Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is now a redirect to Catscratch#The Humans. --Angelo (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chumpy Chumps

The Chumpy Chumps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minor characters and a poor article overall. --RandomOrca2 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Catscratch and delete. Even the author agrees that these are minor characters, so there's no clear claim of notability here. Phil Bridger 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Just to note that you can't merge & delete. For copyright reasons, articles that are merged must remain as redirects. The edit summary of the destination article needs to note the source. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - Being a poor article is a reason for a cleanup tag, not a deletion. Minor characters can be appropriately redirected to the main topic's article page. Rray 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - per Rray's comment, above. --- FrankTobia (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elke The Stallion

Elke The Stallion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article created by single-purpose account on a woman who is asserted to have notability because she's modelled and been in videos. Tagged for notability and sources for months. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, quite likely WP:AUTO. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment -stallions are also typically male. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO, barring reputable references. --- FrankTobia (talk) 21:24, 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. — Scientizzle 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Make Clocks

Why Make Clocks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article seems to have been made as part of a walled garden. Band's notability, argued for in the first AfD, was based at least partly on some internet magazine whose site no longer exists. First AfD seems awfully weak, having only the article creator/former band member, and 2 PRODders who felt guilty. No sources given in article except for an AMG link. First few ghits that come up are for the band website, Myspace, and (guess what) Wikipedia. Fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless further evidence can be brought to light. I scrolled through each of the 213 unique google hits that I got on this band and found only one reliable source that gave more than trivial coverage (playdates, for instance): a single album review (I've added it to the EL on the article). I also went through the review sites list from WP:ALBUM and did a search on the band at each of them. Pop Matters, the review I added to the article, was the only one that had a listing for the band (aside from AMG). Notability does not seem to be there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete inasmuch as the band's notability has not been shown. Google is a wonderful thing, but the number of hits creates the illusion of notability. As noted above, when you click through "there's no there there." Xymmax (talk) 13:42, 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. Hut 8.5 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community informatics at the ischools and library schools

Community informatics at the ischools and library schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This reads as original research and fails to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an meaningless list. An article on "community informatics" as a subject is certainly possible, conceivably accompanied by a list of schools offering concentrations in it--if any actually do. Using the article for , first, a complete list of the type of library school that self-indulgently calls itself an "i-school" and then a list of others, together with some of the courses they teach, is absurd. There are some equally bad list of schools teaching a particular subject elsewhere, and they'd probably justify some discussion here. We'll get to them after this one. There might be a point to a world-wide list of library schools--though the article Library school has a perfectly good external link to an authoritative US list, I am not sure there is any world-wide one readily available. This is not the way to do it. DGG (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.Biophys 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems mostly promotional. CitiCat ^♫ 00:35, 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. Hut 8.5 07:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dabo DAF

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

Delete unsourced article about a software program with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There isn't even any claim to notability on the Dabo website, i.e. no links to reviews, no customer list. Phil Bridger 09:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of notability. Note that the author of the article has recreated the content in Dabo (desktop application framework), which I also think should be deleted. There are a few external links listed, but they aren't very good sources: discussion forums, 2 links to the same essay (by the software's creators) posted in 2 different places. Dawn bard 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:46, 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. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doom Guard

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

Article has zero notability, no references, and is duplicative with the character section of the video game from which it came. Judgesurreal777 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters (which itself probably needs to be split by the alphabet into four or five articles, but that's a cleanup issue). The guard doesn't seem to have enough independent notability to warrant a separate article, in the way that the characters as a whole do. —Quasirandom 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Quasirandom. Rray 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagrashtak 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - In-game statistics (WP:NOT) and lack of out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Marasmusine 16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, no out of universe info and unlikely that there will be some. Merge seems inappropriate, the article labels the Doomguard as a type of enemy rather than an individual character.Someone another (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that WP:NOT and WP:WAF direct us to delete the article and reading the L:ist of characters I also do not feel that a merge is correct. SorryGuy 20:14, 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 deleted, then redirected. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cow In Action

Cow In Action (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to be an aborted version of an article that previously existed at Wikipedia under the title Cows In Action. Cows In Action is now a redirect to the author, Stephen Cole (writer). This article should probably be speedy-redirected to Stephen Cole, if not deleted automatically as a spelling mistake. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Since Cows In Action already present and the singular version of the title does not serve any purpose -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 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 Speedy Deleted twice by separate admins. As the article no longer exists (for the moment), this is a non-admin closure. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explosive flail

