WP:V. Bláthnaid 12:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Blanthnaid. ffm 00:35, 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 Redirect , since it is not clear which additional content should be merged into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District which currently is mostly a table.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] John H. Reagan Elementary School

    John H. Reagan Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District and Delete. Vegaswikian 06:43, 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 Redirect , since it is not clear which additional content should be merged into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District which currently is mostly a table.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Jerry R. Junkins Elementary School

    Jerry R. Junkins Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District and Delete. Vegaswikian 06:37, 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. Coredesat 08:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Casa View Elementary School

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

    No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District and Delete. Vegaswikian 06:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: Sure it is. We would merge the info and delete the article. - Rjd0060 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Delete is not permissible following a merge for GFDL reasons since the edit history must be retained. A redirect, protected if necessary, is the only action. TerriersFan 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    So stick a merge notice on the page and discuss it on the talk page. Don't bring it to AFD.--WaltCip 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    School articles are always a problem. If there is going to be a reason to not keep or merge, then this is the better place, like it or not. These articles just nominated had some substance, so discussing here was in my mind the better choice to get a sound hearing. If there is any reason to keep the article, it would be heard loud and clear here. That would not be the case with a merge, especially if that discussion said to keep. If that happened it would wind up back here anyway. Vegaswikian 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    It would have to come to AfD either way, if the info. was merged, the original would need to be deleted, and speedy wouldn't apply. How about commenting on the content of the article here. That would help. - Rjd0060 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    What is the benefit of deleting after merging? To comply with GFDL, the author history would need to be merged as well. A redirect would be more useful for readers and reduce likelihood of re-creation without significant expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Edit history wouldn't matter, as it would not be a copy and paste to the other article. To be honest, I don't care if the information is merged or not. The fact is, the article does not assert any notability for its subject, and should be deleted. - Rjd0060 22:09, 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 keep. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lida Hooe Elementary School

    Lida Hooe Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District and Delete. Vegaswikian 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    *Merge and redirect per established precedent to Dallas Independent School District. Delete is not possible for GFDL reasons after merge. TerriersFan 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    • STRONG Keep I added information from a number of Dallas Morning News articles on aspects of the school: a false accusation of fondling; a former mathematics teacher and a band leader who kept winning regional awards. This school clearly meets WP:N. Noroton 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep following excellent work by Noroton so that the page now unquestionably meets WP:N. TerriersFan 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per szyslak. There's nothing about the math teacher that's notable (a thirdhand mentionthat he was fast at calculating?), the band awards are not notable, and (sadly) the accusations are not unusual enough to merit notice. In an article on false accusations of sexual abuse this might be worth noting, and I would not object to such a merge if others felt it was needed. Of course in that case (to preserve history) the page could be redirected to its district instead of deleted. (It could also be recreated from the information in the link.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Elementary schools that make a credible claim of notability are not the rule, but the improvements and expansion by Noroton with reliable and verifiable sources satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unfortunately, the work done by Noroton shows that a couple of the teachers may almost be notable - but not the school, because the external references are about individual teachers, each of whom touched the lives of individual students. None of the external references are about the school hence WP:N is not met.Garrie 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - the band citations most definitively apply to the school as it is a school activity. Also, it is not possible to separate teachers from the school since the environment in which they work affects what they do. TerriersFan (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Of course you can separate the two. If a teacher has references about him, he deserves an article. The school, unless it is the object, does not necessarily. That's like saying that we need to have an article about the home of Stephen King. Not unless it is notable in and of itself. And band awards do apply to a school but I think the editor above was judging that they did not establish notability for that school. Epthorn (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm always amazed by the STRONG keeps that appear on these, as if adding that word will help an argument. I don't feel that this school, in and of itself, really establishes notability. It has a teacher and perhaps a band that does so, but I tend to believe in individual notability rather than the up/down variety. That said, I'm not too anxious to delete the article since it seems to show effort towards notability (at least it now appears to try and establish it). Epthorn (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. WP:NOT establishes Wikipedia to not be a school directory and it is my opinion that this article does not prove to meet WP:N and as such must be deleted. While the notes on LHES people are nice, it does prove that the school itself is notable. SorryGuy 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep view. My reading of WP:N is that multiple, non-trivial references are need and this page has plenty of them. I really don't see the benefit of trying to apply narrow policy interpretations to delete a clean and useful page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:21, 21 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, since it is not clear which additional content should be merged into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District which currently is mostly a table. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Victor H. Hexter Elementary School

    Victor H. Hexter Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District and Delete. Vegaswikian 06:25, 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. Coredesat 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Jeriaska

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

    Autobiography of a non-notable writer. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Non notable. Also, no reliable, third party sources to verify an assertion of notability (even though there really isn't one). - Rjd0060 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: WP:COI, bio written by subject. --- tqbf 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Though it should be noted that COI is not, in itself, a reason to delete an article. You could say it violates NPOV. - Rjd0060 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Zero notability and reasons given above. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Writer is notable for bilingual articles and work in transhumanism research found on personal website[61] and Accelerating Future People Database.[62] For third party support of notability, see Siliconera, [63] Destructoid, [64] and Fight Aging![65] Effusive language removed to address NPOV claims. —Jeriaska (talk • contribs) 11:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - (obviously) this is the author and subject of the article. --- tqbf 13:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Anyone else here think that the citations don't properly verify the text?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, I was just about to nominate this, per notability concerns. Seriously, he doesn't even get 4000 Google hits. Also, all of the sources are primary statements of fact that don't establish the notability behind them (e.g., yes, you report for this place but is that notable?). Axem Titanium 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: COI is not, in itself, a reason to delete an article. Please cite where it is stated that 4000 Google hits is the lower bound for a notable writer. Third party sources state "author Jeriaska is doing a great job in pulling together video and transcripts of noteworthy transhumanist advocates, entrepreneurs and activists"[66] and "Jeriaska at Square-Haven must have ninja like skills. Somehow he manages to track down people from Square’s localization history."[67] Comments state that the author is performing a unique, notable function.—Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Couple things. First, in AfDs, please only write "keep" or "delete" once (I accidentally stomped on Axem's note that said the same, sorry). You can add comments with pretty much anything else, including "comment" or "for the love of god, please note".
    Second, on any discussion, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
    Third, you are going to find Wikipedia an unpleasant place to write about yourself. As mentioned above, COI doesn't automatically get your article deleted. But in an article that already has other problems, the fact that virtually all of it was written by an author with a COI problem is not going to help.
    The biggest objection to this article is that there are no reliable sources to back it up. Instead of arguing why you are noteworthy, can you find a recognizable secondary source that says the same thing? Anybody can argue with you about the merits of your writing, but we will find it hard to refute books, published articles in circulated magazines, or stories in newspapers.
    If you can't do that, you may find it more satisfying to write about "transhumanism" in general, instead of yourself.
    Best of luck! --- tqbf 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.[68] As stated previously, reliable and independent sources state author is supporting "transhumanist advocates, entrepreneurs and activists"[69] and providing reportage on the contributions of notable participants in "Square’s localization history."[70]. Secondary sources listed are recognizable to readers concerned with the topics of life extension and role-playing videogames per the previous request.—Jeriaska
    If there are no reliable sources in the article, and the source of notability isn't common-sense obvious, the burden of proof is probably on you to prove notability. Notability is defined by reliable independent secondary sources writing about you. You haven't established that yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. --- tqbf 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    I noticed your last edit, Jeriaska, and as a heads up, even if a blog said you were the most important figure in all of "transhumanism", you could still see the article deleted, because blogs are usually not reliable sources. How about books, or magazine articles, or repeated news mentions? --- tqbf 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Fight Aging! is the newsletter of the Longevity Meme,[71] a reliable, third-party published source. The Longevity Meme is a non-profit organization founded in mid-2001 with the goal of encouraging achievable technologies in life extension. This source relies upon fact-checking and accuracy in building upon literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. [72] —Jeriaska
    This is a passing mention on a blog. It may be an important blog (though you'd have to spend some time justifying that, because "The Longevity Meme" isn't notable to itself be in the WP), but if your whole claim to notability revolves around two sentences in two blogs, you don't have much of a case. I'm not arguing (I don't decide whether your article stays), but I am suggesting that because you (a) wrote an autobiography on WP and (b) sourced it with blog posts, if you're going to spend effort trying to save the article, you may want to focus that effort on stepping up the quality of your sources. --- tqbf 21:42, 17 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. Coredesat 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] NWOMAGM

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

    Made-up genre. Most of the bands listed fall into the post-hardcore and screamo designation; even if this genre existed, it would have totally different bands in it (We Are the Fury, or even The Darkness). Chubbles 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Original research and in all likelyhood is WP:MADEUP. — Save_Us_229 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Made up, OR, NN. - Rjd0060 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe it to be a legit genre. A lot of recent bands forming are very reminscient of Glam metal but at the same time it is quite easy to tell they are from the modern music scene. There a lot of new bands I can add to this but it will take a while, those where just bands I got off the top of my head (and they can be discussed to be included or not). I am new to wikipedia so I can understand if the article needs work. It is late and I do not feel like finishing it right now so I shall do so tomarrow. I'm open to suggestions for improvment but not for deltion. I feel it is a satisfactory term for a new (new in the broadest sense possilbe) style of music that is emerging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigun12789 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • What you don't seem to understand is, you don't get to pick the name of the genre, or the bands that go in it. The genre first has to be defined, usually by rock critics but sometimes by musicians themselves, and then people have to publish about it...and then it gets a Wikipedia article. You can't just make up a new name for an aggregate of bands and call it a legitimate genre. Chubbles 07:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have removed all the additions I could find of this term in existing articles. Please do not restore them unless the article survives AfD. Chubbles 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • First I would like to thank you for your help. I am greatful for your advise I kindly asked for. Second, I am a musician and I consider my band part of this. We don't have a wikipedia site yet but I will make one for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigun12789 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd suggest avoiding doing that unless your band can meet the guidelines in WP:MUSIC, or we'll be back here again (if it's not speedy deleted). Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, no Google hits. Mushroom (Talk) 08:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So if I make a legit page for my band, and talk about this genre on our myspace and other sites so I can refence it then it will be allowed on here? --Trigun12789 08:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Eventhough Google is often not sufficient as a reliable source, the fact that there are zero hits on it is proof enough that this isn't notable and 100% made up. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia does not publish articles on things made-up one day or original thought. Seraphim Whipp 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original research. Hal peridol 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong delete, snowball delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOR 100%. Now this is a lot different from the IDM AfD, as that was not just WP:MADEUP one day.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete I'm sorry but all you have to do now to create a genre is make up initials? I mean Pink Spiders and Aiden sound NOTHING alike (the former is a neo-new wave Cars rip-off (who's most recent album was produced by Ric Ocasek) and the latter is a screamo as screamo comes). This is a futile attempt for someone not to get beat up for listening to emo...oy Doc Strange 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