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

Hoax. Something from China, which came to Europe, and has no written documentation, and was dug up in Montana. Corvus cornix 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unless reliable sources - and bloody good ones at that - are found. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as a hoax. Martijn Hoekstra 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax. Tiptoety 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Page speedy deleted twice now. Tiptoety 23:43, 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. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Portal

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

As you can see, the Dark Portal has zero notability outside of the Warcraft Universe, and is a withered stub as its own article. It should be deleted since it has no references, no out of universe information, and is duplicative to the game articles which deal with the Dark Portal extensively already. Judgesurreal777 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for a separate article, no out-of-universe perspective. Pagrashtak 21:53, 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 redirected to List of Friends episodes#Season 10: 2003-2004 in lieu of a delete. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The One After Joey and Rachel Kiss

The One After Joey and Rachel Kiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per Ryan Postlethwaite's "suggestion" I am putting this Friends-related article forward as a test case for deletion. I am not a member of the cabal that has been redirecting articles en masse for the last several months and telling people to go away and make their own wikia (I began redirecting these articles only tonight) -- rather I have taken the time to scrounge up sources for other Friends episode articles that do show a basic level of notability. Anyway, the subject of this article has no significant coverage in third-party sources and is merely a plot summary and an airdate -- something already covered in List of Friends episodes. Brad 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Only rarely do we need an entire article on a single episode of a half-hour t.v. show. We don't need it here. --Yamla 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One of the downsides of Wikipedia is the individual articles about episodes of TV shows that cropped up when Wikipedia was taking anything that it could get. They seldom get nominated, yet they're usually the worst offenders when it comes to "original research", they're not really notable, there's nothing encyclopedic about them. A lot of promising articles get deleted, while crap like this goes on and on. Start nominating. Mandsford 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a pretty dramatic change of wiki policy, I know of no discussion on this topic and it seems against current policy at least in terms of customary usage. If you could point me to anything that is a precedent for this I would be most interested.Moheroy 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is a discussion going on here and a guideline here. As I've just said on the Talk:Friends page, it's not about removing every episode article. Brad 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Then this is a "test case" for what? I can easily see your point about individual episode articles in themselves, but if some episodes are notable, how are others not? I have no problem with a discussion of removing episode articles, I just have to question why this one alone? This sort of article is so prevalent, and has existed for such a long time, that I think what is being suggested here is a new policy. The notability guideline you site is not a discussion of this, it is instead the basic general guideline.Moheroy 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The notability guideline very definitely does apply to this, as it does to all other articles. Specific guidelines on individual topic areas are simply indicators of how the general guideline is interpreted. Episodes which are notable as episodes under the guideline can have articles, ones which are not notable should not. It's pretty simple really. Phil Bridger 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: An article on a TV episode, what will we have next? delete it please -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia has an awful lot of these articles, just look at the Simpsons and South Park. These have been here for a very long time.Moheroy 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument against deletion. Phil Bridger 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No claim to notability under WP:EPISODE, WP:N. Phil Bridger 09:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Otherstuffexists can be a perfectly valid argument when a type of article is widely used and accepted, and an attempt is made to pick out a particular one of the many, for no individual reason. What is claimed to be particularly unnotable about this one? WP:EPISODE says "Create pages for outstanding episodes." I can not see how that can be a practical criterion--who is going to decide that? But its not a subject i think I can reasonably get too much involved in. However, this AfD is expectedly not about the article, the nomination gives this as a test case. But the discussion page at WP:EPISODE and the new discussion at [1] gives no indication that there is any actual consensus. Close this discussion and send them back to the policy page. Better, considering the wide interest in the general subject,and the disagreements on that page, it probably needs a community discussion. DGG (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's been plenty of community discussion involved in creating the notability guideline. Why should there be more discussion about whether TV series episodes should be exempt from this? This is a general guideline that applies to all articles. Phil Bridger 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify: I mean a test case for Friends episode articles. I couldn't care less about other articles. Brad 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know whey people are surprised that we have articles about things that have been watched and bought by millions worldwide. Yeah, FICT; N, blah blah blah. There is potential for RSs if you look. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep with no prejudice to a merge; I think the article is poor, but WP:EPISODE specifically requests that editors do not place episodes for AfD, but instead to propose a merge discussion. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing to merge; the plot summary and airdate are already present in List of Friends episodes. Brad (talk) 16:51, 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micro-Park

Micro-Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a neologism. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree it is a neologism. The two "sources" are not reliable. First source does not use the term micro park at all. The second source is a blog/wiki. Cool concept, bad stub. Keeper | 76 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. The term micropark does exist and is used by community activists and urban planning professionals, but it generally just means a small park with one key amenity (say, a fountain or playground), often developed on a single former property (e.g. a house lot). The meaning in the article is definitely not a general meaning although it may exist as such in more than one place. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Pocket park. Bearian 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software Piracy in Indonesia

Software Piracy in Indonesia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and unimproved essay by a single author Frescard 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep: An article about software piracy in a country is definitely notable. What is lacking is the sources -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, microessay, unencyclopedical (SW piracy is a hardly Indonesia specific phenomenon). Pavel Vozenilek 11:26, 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 speedy deleted. Page existed solely to say "there is [sic] no details". Pagrashtak 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smackdown vs raw 2009

Smackdown vs raw 2009 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication of notability and WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Could have been speedied, IMO. Keeper | 76 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought about it, but some people would find sufficient context there, and/or claimed an assertion of notability, less wikidrama for these fan-fanatic type pages going this route. Carlossuarez46 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - if there are no details available at this time, we shouldn't have a page. - DrWarpMind 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I'm forced to agree, if there are no details, then there's no need for an article to reference them. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:27, 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. Singularity 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revolution Radio

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

Contested PROD. I am not sure how this article managed to survive for the couple months that it has been here, but it fails to assert any notability. Rjd0060 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, non-neutral, no independent sources, or any other sources for that matter. Easily confused with other "revolution radio" websites and at least one real radio station, so a notable article may exist under this title at some point in the future. I'm guessing the Ron Paul site (revolutionradio.org) would be the most likely, uh, candidate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. JohnCD 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. Radio stations are frequently kept in AfD, but I don't see a valid reason why this one should. The main problem is lack of reliable sources outside of the weblink provided to the radio station's homepage. Also, some bad faith editing seems to be happening, as the prod and AfD tags are being removed without reason or discussion. Keeper | 76 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrestrial radio stations, yes. Shoutcast streams, generally not. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable, seems to be using Wikipedia for ad space -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• AFD typically keeps terrestrial radio stations that are duly licensed by their country's broadcast regulator. We don't generally keep individual Shoutcast streams unless actual encyclopedic notability can be demonstrated, and I don't see any here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 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. Hut 8.5 07:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trace (psycholinguistics)

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

Spedily deleted once by me; when I nominated for speedy deletion for the second time, with the reason of "Blatant promotional, see sentences like "If the prediction turns out to be 100% accurate, then the model must be a useful theory about the stock market. TRACE is just like this [...]", it was transformed to proposed deletion. However, creator objects to deletion on the talk age, so this process is more appropriate. Delete unless re-written. - Mike Rosoft 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The citations in the article establish that the topic is notable and an article can be written about it. The present article seems to have been written by a well-informed author who isn't fully acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, but it's far from unfixable, and contains much good information that would take another editor, particularly a non-specialist, a long time to rewrite from scratch. I think deleting this kind of contribution may discourage experts from writing for Wikipedia (cf. this essay). EALacey 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative and important for people who know anything about linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.6.215 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A clear example of an article which needs cleanup rather than deletion. Phil Bridger 09:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption competition

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

Non-notable type of Net game, article has been tagged for improvement since April, needs sourcing. Caknuck 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While there are lots of ghits for the phrase, the ghits don't seem to discuss the concept itself, leading me to doubt notability. Right now the article is little more than a dictdef.--Fabrictramp 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't even good as a listing in a dictionary. Mandsford 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Today's image is Image:NRV.png. But the question is, has anyone covered caption competitions in a reliable source (instead of just heaving them)? If nobody can find such material to expand past a dictdef, then delete. MER-C 05:13, 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 Delete --JForget 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sitivi Liva