    • The initials are nothing new to genres <personal attack removed by — Save_Us_229 @ 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)>. Aiden is not screamo listin to their newest cd, and most of those bands would not fall under the catagory of emo. Why would I create a new genre glorifying glam metal just to not say I listin to emo. Everybody elses comments I can acctually understand, but that last one is somthing I would expect to see on a forum with a bunch of preteen adolescents. --Trigun12789 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Do not make personal attacks. — Save_Us_229 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I certainly know that initials are not new to genres, but this isn't notable. I what i'm trying to say is that two of the listed examples for the page of this allegedy genre don't even sound alike (really, Aiden sounds NOTHING like Pink Spiders). It's awful ironic that you are attacking me and you yourself fail to make a good explaination for why this page with no reliable source and any mentions of anywhere, should stay (the spelling errors and personal attack don't help either). In fact this page deletable as well via WP:NFT, WP:MUSIC and WP:OR. Doc Strange 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as a neologism that is not widely enough used to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Original research and seems to be possibly made up in school one day ffm 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per all above. The traditional way of creating a new genre is to have it described in reliable sources first, then write about it here, rather than the other way around. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 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. Coredesat 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (2nd nomination)
    List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    The previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights, was closed early as premature following this previous debate. Since our general precedent is that a no consensus close can be relisted at any time, consensus at deletion review was to relist. This is a neutral, procedural nomination. I will take the liberty of copying the original nomination statement below. Chick Bowen 05:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Original nomination statement: This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all. It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement. It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO). Additionally, I cite precedent from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ancient_Jedi AFD. Pilotbob 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Even as a group these characters lack notability. There are no reliable, independent sources listed and no real-wrold context or content given. Eluchil404 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. No notability asserted, no 3rd party references, written in-universe, just an excuse to fling a large number of NN characters from various sources together. Not to mention the number of fair use images... ELIMINATORJR 09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete minor fiction characters with no impact outside of their fanverse. MLA 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as fancruft Doc Strange 14:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep the Star Wars stuff is highly notable, and these details would be OK at the book pages to which many of them refer. This is a reasonable way to organize the information. JJL 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per JJL. Rray 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, whether or not to include such information in separate articles about notable books is an editorial decision, but independent sourcing does not exist in sufficient quantity focusing on these characters to justify a separate article. The nonfree images also need to go; regardless of the outcome here nonfree images are disallowed in lists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete They are, as the title states, minor charecters. Just because there is a lot of them does not make them anything more than that. ffm 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not important enough to be on a main list? Not important enough for WP. Aren't there like a gazillion Jedi Knights from the oodles of other SW things? Yeah. They're not all notable. So delete this awful list. I (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Per WP:SAL this list qualifies to have its own page since it is too long to be put onto a parent article without making that article too long. Minor characters deserve mention, and this is a good place to put all of them without each having their own pages. This does not qualify for WP:IINFO since it's not any of the things talked about there, in fact it qualifies for WP:PAPER instead. Fancruft is not a valid argument pe WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because the title states that they are minor does not mean they don't get included in an encyclopedia, Example: Minor presidents of the US would still qualify for mention. Viperix 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Define a "minor President of the United States". I (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison…--Neverpitch 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider them minor, and they're all notable in their own right. Thus, the analogy is not germane. I (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I consider them minor, and your saying they're all notable in their own right proves my point. The minor characters from Star Wars are all notable in their own right. Therefore the analogy is poignantly congruent. Why do you say all the presidents are all notable? I can think of at least five that most people don't even know were presidents. Viperix 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    You are incorrect. They are not each notable in their own right. And every president of the United States is notable. Just becuase the superficial society of today doesn't know they were presidents doesn't make them any less notable. Read the notability criteria. I (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Once again you miss the point. The point really is not if the minor presidents are minor or not, (which comparing them to less minor presidents proves that they are indeed minor). The point is they ARE minor yet still notable. People not knowing about them does not make them less notable it makes them minor, or less important. Pointing to the notability criteria further proves my point, notability and minority are not the same thing. Viperix 02:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    I see absolutely nothing to prove they are notable. Show me the signigicant coverage by sources independant of the subject. I (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Problem is, you want a news article for every character on here, well that just isn't going to happen. There cannot be a news article on everything. The Fact is: Star Wars is notable enough to have its minor characters mentioned, but listing them on the main Star wars page would make it extremely long and burdensome. Each minor character could have their own page but listing them all together is the best alternative. Viperix 09:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't want coverage for every entry here, otherwise they would have their own article. What I want is proof that minor characters from something other than the movies are notable. I (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Vote from blocked user struck. - GlassCobra 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Minor characters are rarely appropriate for separate articles, but a combined one can be a sensible way of handling them. Minor characters in a minor just-notable work might not justify an article at all, but this particular series is not of borderline notability.DGG (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment While it is certainly true that Star Wars as a whole is of unquestioned notability, many of the characters in this list are from Expanded Universe comics and novels that I would firmly consider minor just-notable works. Eluchil404 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This was originally a neutral nomination, but having read the article I must now argue for deletion. The argument made above is that this is a reasonable way to organize information that is itself notable. The problem with that is that the list, because it is entirely written in in-universe style, does not make clear which characters are drawn from notable and which from non-notable works. I don't think this can be fixed by mere editing, because the concept of the article refers to the Star Wars universe, not to any given works. List of minor Jedi knights from notable Star Wars-universe works might be OK, though I doubt it would survive AfD, but an inclusive list like this, in my mind, is unsalvageable. Chick Bowen 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Absolutely no real-world notability; fancruft is the only description. Written entirely from in-universe point of view, and there really is no real-world content or context, and none can really be added -- there just isn't any. -- Ekjon Lok 18:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Merging a couple dozen non notable minor characters into one page does not make that page notable. This is exactly what Wookipedia is for. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I see that this is an encyclopedia. I also see Starwars pages being deleted more and more often. This page has lots of credibility. For instance, encyclopedias are meant for gathering random facts into a fashion in which anyone can read. I can think of many ways in which this article is helpful. I can also name hundreds (though I know there are thousands) of pages which are stubs, have very little or no information, and the information it is given for is corrupt. However, this page has lots of information for anyone who wants to know more about Starwars. Likewise, the apples page has information for people that want to learn more about apples.  Xeysz  ☼  23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I probably suffer from a case of WP:ILIKEIT, but this seems to be one of the more relatively important Star Wars lists, compared to others. I could be persuaded to support some of the more trivial lists being shaved off, but since Jedi are such a central part of the Star Wars universe, I'd say this should be kept. GlassCobra 14:09, 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 Spartaz Humbug! 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Panda sneeze

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

    This seems to be an non-notable video. A phenomenal viral video like Numa-Numa might be noteworthy (since it has appeared in the news), but I believe that this is not. Marlith T/C 05:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete - non-notable --DAJF 05:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep it has also received wide (although not in-depth) coverage per a Google news search. I can add the most relevant links to the article, which at the very least attest to its notability on YouTube (e.g., most of the articles refer to it being one of the most popular videos on YouTube). If not keep, redirect to viral video. ~Eliz81(C) 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Believe it or not, it is notable. With mention in the Washington Post, USA Today, and on FOX News (amongst many others), its definitely notable. - Rjd0060 06:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete or if absolutely necessary merge to YouTube - WP:NOT#NEWS, sources in the article consist of one passing mention and two scarcely mentioned(s). It's a sixteen-second World's Funniest/You've Been Framed clip that's popular on youtube and has been mentioned in some sources/made filler news. And? Apart from giving a short synopsis (good grief) and reeling off the places its been mentioned, what exactly can be said about it? Are we going to have an article on every popular YouTube video or Newgrounds flash game now? Coverage of internet culture and memes is important when they have a lasting effect, but all I can see here is a variation on "ha ha" and *click* to the next video. Someone another 10:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete...i mean Boom Goes the Dynamite doesn't have it's own page, why should this Doc Strange 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, non-notable bit of video --Moglex 12:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Very weak delete. Yes, it has had mentions in the news but WP:NOT#NEWS and does not cover passing mentions of things like this - could never be any more than a stub.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete delete delete delete delete. There. I've said delete the most times in a deletion discussion. All I need now is for someone to record me typing delete delete delete and put me on youtube and I can have my very own article. Or maybe someone writing about HOCKEY, who happens to type "panda sneeze" in his article (thus gaining a GHIT), will type "delete delete delete" and find me here and write about me. Then I can have my very own article. Ridiculous. Um, delete. Keeper | 76 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC) That's Keeper with a K.
    • Keep, 145 Google News hits makes it seem notable enough to me. Nominator's argument for deletion was that it hasn't appeared in the news, and well, it has, so the nomination isn't backed up by much now. 96T 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - It does seem to have been the subject of a few news stories which are sourced in the article, which grants it a fair shot against the non-notable argument - which appears to be all it was nominated for. Shallon Michaels 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it hasn't been the subject of any of those news stories. Crazysuit 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Of the 3 sources provided, two don't discuss this, and one only has a few sentences about it (as part of a much larger article). Crazysuit 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Notability is not temporary and this is probably as ephemeral as it gets. --Smalljim (talk) 15:49, 18 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. Coredesat 08:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Company Man (TV series)

    Company Man (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article is about a pilot that was never picked up. Hundreds of pilots are produced every year. We do not need articles on them. Howa0082 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Neutral: I'm not sure about the normal decision about TV pilots. It seems to have a couple ok sources (Variety, yahoo news). - Rjd0060 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Delete: Because of notability issues and triva. - Rjd0060 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. Pilots are a dime-a-dozen, and while some go on to hack notability and end up with their own article, the vast majority end up dead and forgotten (as they should). This is one of those cases. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Bullzeye/nom. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. It's non-noteable trivia. Majoreditor 12:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - per nom. It is an article about a pilot that was never used. Rudget zŋ 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Never went into production ffm 00:37, 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. Coredesat 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Reading Span and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

    Reading Span and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    The article summarizes a paper published in Journal of Memory and Language. It does not appear that the paper is particularly notable, above any other academic research. The article has the appearance of original research in that the paper has not (apparently) received significant external coverage. Was prod, moved here for discussion. TeaDrinker 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Doesn't appear to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability. No reliable sources, no external coverage. Nothing particularly worth keeping unless we have an article on the author of the paper which a short summary could probably be added. — Save_Us_229 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Assuming the Journal of Memory and Language isn't notable in itslef. - Rjd0060 05:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Could it be saved if it is merged with another page, say, one on ambiguity? Ashkap813 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete - This deserves an appropriately-sized mention and citation at syntactic ambiguity, but not an inch more. We're an encyclopedia, not a trade journal. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete 13-year-old article with only 66 citations (per Google Scholar) , which is not very notable (one of it's citations is a 2004 article with more than double the citations of this one). If there is anything overly spectacular that can be salvaged into an article on ambiguity, so be it, on its own, this article doesn't stand up to Wikipedia criteria. dr.alf 08:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, not appropriate for an encyclopedia, seems more like a personal essay.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 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 keep. Coredesat 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Kat Swift

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

    Not notable, no reliable sources Southern Texas 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Only if more sources are given. She seems to be a candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election which I would think would make her notable given she has a history of campaigning in different elections. If reliable sources can be found, I would say she could meet the notablity guideline. — Save_Us_229 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Needs sources. I'm assuming she actually is going to run for president, as it says she has announced her intention. I think that makes somebody notable. - Rjd0060 05:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Being a prominent member of a prominent political party in the USA is cleary notable, especially given presidential candidate aspect. More sources will naturally exist. The fact that the article is in its infant stages does not affect the notability of the subject. Jdcooper 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. She is considered a "generally recognized candidate" for the Green Party nomination by the California Secretary of State so she will be on the Green Party presidential primary ballot in California. [73] However, the article needs some independent sources regarding her presidential campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep agree with jdcooper. Doc Strange 07:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep probably notable enough without the Presidential campaign. MLA 11:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep per Metropolitan.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep - needs a general overhaul. Could assert some notability, however, if there is no notability after the election period, delete. Rudget zŋ 17:09, 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 No sources shown. This is the second time this has been at AFD. The absence of sources within the article is fatal. Spartaz Humbug! 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Joe Schriner

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Joe Schriner Articles for deletion/Joe Schriner 2
    Joe Schriner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No reliable sources, no notablity established tagged since August Southern Texas 04:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Only if more sources are given. He seems to be a candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election which I would think would make him notable given he has a history of campaigning in different elections. If reliable sources can be found, I would say he could meet the notablity guideline. — Save_Us_229 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Needs sources. Running for president makes somebody notable, at least IMO. Rjd0060 05:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Undecided. Lots of people announce that they are running for president of the United States, but then fail to actually attempt to campaign, and they receive no independent news coverage. I don't think those people are notable. Schriner is on the borderline in that he seems to have received some news coverage, but it isn't cited in this article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep There seem to be plenty of sources available through Google. Epbr123 11:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Rjd. Ground Zero | t 12:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - but if there is a AFD after the end of Presidential elections, delete. Rudget zŋ 17:08, 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. Coredesat 08:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Louisdale History (Grandique ferry)

    Louisdale History (Grandique ferry) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Similar named page by the same author already deleted. Article is rambling and author has removed two Cleanup tags Malathos 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: I'm concerned about the copyright status of the articles' context, as the similarly named REAL HISTORY OF LOUISDALE had some copyright problems. Anyhow, I'm not sure this meets notability guidelines. - Rjd0060 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak delete I would have said keep if the article could have been renamed and cleaned up to our standards, but it seems that has already failed though. I would also do a serious investigation to see if this is not a straight copy-and-paste from another site, as it appears to be written in too much of an informal POV to be written by someone not related to the subject. Subject may or not be notable, FWIW. — Save_Us_229 05:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak delete per Save Us, could be a copyvio as noted.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • reverting to weak delete / rewrite: The author is trying to verify usage rights (see the AFD talk page) and I believe the article has been written in good faith; but the it remains a random collection of facts with no real structure. Recent attempts to flag the article for cleanup have been reverted and previous attempts seem to have similarly failed. Malathos 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • delete / rewrite from scratch - Articles it stands is ungrammatical, unstructured nonsense and probably can't be salvaged, but there is such a place, and I'm sure it has enough history to merit an article. Upon further thought: If any of this info is salvageable, shouldn't it just be in the Louisdale, Nova Scotia article anyway? - Special-T (talk) 13:22, 17 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 - CSD G1 TerriersFan 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fuckable art

    All original research, has already been speedied, not notable, very likely hoax Dethme0w 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete and salt. Now let me get this straight. Not only did someone exhume Florence Nightingale and copulate with her remains, but he recorded it on an iPhone and convinced someone it was art? This should have been speedied, WAS speedied once, and the creator is now deleting tags. So we do this the hard way. Dethme0w 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete You should have just retagged it. Removing his own tags doesn't make it un-speediable. That said, I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw the title. Funny as it may be, it's nonsense. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yup, if I thought retagging would be effective that's what I'd have done. We can get it salted this way too. Dethme0w 04:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as fast as possible. Eddie.willers 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Already been tagged for speedy. - Rjd0060 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete. Salt. Yuk. Majoreditor 04:28, 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. Coredesat 08:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Recball

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

    Neologism, and it's written like a dictionary entry. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Neologism or protologism? Either way, Delete. Majoreditor 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Per above (Neo or proto). - Rjd0060 04:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Move to wikitionary if you must, but that doesn't belong here. — Save_Us_229 05:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • De-le-te. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually the "De" wouldn't apply. I've seen this in many Woodsball webpages. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete - I'd want to delete it, but if a template is transcluded on it and the page is bolded - does that not make it wanted? Rudget zŋ 17:06, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Secular saint

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

    Original research, unverified claims, synthesis. I flagged this some time ago and added an in-line citation but can't get the article up to par. Majoreditor 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Does need quite a bit of work, and it's unfortunate that the work hasn't been done as of yet. There are a few references, which makes it at least somewhat notable. - Rjd0060 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep given more sources are added to clearly define what a secular saint means. Remove the original research if you must. — Save_Us_229 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep appears to be a common term, and is in the titles of both scholarly and news articles per various Google searches. The rationale for the nomination suggests clean-up and not deletion is the way to go. ~Eliz81(C) 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Rdj0060. Needs work, but is a notable term. Could use more sources and a bit of work. BeanoJosh 08:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. AfD is not cleanup, and it seems like a notable term, but it's not the perfect article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep - through the assertion of notability by provision of references. Rudget zŋ 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as clearly notable, just needs cleanup. Bearian 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak delete. The term seems to have some use, but does not have widespread use or use in particularly notable. I suggest trans-wiki the term as a dict-def. Pastordavid 21:05, 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 per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:SNOW. Kubigula (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Www.8thstreet.com

    Www.8thstreet.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Nonsense. Created by vandalism-only account. Thinkbui 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete due to lack of content. Majoreditor 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete - Tagged for WP:CSD#A1 --DAJF 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: I hate to use the word, but duh!. - Rjd0060 04:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete No reason to bring this to AFD, just {{db-reason}} it. — Save_Us_229 05:25, 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 to tag the redirect for speedy deletion. Discussion as an article was moot when it was turned into a redirect and an implausable redirect at that. Someone may want to look at the article Ali Jimale too, as that is where it redirected, as that may need to be nominated for deletion. — Save_Us_229 05:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Prof. ALi Jimale

    Prof. ALi Jimale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This is a word for word copy of Ali Jimale, Marlith T/C 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Because there is no suitable speedy deletion tag. So I brought it here. Marlith T/C 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, as apparent from the link in my comment, I meant why not be BOLD and do it. - Rjd0060 05:21, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 15:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Herveys Range Heritage Tea Rooms

    Herveys Range Heritage Tea Rooms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Not notable. The subject is a tea room whose claim to fame is that it's "...the only cafe in Queensland to include Kopi Luwak coffee on their menu, hailed as the most expensive coffee in the world." Of the five references, one is a newspaper report while the other include a blog and a press release or only mention the subject in passing or not at at all. Malcolmxl5 03:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep: I don't think it is worthy of an article, but it appears to be notable given the one good news reference, and after a couple of google searches, there are more reliable sources that seem to think it is noteworthy. - Rjd0060 04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep It has some sources of external recognition and that is noteworty. The article may need a rewrite to make it sound more like an encyclopedia and not a agency trying to attract you there, but other than that, I think it can have its own article. — Save_Us_229 05:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Weak Keep: Needs rewrite though, right now it smells of advertising. Andante1980 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP it has good sources, and is not only about the Kopi Luwak it is also about the history of this building and need to be kept, but i do feel that a small tidy up could be a good thing. Thuringowacityrep 08:11, 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 and salted. Doesn't qualify for G4 as it hasn't been through an AfD before, but certainly does qualify as G1 (nonsense). ELIMINATORJR 09:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Joeism