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

Anon blanked the page claiming that it's a hoax, that no such person exists. It *is* unreferenced, and given the hoax claim, really needs references if it is going to remain. TexasAndroid 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google searching for "Sitivi Liva" -wikipedia produces no useful hits, and there are no hits at all for "Sitivi Liva" on Google News Search. The Valencia CF article doesn't mention them as having a "Junior Squad", and I can't find anything about one on the club's official website. Even if this person does exist, we have no way of confirming any of the claims to notability in the article. EALacey 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - PeeJay 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete good fake, but a fake none the less. м info 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Certainly the stuff about the All Whites is WP:BOLLOCKS - no player of that name has played for NZ. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The All Whites matches referred to didn't happen. Phil Bridger 10:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Krimpet for copyright violation. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred J. Cooper Memorial Organ

Fred J. Cooper Memorial Organ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Philadelphia has the world's largest organ. This is not it. I fail to see how this is encyclopaedic; there is no claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and add available WP:RS. The Cooper Organ apparently surpassed the was surpassed by Wanamaker Organ in 2006. [2] [3]. Even if it was is just one of the biggest, it has enough coverage to be notable. • Gene93k 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• correction (I read the info wrong). It is one of the biggest in the world and with enough 3rd party coverage to be notable. • Gene93k 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio of [4]. Notable topic. No objection to new article in editor's on words based on available WP:RS. • Gene93k 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. eBooking is very common nowadays. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebooking

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

Does not assert notability. No references. Article is orphaned. Torc2 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - The term Ebooking is frequently used in relation to internet. If sufficient data and sources cannot be provided in this article, then I would suggest to merge the relevant data into E-Services or E-commerce and redirect the article, to any one of the two articles. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:40, 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 into Ebooking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-Booking

E-Booking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. No references. Article is essentially orphaned. Torc2 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete - Redirect to Ebooking if Ebooking survives AFD, else delete -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, though not resoundingly so. Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zantrex

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

Unlike other diet pill entries, such as Relacore, Leptoprin, Cortislim and Trimspa - all of whom have received media coverage (abeit negative) for Federal Trade Commission rulings, this article does not establish notability other than being a brand of diet pill. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Much of the information currently in the article is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to a third party retailer^[5] - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As there is already an entry for Basic Research, the company purported to market this brand, any verfiable material on this page should be included as a subsection on that article. Quartet 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. There's some coverage to be found on this one, although it's mostly the company suing other companies. --Smashville^BONK! 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is enough news interest in the drug for it to be notable. Being sued (New York Times - Jul 6, 2003), Headline drug in an article about diet pill safety (BusinessWeek - Jan 25, 2006), sueing ( PR Newswire - ECNext - Jun 30, 2003 Press release), Britney Spears getting in the news associated with the drug (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel- Oct 10, 2003 and others), at least 5 useful google scholar hits. Although the article is a mess, it certainly seems notable enough - Peripitus (Talk) 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not signficant enough third party reliable sources independant of the subject to warrant (or create) an encyclopedia entry (WP:NN). Most of the verifiable information on this product seems to be weaker tie-ins with parent company (it's, for the most part, referenced after the words "makers of", "manufacturer of" during reports of lawsuits by or against the parent company, Basic Research or in other trivial media). Are we're going to give this product an advertisement (article) because a bottle of Zantrex-3 fell out of Britney Spears' purse in 2003? Notability is not the same as fame or popularity. --Komrade Kiev 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. As stated by Peripitus, there does seem to be some useful information about the product, but it seems more related to the company than the product. I do not feel there is significant enough coverage as established by WP:N to have its own article. I do feel that all verifiable information could be added to the parent article, though. SorryGuy 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Business Week article is a non-trivial mention. This is probably the most notable OTC diet supplement available right now. Caknuck (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] वीरेन्द्रनगर