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

    No reliable references provided to show notability so very likely WP:MADEUP. Prod deleted by original author. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Actually, it meets criteria for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted content. The closing administrator should close and delete this when they see this page's log history. — Save_Us_229 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like it was previously speedied, so not speediable by CSD4 criteria. Doesn't mean it's not a load of Deleteable non-WP:RS-cited WP:NFT, just means we're going through the motions of the AfD process. DMacks 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Deleted once before. Consists completely of made up nonsense. Andante1980 06:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete: Also, i think this article needs some salt Doc Strange 07:24, 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 keep henrik•talk 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] ArtRocker

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

    Despite the previous Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtRocker) which resulted in a speedy keep, there is still nothing here which even makes claims of notability. It's virtually impossible to find anything with Google because the name is generic enough to come up with a lot of false hits. The previous AfD claimed an alexa ranking in the 600,000s, but now it's down to below 1,000,000. Corvus cornix 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete A non-notable magazine Captain panda 03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep Certainly very notable in the UK, distribution of 30,000+, readership of over 100,000; and distribited via Smiths News. Puts on events at the Roundhouse weekly. 122,000 Google hits. Feature on the BBC Website. [74]. Has a radio show on Resonance FM. Can be found in Borders Books , HMV stores, Virgin Megastores, WHSmith and newsagents. Put on the first UK shows by a huge number of bands including Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Probably the closest direct competitor to NME. Rarely for a wikipedia entry, the website is higher on google than the wikipedia entry. Anyone familiar with the music magazine industry in the UK would tell you that deleting this would be ridiculous. 217.44.107.225 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC) - Please note this was me not logged in. No more bongos 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      The article, Smiths News, says that it distributes magazines to 22,000 customers. If this is true, then how can ArtRocker have a readership of 100,000? Captain panda 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Artrocker is not distributed only through smiths news, it is just the main distributor. "22,000 customers" are shops and newsagents anyway, so it would be safe to assume that they stock more than one copy each. In any case, the BBC feature is a clear proof of notability. No more bongos 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Clarify - Smiths News is a wholesaler. No more bongos 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    Just because something is mentioned on the BBC does not make it notable. The BBC could make an article on the chief editor's cat, but that does not make the cat notable. All of the other links you gave to articles have nothing to do with whether the article is notable or not. Also, simply because anyone familiar with UK music would say that deletion of this article is a bad idea does not mean that it should be kept. People that are knowledgable in a certain topic have a bias thinking that everything relevant to the topic should be kept. I has happens to me as well as others. For example, an article I wrote, Torrasque was deleted in this discussion. I was amazed that the community could delete such an important article to the game StarCraft. Afterwards, however, I have realized that I have a bias thinking that every article involving aspects of StarCraft should be kept. Though you may think that deleting ArtRocker would be totally insane, in importance to the encyclopedia, it may be the best thing to do. Captain panda 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    This is a non-trivial feature solely focused on this magazine from the most important news organisation in the UK - not just a mention on the website. I would have no hesitation about deleting fanzine spam, but this is one of maybe 5h or 6 of the largest and most important contemporary music magazines (setting classical music etc aside) in the country. I mean, where is one supposed to find a reference about notable print media anyway? I agree this article is crap as written, but the subject is blatantly notable - if one can walk into your local (Smiths News) distributed newsagent and find a magazine on the shelves, it would tend to suggest that that magazine might be worthy of at least consideration of its notability, considering this is one of the three main distributors in the country. Sure, I have some small interest in this area, but I vote delete on maybe 90% of AFDs. How about being large enough to promote a stage at SXSW, which isn't even in its home country? Oh, by the way, the name isn't generic, all of the google hits I've seen relate to either the name, the club, or the organisation. No more bongos 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The following is a notice found on the BBC article about ArtRocker: "Note: some of the content on collective is generated by members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC." Although I am not familiar with this BBC site, it seems to me that this article was not published by the BBC but instead published by a one Stuart Turnbull as determined from the bottom of the article. A link to a sort of userpage most certainly does not label him as a BBC employee. [75] From what I can tell, the BBC did not actually write about ArtRocker and is actually just some normal person publishing on the BBC site. Captain panda 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    (unindent) Point partly taken, but maybe this guy's content is sanctioned by the BBC and maybe he is just a bit more than a member of the public. He is a official contributing writer for this particular section of the BBC's website: "Stuart writes for The Times and The Guardian. He was X-ray Magazine's Associate editor and feature writer (The former magazine of major radio station XFM) until it closed down. [76] (Context note - XFM is the biggest rock/alternative/etc music station in the UK, no question) I would suggest that the disclaimer represents the comments box on the page, rather than the article. This fellow appears to have written 212 articles for this part of the BBC's website, by the way. I've seen him appear in quite a lot of other places as well - he is certainly not a member of the general public when it comes to writing in this field.. Seriously, though, this is one of the major magazines in its market in the UK, and it would be very odd not to have an article on it. It's not a fanzine, it's glossy, available in a huge number of places and - i'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - but one would have to delete 90% of the articles on any form of UK-based print media. No more bongos 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 03:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Appears to be notable. Also, per the previous consensus (at the last AfD), as there have been few edits since, and content has been added to improve the article. - Rjd0060 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete Has no reliable source and no external links other than it's MySpace links and it's offical website. It shows no evidence of even remotly being notable other than having an alledged crowd of X amount of readers. External coverage should be provided if this publication is notable. — Save_Us_229 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Unless notable 3rd party references can be added to the article. Andante1980 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Very widely known and distributed magazine in the UK - they also put on gigs etc. Yes, third-party web sources are difficult to find - but who'd review a magazine that mainly does reviews? I think that BBC source mentioned above is valid (though it refers to the magazine's £1 beginnings, not its current £3.25 glossy version sold in Virgin and WH Smith) but just putting "Artrocker magazine" or "Artrocker tour" into Google will spill out enough peripheral mentions. Here's a mention [77] from Virgin Megastores that a certain band won a "nationwide completition by Artrocker", for example. Or this [78] BBC page that says a band has "been featured in lots of national press, from The Guardian to Artrocker and the NME". ELIMINATORJR 09:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    My point (as expounded upon drunkenly above) exactly. This is something that the national press views as part of the national press. No more bongos 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Much as I find the magazine irritating, it's widely distributed throughout the UK, and seems sufficiently notable to me.--Michig 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, appears notable. If it's a rival to NME, covering similar sorts of music, then I wouldn't really consider that "art rock", more "pop rock", but that's not my call and has nothing to do with its notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - It's an awful magazine but is widely distributed in UK through newsagents and, in particular, record shops. The lack of 3rd party sources is a problem, but as ELIMINATORJR notes, "who'd review a magazine that mainly does reviews?" Dancarney 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment there ought to be at least a reference for the circulation, or for the assertion that it's the main rival to NME, before the subject is considered notable enough to keep the article. Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Unfortunately, because it's mainly distributed to record stores rather than newsagents, it isn't included in the ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) figures. The only source I can find is a figure of 30,369 from Artrocker's own Press Pack ([79]), which, even though not a reliable source, I would say has to be accurate or they'd be liable for legal action from those that use the pack to advertise in the magazine. ELIMINATORJR 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment: I'd go ahead and put that into the article, saying something like "The magazine claims a circulation of 30,369.[80]". It's not entirely reliable, but the link is a reliable source for the magazine's claim, even if not for the truth of the claim. Argyriou (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Done, as well as re-writing to despamify it. ELIMINATORJR 17:12, 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. Coredesat 08:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] UFC Fight Night 12

    UFC Fight Night 12 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No location, no officially confirmed date, no fights, highly premature. Nothing but speculation at this point (WP:CRYSTAL). Voluminous precedent here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 80. Tuckdogg 02:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete No verifiable information, no information available from any major athletic commission that evidences its existence. east.718 at 02:42, 11/13/2007
    • Delete: Another UFC crystal article. Too early for the article as evident from the lack of information. - Rjd0060 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep As the article does list this which does confirm that this event will exist, so that doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. Anything other than the date and that the event will happen should be removed if added without sources, but in all likelyhood this event is going to happen soon, and it seems like deleting is just premature given the link. — Save_Us_229 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Rumor blogs are not reliable sources. east.718 at 07:37, 11/13/2007
      • You might want to read the source again: "...the next UFC Fight Night event is tentatively scheduled for January 23rd, 2008 though UFC Daily has confirmed that the date for the event has not been finalized." Tentatively scheduled, no date finalized...that's far from confirming anything. Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Tuckdogg 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep agree with above. Doc Strange 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as failing WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL for the most part.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 20:08, 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. I think more text has been written at this AfD than in the source material available on this subject, and in all the shouting, that concern simply has not been addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Don Borghi's experiment

      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}}
    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Don Borghi's experiment
    Don Borghi's experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This is an essay and an attempt to further the author's research, and is not suitable for Wikipedia as WP:OR. Toddst1 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • 1) This is an essay...

    Let's see what Wikipedia tells us about "essays":

    a) An essay is a piece of writing, usually from an author's personal point of view

    So, it no fits to the article Don Borghi's experiment, because the article describes a scientific experiment, and not a personal view point of the author.

    b) Essays are non-fictional but often subjective

    So, it no fits to the article , since it is objective, because:

    1- it describes a scientific experiment
    2- it describes the theoretical implications of the experiment
    3- These theoretical implications are based on arguments supported by mathematical calculations.
    c) while expository, they can also include narrative

    So, it no fits to the article, because it is expository, but it does not include narrative

    d) Academic essays
    - Argumentative essays
    Argumentative essays are most often used to address controversial issues - i.e. serious issue over which there is some evident disagreement. An argument is a position combined with its supporting reasons. Argumentative papers thus set out a main claim and then provide reasons for thinking that the claim is true. Acknowledging opposing views and either refuting them or conceding to them is a common practice in this form of essay.

    So, it does not fit to the article, because in Don Borghi's experiment are exhibited arguments suported by the mathematics. I can accept Toddst argument if he proves that the mathematics in the article is wrong. Otherwise his argument is unacceptable

    2) ...an attempt to further the author's research

    This is a speculation. What is under analysis in here is the article Don Borghi's experiment, and not any other further author's research. The opponents to the article must be objectives, and to attain themselves to the subject of discussion, which is the present article.

    Finally, if Toddst tried to say that it is essay in the sence of a original scientific theory, again it does not fit to the article. Because no theory is exposed in the article. It only describes a scientific experiment, and its theoretical implications.

    I would rather say that essay is the Toddst attemp in proposing the deletion of the article with a so poor argument W.GUGLINSKI 05:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Poorly sourced original research. In this case the COI has caused some problems. - Rjd0060 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Poorly sourced??????????.

    My God, is it a joke? the article describes the Don Borghi's experiment, which results requires an deep reformulation of the principles of Quantum Mechanics, since from QM the Don Borghi's results are IMPOSSIBLE TO OCCUR.

    • original research ????? The article describes a scientific experiment. Where is the original research in here ? It seems that, by missing arguments, some guys repeat what they hear from other people proposing deletion in another situations that however do not fit herein. W.GUGLINSKI 05:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


    • Delete Half of the information in the article is unsourced and should be removed as original research. If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have reliable source and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. — Save_Us_229 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Half of the information in the article is unsourced
    ANSWER: The "citation needed" was provided to the article, and it is now according to the Wikipedia quality standard W.GUGLINSKI 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)




    • Delete Isn't an experiment original research by definition? Unless there are secondary sources discussing the experiment, I don't see how this is notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete the experiment is not notable, though some searching on databases of academic journals showed that some of its results have been independently verified in reproduced conditions. Besides the experiment's lack of notability, the article concerns itself will all manner of implications outside the scope of the experiment that appear to be pure original research. Also my source puts the date of the experiment in the 1960's, not the 1980's. Handschuh-talk to me 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 1) CONFLICT BETWEEN SECONDARY SOURCES:
    Maxamegalon says: Unless there are secondary sources discussing the experiment, I don't see how this is notable.
    While Handschuh says: some searching on databases of academic journals showed that some of its results have been independently verified in reproduced conditions
    • THEREFORE THE SECONDARY SOURCES EXIST
    a) As there are some searching of academic journals showing that some of its results have been independently verified...
    b) ...and as Don Borghi's experiment, if verified requires to change the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, then it obvious that the experiment is not notable because the physicists undertake all the efforts to avoid the experiment become notable. THIS IS CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EXPERIMENT.
    • 3) Also my source puts the date of the experiment in the 1960's, not the 1980's.
    Handschuh , please put your sources in here. W.GUGLINSKI 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)



    • Delete, this smacks of original research. If it is not, which is unlikely, it needs references and citations all over to support the many claims made. dr.alf 08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • it needs references and citations all over to support the many claims made
    ANSWER: The "citation needed" was provided to the article, and it is now according to the Wikipedia quality standard W.GUGLINSKI 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)




    • Comment, 4 hits on Google Scholar for Don Borghi's experiment, one penned by W. Guglinski. dr.alf 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete At best, the second half of the article has to go as it is totally WP:OR. The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go. Alberon 10:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)



    • Weak Delete, with a possible merge and redirect to Cold Fusion (ergo weak). Maybe there's a transwiki to another wiki somewhere, I'm not sure what would qualify as the receptacle for this. I want to make it clear I admire user:W.GUGLINSKI's passion, and certainly acknowledge Mr. Borghi's work. Problem is that this hedges on being original research (it's a standard experiment using scientific process, QED, original research), and ultimately boils down to a recourse on this experiment. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not the place for this - we strive to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not the repository for publication of scientific experiments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • ...and an encyclopedia is not the repository for publication of scientific experiments
    Rawr, the repository of Don Borghi's experiment is the American Journal of Physics, where his paper has been published in 1993. Here there is only a short description of the experiment, and its implications W.GUGLINSKI 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


    Title: Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons

    Authors: Santilli, Ruggero Maria

    Publication: eprint arXiv:physics/0608229

    Publication Date: 08/2006

    Origin: ARXIV

    Keywords: Physics - General Physics

    Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures

    Bibliographic Code: 2006physics...8229S

    Abstract
    Following Rutherford's 1920 historical hypothesis of the neutron as a compressed hydrogen atom in the core of stars, the laboratory synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons was claimed in the late 1960 by the Italian priest-physicist Don Carlo Borghi and his associates via a metal chamber containing a partially ionized hydrogen gas at a fraction of $1 bar$ pressure traversed by an electric arc with $5 J$ energy and microwaves with $10^{10} s^{-1}$ frequency. The experiment remained unverified for decades due to the lack of theoretical understanding of the results. In this note we report various measurements showing that, under certain conditions, electric arcs within a hydrogen gas produce neutral, hadron-size entities that are absorbed by stable nuclei and subsequently result in the release of detectable neutrons, thus confirming Don Borghi's experiment. The possibility that said entities are neutrons is discussed jointly with other alternatives. Due to their simplicity, a primary scope of this note is to stimulate the independent re-run of the tests as conducted or in suitable alternative forms.
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006physics...8229S


    No university or any academic physicist in the world wants to repeat the Borghi's experiment, since it defies the foundations of QM. After its publication by the American Journal of Physics in 1993, as punishment the journal was lowered in its category. That was an admonition to other editors: they would have to take care on what papers they approve for publication. After that time Don Borghi experiment become a tabu. There is not publication of papers in peer review journals confirming its results, but there is not either any publication of experiment claiming that the results are wrong.

    That sentence, published in my book, said by the Nobel Laureate Dr. t'Hooft, he said it to me, when we had a discussion by the internet: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”


    Of course Dr. t'Hooft could claim that he did not say it. So, he could suit me in law. But in such a case the people would ask him:

    “Well, then are you agree that is correct the result obtained by Don Borghi's experiment ?“


    Dr. Hooft would have two alternatives:

    He answers YES, and so I would be saying lies, however he would be agree to the results of the experiments. And he dont want to confess it.
    He answers NO, and in such case he confesses that I wrote the truth. Therefore there would be no reason to suit me in law.


    It is no difficult to understand why Don Borghi's experiment has not notability. But of course that the time shall make justice to Don Borghi in the future. And people will ask him perdon, like today they ask perdon to the ashes of Galileo. W.GUGLINSKI 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment So at least you accept the experiment is not notable at the moment. If that changes in the future then the page can be recreated. Alberon 00:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: Alberon, I think Wikipedia would have to promote the truth, independently of the fact either that truth is notable, or not, when such a truth is supported by strong proofs, as it is the case of a scientific experiment published in a scientifc peer review journal. Interestingly, a rober that stoles things from people, but has notority, has articles published about him in Wikipedia, while an article about a scientist, who made an important experiment published in an important journal of Physics, cannot be kept in Wikipedia, because the experiment is not seen with good eyes by the scientific community, since the experiment defies the dogams in which the theorists believe. So, because the scientifc community neglects Don Borghi's experiment, and by this reason it cannot get notority, it does not merit to be kept in Wiki pages. So, from the statements of Wikipedia, it can support notable claims, even if they are not true, but neglects true facts, if they are not notable because there is a conspiracy of the scientific community against facts that threaten their interests. W.GUGLINSKI 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Your analysis is more or less accurate. You may want to read our policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Our policy page Wikipedia:Notability may assist you as well. --Maxamegalon2000 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
    • Look at what a beautyful sentence:
    • YOU can help Wikipedia change the world
    How can someone, or something, change the world?
    Sure that not by spreading lies. Lies dont change the world.
    Only the truth changes the world. World is changed only by spreading the truth. That's why so many worry to face the truth, because the truth can change their way of life, based on trying to keep lies.
    Other way to help to keep lies is by trying to hinder the truth to appear. It's another way of trying do not allow the world to change. Which obviously is contrary to the Wikipedia slogan W.GUGLINSKI 07:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • One more thing: Alberon, you cannot forget that even among the Wiki members there are persons (probably physicists) interested to hide some facts that they want people do not know. And sure that these persons will try a strong attempt for deleting any article that they consider to threaten the current theories of Physics that they defend. W.GUGLINSKI 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment That is nonsense. Just look at the history of physics throughout the 20th Century. Time and time again, the established order was overturned when new observations showed the then current theory was flawed. Peer Review works very well. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics and tried to shoot it down for years, but he failed because the evidence was against him. There is no Grand Cabal of Physicists deliberatly trying to delete your pages on Wikipedia to hide 'the truth'. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, we can't really evaluate the value of new research or theories. Also since this is an encyclopedia it should only carry notable entries. Note that Wiki does have a page on Cold Fusion even though the vast majority of researchers think the evidence is against cold fusion taking place. Alberon 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So where are the arguments for notability? Where did you put the reliable sources? Certainly this is verifiable, but where does this now fall into the scope of what Wikipedia is for - and vaguely important, where does it fall into the realms of what Wikipedia is not? All I see here are a restatement of the abstract, and something akin to saying, "Fools! I'll show them all!". That's not going to win anybody to your side - understanding and utilizing what WP is for, however will. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy close before this guy turns the AfD into yet another iteration of "War and Peace - The Textbook". JuJube 08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - strip out the parts already covered in cold fusion and bubble fusion and what is left is an unsalvageable, badly written, POV article on a non-notable experiment. Gandalf61 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (not a member of the Grand Cabal of Physicists ... or am I ?)
    • not a physicist defines what is a notable experiment:
    What is notable in the realm of Physics ? Don Borghi is known by many physicists, in spite they neglect it, because they dont want to change the principles of Quantum Mechanics, as required from the results of the experiment. So, within the scientific community the experiment has notability. The experiment has not notability among the laymen, because the midia does not write articles about the experiment, because the physicists do not permit it. But is Wikipedia devoted to the layman only? If there are honest physicists who could be interested to know the experiment (but they dont know it because the experiment is not mentioned in the universities), have the wiki users the right to hinder those honest physicists to get knowledge on Don Borghi's experiment in the Wikipedia pages? W.GUGLINSKI 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


    • Need help:

    The text bellow is repeated several times in the article, because somebody was asking "citation needed", in spite of actually it was not needed. That's why I was obliged to incorporate the text several times when the "citation needed" appeared along the text.