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

Article written in Nepali, has been tagged for translation since September. Per WP:PNT#वीरेन्द्रनगर, there already is an English page for this subject at Birendranagar, so translation is not necessary. Caknuck 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Decoratrix 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The artice isn't in English. This is the ENGLISH language Wikipedia Doc Strange 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An article in English on this subject exists. We need not translate and keep this. --Malcolmxl5 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• संपादित करें So what's the article about, genius? Don't bother with trying to come up with a clever (and probably vulgar) answer. This is only up here because someone thought it would be fun to post something in Hindi. DeleteMandsford 23:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I nominated this article because I came across it while checking all of the articles created by an editor who was writing numerous articles about his immediate family. Per the process at WP:PNT, articles not translated (or not needing translation) after being listed for 2 weeks should come to AfD. Caknuck 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Birendranagar as an R from another language. 132.205.99.122 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Why redirect? Does someone have a Nepali keyboard so they can type "वीरेन्द्रनगर"? I'm glad there's an article already about Birendranagar. Maybe this can be moved to the ne.wikipedia (which has an article with this title) that's more comprehensive than this Nepali version: [article]. Seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • redirects are cheap. And if you didn't know what it was in English, but could type it anyways (or copy it off a webpage), you'll be directed to the right article. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, that's the craziest thing I've read in a while. -- Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the appropriate article per 132.205... Grandmasterka 19:26, 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: Speedily deleted without redirection. Empty, duplicate with Super Mario Stadium Baseball, nonsense title (see the period at the end). - Mike Rosoft 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Stadium Baseball.

Super Mario Stadium Baseball. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is already an article on the game at Super Mario Stadium Baseball . Amaryllis25 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Super Mario Stadium Baseball nancy 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Decoratrix 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was. Delete, not notable, nothing to merge into. Fram (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgetown Royals Football

Georgetown Royals Football (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence has been presented to show that this is a notable high school sports team. It is extremely difficult to have a high school sports team be notable but this one definitely doesn't seem to be one of those rare exceptions. Metros 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not asserted nor evident. Decoratrix 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into/create article around this for Georgetown Junior-Senior High School. I could see this being a section in the article on the high school, but it doesn't warrant an article of its own. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per C.Fred. No sources cited. Caknuck (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge -Razorflame (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No notability, no merge target and no real reason given that there should be an article on the school. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 07:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Father

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

A film of no obvious importance. Sole source is a review which is quite amusingly droll about the lead's terrible acting - made me laugh, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, almost no context. Mr.Z-man 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Extraordinarily strong keep, the review and other easily findable stuff (i.e. [6]) makes it clear that this is a significant film in South Korea.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Let's hope your enthusiasm carries over to making a better article. Mandsford 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's a stub. We have lots of stubs. What's the problem?--Nydas^(Talk) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I guess the problem is folks who don't actually care about an article, but want to extraordinarily strongly keep it out of principle. You've demonstrated why this will never be more than a stub. Mandsford 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• As opposed to folks who delete is just because it's a stub? This seems to becoming more and more common. Crap articles get deleted because they're crap articles, rather than because the subject matter is bad. In this case, the external link contains plenty of material for expansion. And no, it is not my duty to go through the little blue number routine just to save a legitimate stub. --Nydas^(Talk) 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Currently it is delete. Will change to Keep if sufficient reliable sources are provided to prove notability -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This link establishes notability. And no, just because I want this article kept it doesn't mean I have to improve it. Phil Bridger 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• No indeed. You can vote keep every time it's AfDed as lacking any obvious merit, and if you don't fix the article in any way you may well get the option to do that a good few times. Not sure how that fits with the idea of the project bieng all about the content, though :-) Guy (Help!) 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• And that's two votes for "won't someone please do something". Nobody gives a shit about this article. Some of us are willing to admit it. Mandsford 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Guy & Mandsford, I only said I don't have to improve it, not that I won't. If you had taken the trouble to look at the article you would have seen that I had already updated it to demonstrate notability before your latest comments. Phil Bridger 13:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Since it appears that improvements are on the way. Mandsford 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Since when do we delete reviewed films? Have those voting delete spent even a second trying to improve the article? How have they learned to read the future and predict that an article will always be a stub and since when was being a stub cause for deletion? Nick mallory 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Answers: (1) When we don't see much of an article (2) No, not even a second. (3) We attended a seminar (4) Since deletion was left to editors. Mandsford 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needing improvement doesn't equate to needing deletion. Rray 23:53, 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. As per If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. from WP:V, and all three criteria of WP:WEB. Sancho 18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a bit more to my decision that can be discerned from the simple explanation above... see the talk page for a more extensive discussion. Sancho 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The noob