    However, for the elegancy of the article, we would rather to eliminate sucth text, and to replace it by a note, or something like that.

    I dont want to do it, because it's possible somebody will claim again "citation needed". So, I ask somebody to solve the question.

    The text is the following:

    Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is that current theories describing conventional "hot" nuclear fusion cannot explain how a cold fusion reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is currently no accepted theory to explain cold fusion.[27][28] The 1989 DoE panel said: "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process". Current understanding of conventional "hot" nuclear fusion shows that the following explanations are not adequate: (a long list comes after this text). —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.GUGLINSKI (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment One small problem with that. That block of text doesn't fulfill the need for a citation. All you need is a link to an a website independent of you that shows your assertion is supported elsewhere. However, the greater problem of your page remains (just as it did for the other ones you started). The pages you've started are all geared around presenting your theory to the world. But Wikipedia is not a place to advertise something to make it notable. It is, instead, an encyclopedia of all things notable. Your theory to date has not gained notability either inside the Cold Fusion community or in the general scientific community at large. Strip away your theory and there isn't much there that justifies keeping the page. Alberon 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Alberon, It's funny that you was the first one to improve the article, as we see in the article's history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Borghi%27s_experiment&action=history , where you wrote: "Edited in an attempt to remove bias in favour of Cold Fusion. Original point 3 had to be totally deleted". So, at that time you had an opinion different of this one that you have now. Because if at that time you believed that the article does not suit the Wiki standard, you will not waste your time editing it, because nobody wastes his time with a thing that he belives do not have merit. I understand that you suffered influence of the person that posted several templates in the article, and claimed that it needed citations. After all, it makes no sense to waste time with something that merits to be deleted (if should be your opinion at that time). W.GUGLINSKI 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Dont need help anymore I already edited the article, and it is according to Wiki quality standard now W.GUGLINSKI 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I tried to edit it so that it became a viable page. If I had succeeded then I would have come here and changed my vote. If you can make any of the pages you start viable I'd be happy to defend them. Frankly, I don't agree that the article isn't in need of any more editing and I'm quite certain it will be deleted if left in that state. Alberon 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I don't agree that the article isn't in need of any more editing
    Ok, Alberon , then please tell us what you think needs more editing.
    As you say "I tried to edit it so that it became a viable page", this means that you recognize that there is some merit in the article. Then let us try to become it a viable page. W.GUGLINSKI 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


    And at 00:20, 15 November the user Jj137 edited a template marked for cleanup
    So, Jj237 read the article in less than one minute, and concluded that it requires cleanup. Is it possible?
    No, it isnt. Actually Jj237 did not read the article, and did not appraised it. He read only its title, and when he saw Quantum Ring Theory he quickly posted the template.
    This is vandalism. And shows that there is a conspiracy of some users, although everybody claim that there is not W.GUGLINSKI 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It was speedily tagged yes, but it's hard to disagree with it. The article does need a great deal of work on it and might be a candidate for deletion itself. It reads very much like an advert for your book and it attacks a rival publication and it's done in a very similar style to all your previous Wiki pages. Though the user who created it is Edig2000 rather than you. Please tell me that's not you wearing a sockpuppet to try and slip this new page under the radar. Alberon 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • ...and it attacks a rival publication:
    Please show where is the attack. Did I claim that the rival book is wrong? No, I didn't.
    Actually the article shows facts only, as follows:
    1- There are two books - this is a fact
    2- The two books are rival (this is a fact) because they present two different views concerning the future revolution in physics (this is a fact)
    Where is the attack? Please show me !!! W.GUGLINSKI 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment This should be continued on the discussion page for this new page, but the Conflict of Interest WP:COI is obvious. You say the book you wrote is right and the book they wrote is wrong. Alberon 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)





    • I don't see how this is notable. Maxamegalon
    • the experiment is not notable Handschuh-talk to me
    • The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go. Alberon
    • If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have reliable source and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. — Save_Us_229
    • Delete: This isn't notable per AS of WP:ARB/PS. Wikipedia isn't here to reveal suppressed theories. However, I must admit that I'm not sure why this would be suppressed. Is there some reason why the mainstream physics community would want to? --Philosophus T 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    ON THE NOTABILITY OF THE DON BORGHI’S EXPERIMENT
    Why the academic theorists do not allow
    Don Borghi’s experiment becoming notable
    The results of Don Borghi’s experiment, if confirmed in universities, requires the total reformulation of current Theoretical Physics. So, his experiment introduces a conflic of interests in in the realm of Physics, as follows:
    1- The interest of Science : Concerning the question of the science’s development, there is interest to repeat the Don Borghi’s experiment, in order to discover definitivelly if its results are correct. Because if Don Borghi’s experiment is confirmed, the current theories of Physics must be changed. Therefore for the science the experiment’s confirmation, or not, has a fundamental interest.
    2- The interest of academic theorists : As Don Borghi’s experiment threatens the current theories taught in universities, and the academic theorists want to protect their prevailing theories, there is not interest to confirm the experiment in the universites.


    But there is another reason why the academic theorists do not have interest in repeating Don Borghi’s experiment. It is because they believe that are correct the current theories, and therefore the results of Don Borghi’s experiment cannot be correct.

    That’s why the Nobel Laureate in Physics Gerardus ‘t Hooft said: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”.

    • So, Dr. ‘t Hooft bets that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong. After all, Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded his Noble Prize with a theory developed on the foundations of the current prevailing theories. And therefore there is a conflict of interests:
    a) For if Don Borghi’s experiment is correct, the theory from which Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded the Nobel has been developed on the basis of doubtful principles. But he cannot believe that his theory can be under the shadow of any suspiction. Then it’s obvious that he is sure that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong, and Dr. ‘t Hooft supports his conviction in his theoretical views. So there are hard reasons why Dr. ‘t Hooft doesn’t want to see such experiment verified in any university.
    b) But many theorists (like R. M. Santilli of the Institure for Basic Research) have interest to verify the experiment, because they think that there are some troubles with the prevailing theories. And if Don Borghi’s experiment is verified and confirmed, their suspiction will be confirmed too: that is, there are indeed serious troubles in Theoretical Physics.


    • I bet that Don Borghi’s experiment is correct. My suspiction is supported in theoretical reasons, as happens in the case of Dr. ‘t Hooft. So, we disagree in the way we see the foundations of Modern Physics.
    That’s why in 2001 I suited in law two Brazilian universites, in order to oblige them to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment in their laboratories. They are: the Federal University of Minas Gerais-UFMG, and the Federal University of Juiz de Fora-UFJF.
    As a judicial support, I used the Brazilian Constitution, which prescribes that any university must promote the science’s development. So, as the Don Borghi’s experiment is of the science’s interest (as explained in the item 1 above), then I used such an argument, trying to convince the judge to oblige via judicial the two universities to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment in their laboratories. Unfortunatelly the judge did not give to the Brazilian Constitution the respect that it merits, and he considered that my request had not judicial support to oblige the two universities to perform the experiment.


    As conclusion, Don Borghi’s experiment is notable
    in the realm of Physics
    But the academic physicists undertake very hard efforts in order
    do not allow that such notability of Don Borghi’s experiment
    leak to the knowledge of people.
    W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)



    ISN'T DON BORGHI'S EXPERIMENT NOTABLE IN THE REALM OF PHYSICS ?