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

Recreation of deleted article, that somehow wasn't speedied. Same as before, no non-trivial sources from which an article can be written. Being nominated for some award (but not winning it) didn't save it last time, neither did the trivial coverage it receives. A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

version at time of AFD nomination --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominators argument about notabilty websites is invalid, as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular culture and fiction. This article clearly falls within that group of Pop Culture and Fiction, and is expected to have sources considered "weak" by academic standards. The comment "A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia" is inflamatory and misleading in this context.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears this is actually the third nomination. shoy (^words _words) 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominators argument about notabilty websites is invalid, as per the very article on reliable sources he quotes - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular culture and fiction. This article clearly falls within that group of Pop Culture and Fiction, and is expected to have sources considered "weak" by academic standards, and the comment "A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia" is inflamatory and misleading.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My argument is wholly valid, as the link you have provided demonstrates. "it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources" (emphasis added). Those sources can only be used once notability has been established, not to establish notability. Also where's the evidence that the site is "respected". On one hand you ae suggesting that it's an unreliable source but we use it as there's not much more available, and on the other hand you're saying it's a "respected" site. You can't have it both ways, and I'd like to see evidence of "respected" and not just your personal conjecture please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Once again, I agree to disagree. The comic is notable because of it's a) worldwide audience, as seen by links in french, Norwegian and American websites, while being written by a british author (that's four countries if you need a count), b) it is notable for having been nominated for the WCCA, which is considered a notable institution by wikipedia standards, and therefore gains notariety by reflection, and c) it is notable based on longevity, which is rare in the webcomic field. That's three reasons, therefore I assert notability. Timmccloud 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Once again, the facts disagree. Anything on the internet has a worldwide audience, and both the French and Norwegian links are 404. Got working links? It is not notable for having been nominated for an award, see WP:WEB. It would be notable if it had won an award, not just nominated. At present you're not presenting any new arguments or sources that weren't at the last AfD, which was a resounding delete. Notability isn't the only problem with this article anyway, it also fails WP:V which isn't negotiable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please check your facts again. Many of us concluded the AFD was a resounding Keep, and took it to an DRV, followed by an administrative review because of the bias on the AFD. And the link to the norwegian site works fine, it pulls up the PDF like it's supposed to - possibly your ISP is blocking it for some reason. So you can stop asserting that the link is broken, it works fine. Timmccloud 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My facts are perfectly straight, perhaps you'd like to see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? The AfD was a clear delete, which was endorsed at deletion review. You can scream "ZOMG admin abuse" as much as you like, but your whinging about an admin doesn't hold water. The link is working fine now, strange you didn't try and blame other people's technical incompetence much earlier when it was most definitely 404. Still, your poor attempt at point scoring doesn't change the fact that this comic isn't notable and fails WP:V. The magazine was brought up at the last AfD where the consensus was to delete, a decision endorsed at DRV despite whinging from certain quarters. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Independently reviewed and noted by reliable sources (see reviews section). On the recreation argument, see WP:CCC. On the sources argument, consensus exists that plot summaries generally do not require footnotes when the summary's purpose is to provide context and background for a notable topic. The fact that this is currently not well done is a surmountable problem and no ground for deletion, but a reason for improvement. User:Krator (t c) 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Commment Consensus can change, but the guidelines and policies haven't and the article still fails them by a country mile as there are no sources. Taking the reviews in turn: blog - not a reliable source, and doesn't establish notability. Gaming website, hardly a reliable source and trivial coverage. Page does not exist, speaks for itself. Magazine (currently 404), strangely the one that was mentioned at the last AfD where the article was deleted. There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, contrary to your claim. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Commment Just because a link is missing a year later, does not suggest the coverage was "non-notable". You also chose to ignore that the comic is one of the flagship comics on MMORPG.COM, which is a major gaming website with influence throught the MMORPG community. Also, notability can be found in the fact that of the 4 sites you mentioned, there is worldwide coverage in multiple languages, so notability can be asserted simply by the number of references.