    Ruggero Santilli had previously contacted physics labs in the USA, Europe, Russia and China asking them to test the possibility of a synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons (Don Borghi's experiment), but had been consistently rejected. Hence the experiment, which is extremely simple and can be repeated by practically any reasonably well equipped researcher, was performed at the Florida laboratory of Santilli's Institute for Basic Research.

    http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:_EaIm6dj_FMJ:hamdendtdos.jiancss.com/archives/62566/+%22Don+Borghi%27s+experiment%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. And given the above, perhaps watch for re-creation, requiring a new deletion. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:26, 18 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 01:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Mikhail Portnov

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

    Article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Mikhail Portnov. Hu12 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • delete: He appears to be equally notable for celebrating thanksgiving (seriously). Toddst1 02:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Per above. This doesn't have any assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 04:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong delete Claim of notability as a wikipedian of all things almost gives it away. What's next? — Save_Us_229 06:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Totally non-notable. Alberon 10:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Hedge on a db-bio, but not quite for that. He created a school, great. He's a wikipedian - great, so am I. So what makes him notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • delete - not that it needs this vote Victuallers 09:57, 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 Delete G11 (Spam) by User:KieferSkunk. Non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] PORTNOV COMPUTER SCHOOL

    PORTNOV COMPUTER SCHOOL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to PORTNOV COMPUTER SCHOOL. Advertisment Hu12 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: This one too. Non notable. - Rjd0060 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur: Clearly non-notable. The lovely and clever all-caps typing almost redeems it, though. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The all CAPS almost gives it away, but the inventor claiming to be a wikipedian is the dead give away :) — Save_Us_229 06:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article definitely fails WP:NOTABILITY. And like Bullzeye said, the caps lock in the title is a giveaway per WP:MOS. BeanoJosh 08:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per above. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete An advert and totally non-notable. Alberon 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete non notable. Tbo 157(talk) 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete as spam. Comes off as an advertisement for a trade school. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


    The result was speedy delete. Non admin closure. — Rjd0060 07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of State University of New York Institute of Technology People

    List of State University of New York Institute of Technology People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Over categorization with limited entry on this page since its creation. Rob110178 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy Delete: Per WP:CSD#A1 and I've tagged it. There is no context in this article. So little context, it doesn't even qualify as a valid stub. Rjd0060 04:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete A1 candidate. I have to say though that the article should have been called at least List of State University of New York Institute of Technology alumni, not 'people' of all things :) — Save_Us_229 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Hollywood Cure For Pain

    Hollywood Cure For Pain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Delete - prod removed by anon without comment. Organization fails WP:N as there are no reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of it. The yahoo groups and publicity photo sites added as "references" don't cut it. Otto4711 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Per nom. It doesn't appear to be notable, and there aren't any sources...reliable ones. - Rjd0060 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: per all above. The "Hollywood" aspect doesn't confer notability, and the sources are quite literally worthless. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Doesn't establish itself as notable whatsoever. — Save_Us_229 06:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete It cited nothing, it isn't notable and for all we know doesn't exist. Doc Strange 07:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete. An open and shut case to me. Fails WP:N, and the "sources" fail WP:RS. BeanoJosh 09:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - the AFD notice was removed and this page blanked three days ago by an anon IP vandal. Personally I think it's snowing but this may need to stay open an extra day or two because of the vandalism. Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete An unreferenced article on a nn organization. The creation of 76.230.47.222 (talk · contribs), the same single purpose account that removed the AfD notice. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:31, 18 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. Coredesat 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Douglas Anderson School of the Arts Improviser

    The Douglas Anderson School of the Arts Improviser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    I present to you The Douglas Anderson School of the Arts Improviser, a high school newspaper with no reliable sourced assertions of notability. I've looked for about 5 minutes now, and can't find anything particularly stunning about it on t'interweb. Thoughts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    This article is still in its infancy. Although it may not be sourced to many websites that may be unreliable in the first place, the information comes from the school and the newspaper itself. Furthermore, the article has not shown any bias, remaining objective and respectful, and has continued to grow as of late. It isn't fair to delete an article that is making a legitimate attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines and provide straight information to those who seek it. If this article is deleted, much of the information will be lost in the merge to the Douglas Anderson School of the Arts article. This article should not be deleted when it hasn't had the chance to grow.

    Comment: Dont think so. It has had 9 months to "grow". Wiki is not a crystal ball. - Rjd0060 06:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Restore: Allow this article to grow and become notable by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.246.17 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that isn't how it works. We don't advertise so things can become popular, we're not MySpace. — Save_Us_229 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have no way of being able to tell when (or if) the paper will meet the notability requirements. All we know for sure is that it doesn't meet them right now, and, to me anyway, it seems unlikely that will change regardless of the amount of time given. Most school newspapers (and many schools themselves) simply don't have any reliable, third-party sources attesting to their importance and uniqueness in their specific field. I doubt yours does either. Sorry, but if you unexpectedly get a major write up or award you can always re-create it later. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Previous comment is based on incorrect facts. The Improviser has received several awards and just last year took a trip to New York for their newspaper. The newspaper comes from a school of notable alumni, some of which got their starts on The Improviser. The article does not "advertise" or promote itself suggesting that it is better than any other newspaper. The article in no way treats the Wikipedia community as a MySpace, and therefore should not be treated as such. The article was recently cut down by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and so much supporting information was lost. And as for the previous suggestion of deletion then recreation, why delete an article that doesn't need to be deleted in the first place?


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

    The result was delete. Coredesat 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Simeon_Courtie

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

    I don't see how the article meets Notability criteria dr.alf 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete. CSD A7. So tagged. --Malcolmxl5 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep: I've removed the speedy tag. I am mostly judging this on the previous "keep" consensus. At that debate, only one person mentioned expanding the article, and it was still kept. There haven't been too many changes since then, so I feel that it is worth keeping. - Rjd0060 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Even without the previous afd, this still isn't a speedy, as the assertion of notability here is that he presented BBC TV shows. Crazysuit 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment No, this is by no means a speedy candidate, as there was 2 previous AFD's on it, that by definition means it is not a candidate for speedy deletion in itself. — Save_Us_229 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Wikipedia only shows one prior nomination (this is the second one), and the first one is very suspect. It supports a keep of the article, but nobody actually demonstrates notability (other than saying "known presenter", which is not an independent verifiable source). dr.alf 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Obviously non-notable. No reliable source should mean no entry on Wikipedia about that individual. He doesn't seem to be notable for anything and hasn't done anything but be an average actor, which doesn't require a Wikipedia entry. — Save_Us_229 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No significant independant coverage found through Google. Epbr123 11:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - not sourcable means no article we should have.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:46, 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 (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Interactive Learning Segments

    List of Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Interactive Learning Segments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non notable, what else is there to say? Yet another piece of Thomas the Tank Engine cruft, this belongs on the Thomas wiki. Crazysuit 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete -- as per nom. This type of list is unverifiable and a magnet for poor edits and spurious information. If any diehard 'Thomas' fan really wants to look at this page or maintain it, a copy has been taken to a page at TrainSpotting World.
    (For WP:THOMAS) -- EdJogg 01:40, 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 keep personally, I think it should be deleted. but alas, it appears I would be in the minority here. And since valid reasons are used... Balloonman (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] High Neighbors: Dub Tribute To Phish

    High Neighbors: Dub Tribute To Phish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable tribute album, previous prod'd and deleted, and previous to that was deleted as creation by banned user (see High Neighbors: Dub Tribute to Phish) SkierRMH 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Album is sold and distributed worldwide on a fairly large record label, Vitamin Records, which also has tribute albums for Rob Zombie, Smashing Pumpkins, and Linkin Park that are all profiled on WIkipedia. Phish arguably has a larger following than any of these bands. Banned user's original page remains deleted as this is a new entry, though the construction of such a page apparently passed AfD in June 2007. KevinPharmers 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Neutral: Does it meet WP:MUSIC just because it is sold worldwide?? Reading the article, it doesn't seem notable. - Rjd0060 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Phish is notable, this album tribute to Phish is notable, released by notable record label.. seems to meet any other albums notablity for inclusion here. — Save_Us_229 06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Um...Save_Us, notability is not inherited. Cover bands don't simply get their favorite band's notability conferred onto them. Also, according to WP:MUSIC, they need to have released "2 or more" albums with the same notable record label. This is their first and only. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    True, but you could make that argument for albums for a lot of albums that are not even thought of being put up for deletion. — Save_Us_229 06:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep dub tribute albums to Radiohead and Pink Floyd (granted, the latter shifted 85,000 united) have pages, so there's no reason to single this one out Doc Strange 07:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep There seems to be confusion amongst the WP community about the difference between a "cover band" and a "tribute album". A cover band is a band that plays exclusively songs by several other artists (usually in smoke-filled bars with dubious sound equipment). A tribute album is an album recorded by several notable artists, playing songs by one other notable band or artist. This is the latter. These are notable artists. They are playing songs by a notable artist. As part of the overall structure of the Phish tribute pantheon, this is notable. —  MusicMaker5376 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. The claims to notability here are that it's an album paying tribute to a notable band, which falls foul of the argument that notability isn't inherited, and that it was released on a notable label, and I'm not entirely sure about that being the case either (inasmuch as a quick stroll around the net helped me, this is essentially a tribute-only label). Contrary to MusicMaker's claims, neither of the men involved in recording this album appear to be notable beyond the fact that they presumably are connected to the label it was released on. If there's material I'm unaware of regarding the notability of the musicians or the label - preferably both - then I'm willing to be persuaded to change my position. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to List of Phish tribute albums. IMO, tribute albums earn notability from the contributors, not the tributee, and the contributors to this one do not seem to bring enough notability for a stand-alone article with them (neither of them has a Wikipedia article, and my google search couldn't verify that such articles would survive. On AMG, Mario Calandrelli gets credit for percussion on two compilation albums; Martino Campobasso gets credit for three). Given that WP:MUSIC requires 2 albums on a notable label for a band to gain notability by association, the notability (or lack thereof) of Vitamin Records doesn't seem relevant to me. Its best case would seem to be reliance on widespread sources, and I've looked over everything Google has to offer without finding anything. However, there is sufficient evidence that the album exists, so a redirect to the list that mentions it seems appropriate to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 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 Keep While WP:CRAP generally isn't a good argument, the fact that over 300 other college stations exists is---Category:College radio stations in the United States.Balloonman (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Black Squirrel Radio

    Black Squirrel Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Contested speedy undeleted and brought to AFD. Was originally deleted for not asserting notability per WP:WEB (it is an internet radio station). This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Coredesat 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. This is a college radio station at Kent State University that has been on the air since the 1930s. They changed their name in the mid 1990s and have over 24,000 hits on Google under their new name and who knows how many media references under their old name. You might even find some notable DJs who cut their teeth there. 199.125.109.68 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      Disregard the comment made by 199.125.109.68 it is the ip of the creator and all he has beeen doing lately is casuing trouble. Yourname 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • What? I have no relation to the creator, you have no reason to be so assuming. If you check my edits you will see that I have contributed over 500 edits to over 100 articles, and none were done other than to improve the articles. You really need to lighten up and assume good faith. The creator on the other hand, is a new editor who has done very few edits and needs to be helped and encouraged. 199.125.109.50 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Needs sourcing but should be salvageable. As it stands is a CSD A7, but I'm sure it can be improved so that it isn't. No more bongos 06:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete either as NN-web or NN-group, depending on one's point of view. Definitely no claims of notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. [81] - This level of scholarly documentation, along with references in at least 35 news articles and approximately 24,200 Google hits indicates sufficient notability. EFindlicher 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's Kent's own website, hardly a secondary source, much less a reliable secondary source. And while Google hits are mostly irrelevant to such discussions, since you mentioned it I get 87 unique Google hits for "Black Squirrel Radio" in quotes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Discrediting anything from Kent State's website as a source is not a valid argument; Kent State is a community of over 30,000 students and faculty; there are several media outlets at Kent State that operate as (as much as is possible) unbiased news sources and are not controlled or censored by the university administration or faculty. These include the Daily Kent Stater, TV-2 & Black Squirrel Radio. Being that Kent State is the intended market for the station, it is unlikely you will find large amounts of scholarly research and news coverage on it outside of this community. On wikipedia, Daily Kent Stater currently redirects to Kent State's page, where it has a paragraph under the Student Media section. If not considered worthy of its own article, at the very least it should be merged into Kent State's page. EFindlicher 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • "...it is unlikely you will find large amounts of scholarly research and news coverage on it outside of this community." Thank you, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I would contest that this is true of any radio station, even broadcast stations; they are by their nature regional phenomena, but that does not make them without notability. The community or Kent State students, faculty & alumni totals over 200,000 people. EFindlicher 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to Kent State University as suggested above - not enough individual notability for its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Merging would not be a good idea. Articles get too long as they are and adding details about the school radio station is not a good idea. 199.125.109.50 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete and lock to prevent from being recreated NN a7 also i think there also trying to promote their site here! Yourname 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I was creator of this article. I am not, and have never been an employee at Black Squirrel Radio. I am a Kent State alumnus, and was a student at the university when the name change occurred, but my point in creating this article was not to promote their website... I'm seeing already that this kind of knee-jerk accusation happens far too often. I hoped to contribute an article about something I felt was culturally and historically significant in the realm of college radio, but I quickly tire of this sort of garbage. I was the one who initially suggested the merge into the Kent State University article, where it could live alongside the Daily Kent Stater and TV-2, its print and television counterparts at the university. Do what you will, I no longer care. EFindlicher 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I asked that it not be deleted. I have no relationship whatsoever to BSR or Kent State. I would ask that reviewers compare with other Category:College radio stations in the United States. My own college radio station (one of the 315 in the category), for example, cites absolutely no references other than radio-locator. Most that I checked were stubs with no references. See for example WRGW. To single out BSR as not notable would be vindictive and wrong. The proposer that it be deleted, Yourname, really needs to lighten up and find another ax to grind. 199.125.109.50 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Another Comment - Could people please try and handle AFD in a polite and constructive way. Please try to assume good faith and talk about the article rather than commenting on each other. That applies to both of you. I am Abstaining since I don't know enough about the subject, but it would be useful if people could try and find some reliable sources rather than snapping at each other. No more bongos 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete NN-web or NN-group, no claims of notability in the article. 68.49.67.157 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per 68.49.67.157. Dangledorf 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and expand Don't merge. Add references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep Heritage and details provided support a claim of notability. Article needs cleanup and would benefit from additional sources, all of which could have been accomplished with one of many tags designed for just such purpose. Alansohn 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The article has claims to origin in 1949 as well as origin in the 1930's, so they should get their story straight. This apparently never was a licensed broadcast station, but rather a college hobby effort or a class assignment. Non-licensed hobby broadcast operations have generally not been found to satisfy WP:N. It lacks either evidence of FCC licensing or of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Edison 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge with Kent State. Majoreditor 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge: And redirect the page to the appropriate section at Kent State University. - Rjd0060 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge with Kent State University. Doesn't need it's own article as it doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than being owned by Kent State. — Save_Us_229 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect and Merge to Kent_state#Student_media. Thought it might be notable from the comments above but the lineage isn't as clear as suggested. Seems to be a recent online radio setup that isn't even mentioned in the main Kent State article. The 1930s radio station might be a more notable candidate for an article. MLA 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's the same radio station over the years. It currently has 100 DJs. They changed their name a few years ago, but nothing else changed. I just don't see that there is any minimum length to articles, but I do see that merging this with KSU will make that article unnecessarily long. This AFD is a formality, because someone mistakenly asked that BSR be deleted, what do you plan on doing with the other 400 college radio station articles? Take a look at any of them.[82] Why should BSR be treated any differently. Let them have their article. I wouldn't want anyone to delete my college radio station, which is barely different from the coverage of BSR, and actually has less references. 199.125.109.50 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect and Merge to Kent State University...Because of the station's age and the college it is affiliated with, it is somewhat notable, but it should be included in the Kent State page proper Doc Strange 14:47, 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. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (fictional show)

    Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (fictional show) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article about fictional television series is largely redundant; information regarding "musical guests" and "guest hosts" is already contained within the List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes list, while the "crew" section replicates the "characters" section in the main Studio 60 article. There is no discussion of the topic from any secondary sources and the latter half is just a list. Brad 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Unless a lot of sources can be found. If not, we cannot verify any of this. - Rjd0060 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Unneeded, unsourced cruft about the show. — Save_Us_229 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as creator. The main Studio 60 article doesn't list who the actors portrayed, when pretending to be a fictitious character, which this article does. It also doesn't detail the information on sketches etc. Though this is unreferenced, it's doesn't mean it's not verifiable. Some areas need a re-write to remove the in-universe style, but there's no tag stating that the article is unreferenced. The grounds are not clearly established as to why the article ought to be deleted. The term "cruft" is inappropriately being cast here. The term Cruft depicts suppositions and hypotheses, neither of which are included here, only factual inclusions available to be seen within the episodes (and each indicates which actual episode it appears in). --lincalinca 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "Cruft" has nothing to do with hypotheses, the word is nearly always applied to factual content. See WP:CRUFT. Crazysuit 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge into the actual Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip page. Doc Strange 12:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Rjd above.   jj137 (Talk) 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. In-universe, no real world notability, no sources showing notability of this fictional show. Using the television infobox here is misleading, as those infoboxes should only be used for genuine TV shows (obviously). Crazysuit 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge Not worthy of its own article ffm 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Another one of the many fictional articles that shouldn't exist due to lack of real-world notability. --CrazyLegsKC 21:12, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Paul Morris (producer)

    Paul Morris (producer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Proded for notability, prod removed with statement "Prominent, controversial pornographer". Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. CitiCat ♫ 00:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy Keep, due to there not being anyone arguing to delete. If you have no opinion, why are you nominating it? The point of a PROD removal isn't to automatically be converted to an AFD as a "procedural". It can be nominated for AFD if someone really thinks it should be deleted, but it shouldn't be automatic. You will also notice that the PROD removal was accompanied by adding a paragraph of text, with inline reference, and 2 external links,[83] which should make the notability issue rather clear. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I moved it here because the same user restored the prod notice, which meant that user did not understand procedure. I assume the user would want to continue the discussion. This seemed inevitable, so we might as well have it while you're focused on the subject and get it over with. CitiCat ♫ 04:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Appears to demonstrate notability. --DAJF 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Needs more sources, but appears notable. - Rjd0060 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Notable subject, needs more sources. — Save_Us_229 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Most porn studios are little more than a handful of people, so it is safe to assume Morris plays a major role there. Treasure Island is noted for winning an award for Best US Studio, so I would say this would be one instance where notability does transfer from the studio to the producer. Tabercil 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP: I'm not sure if I'm entering this comment page correctly but as Morris is arguably the world's most well-known (best known) bareback porn producer it would seem as if he should not even be considered for deletion. If anything, the entry should be expanded. If I knew more about the man (aside from knowing his movies) I would be glad to add to his write-up! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agateforce (talk • contribs) 13:53, November 16, 2007
    You need to put your opinion at the bottom, actually, I moved it down for you. And please do expand the article, there are several interviews added as external links to use as sources. Just say where you get each fact, put a <ref> tag stating the source; take a look at how a few are already done in the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Or if you can figure out how the <ref> tag works, just put the link in square brackets after the fact and someone else can do the ref work. Tabercil (talk) 03:50, 17 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 (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] 10 Natural Wonders of the British Isles

    10 Natural Wonders of the British Isles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    I have serious concerns about this one. Admittedly, the Radio Times is a big publication, but it's yet another of these "they polled their readers and got a top ten"-type article which is both an opinion (albeit an opinion of a large number of readers) and - in all probability - a copyright issue. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete They are all lovely places, but the Radio Times poll is not notable. I agree that there may be copyright problems here. Bláthnaid 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The poll itself is not notable (where are all the independent sources quoting the poll? That is what would make the poll notable.) though the places themselves may be notable. I suggest that the fact is noted in each of the articles instead (in fact, it already is in several of them). --Malcolmxl5 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Unreliable poll, but isn't it original research anyways? - Rjd0060 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Unreliable, unnotable poll conducted by publication. No poll like this satisfy criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. — Save_Us_229 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete only weak because it's a Radio Times poll, but it's an unnotable Radio Times poll Doc Strange 07:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The places are notable. The Radio Times is notable. This poll is not. Alberon 11:01, 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 (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Markham Woods Middle School

    Markham Woods Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD 1 week ago with no improvements. Important? Yes, all schools are important but this schools' only assertion of notability is unsourced, and I cannot find any sources to verify it. Rjd0060 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. no assertion of notability. Keeper | 76 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Delete, WP:N. --θnce θn this island Speak! 00:46, 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 whaddahoax. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Oatiality

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

    Google returns nothing for this, likely a hoax VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:58, 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.
    Languages