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please provide a working link for your claim then. I see no evidence to back up your claim that it is a "flagship" comic. Notability cannot be asserted by the number of references, as they are blogs, 404 or trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Flagship" as in the sense that the noob was the first comic to be shown on MMORPG.COM, now there is about seven shown on that site. And I apologize for the anonymous editor who put the link in to MMORPG.COM two years ago, that they didn't put a "retrieved on yada yada" notation for your pleasure, but that's water under the bridge. Regardless, MMORPG.COM has over 1/2 a million MEMBERS, and has an alexia ranking in the low 4000's. That is a substantial amount of traffic, and that The Noob is one of only 7 webcomics in the world being highlighted there is notable in itself. Timmccloud 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So nothing except conjecture then? You're still not bringing anything new to the table, perhaps you'd like to do it now? Verifiability trumps notability, so you're pissing in the wind with your current argument. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The primary reason for AFD last time was around the notablitly of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, which was nominated for AFD as well. The AFD on The noob was completed before the WCCA - and the WCCA was upheld as notable, and by extension that assigns notability to this comic. This comic WAS put up for a speedy, and after protest the speedy was removed, allowing for a full AFD review. Please note also that the last time it went far beyond a simple AFD - the reviewing administrator was brought to a administrative review for ignoring what was clearly a consensus to keep. On the question of notability, this article shows reviews and worldwide coverage which is notable, the source material is still being published, showing continuty and persistance beyond normal "fly by night" webcomics which is notable, being nominated for international awards (WCCA) is notable, and the article itself has been trimmed of "fancruft" to fit encyclopedic content. You only need ONE catagory of notability, and this article meets the critera multiple times. Notability is asserted and established. Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Which criteria do you think it meets? Bringing up the WCCA is irrelevant, as WP:WEB states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - it did not win an award. The closing administrator rightfully disregarded a off-Wiki canvassing campaign and vast amounts of WP:ILIKEIT single purpose accounts. Your timeline of events is false, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 shows deletion was endorsed as the consensus was to delete. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 shows it was endorsed yet again. So we're back here again, relying on the same trivial coverage on blogs, this comic is not notable. It wasn't notable at the last AfD, it wasn't notable at the first DRV and it wasn't notable at the second DRV, and there's no new information now is there? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I beg to disagree, I was involved in all of the AFD's and one of the AFD's came up as no consensus, so please get your facts straight. This is a notable comic with a worldwide audience, and I disagree with your opinions, as the facts are there, you just choose to intrepet them with a deletion mindset. I find it FASCINATING that this article has been around since the beginning of August, and three days after someone changes the name of the article, you jump on deleting the article. Where were you the last three months, if you are so worried about this article? I suspect you have a personal bias, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I admit bias, not because of WP:ILIKEIT, but because my opinion of the facts finds this a notable comic. Timmccloud 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment How are my facts not straight? I said "It wasn't notable at the last AfD" - straight fact. Since my initial nomination for deletion I have seen a copy of the last deleted version, hence my knowing this article is also a GFDL violation, and know this article contains nothing in the way of sources that wasn't present in the last AfD, which was a consensus to delete endorsed at deletion review. Where was I the last three months? As you point out, someone moved the article and as soon as that happened I became aware the article had been recreated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Still unsourcable without resorting to prohibited original research. I'd speedy under WP:CSD#G4 except that I see Splash has declined that already. This is an obvious recreation, and the closing admin needs to either restore the history needed for GFDL (if this comes to the wrong conclusion) or delete (if this comes to the correct conclusion). (The March deletion review was withdrawn; the February did endorse.) GRBerry 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please elucidate your objection on a GFDL basis, I have emails from the author giving permission for the article to exist under the GFDL. Timmccloud 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The author of what exactly? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do you even take the time to read the articles you nominate? Just in case you missed it, we are talking about The noob, and two of the first 9 words of the article is the name of the author of the Noob, Gianna Masetti. I have correspondance from Gianna to create the article and if you would like to see a sample of that permission, you can open the first image in the article and go to the image page [7] to see a sample of that permission. So once again, would you please state your GFDL concerns a little more clearly? Other than just making a blanket assertion that it doesn't meet GFDL? 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think you'll find Gianna has nothing to do with the GFDL problems for this article. Perhaps you'd like to read GFDL and WP:GFDL? In case you need a quick summary, all edits to Wikipedia articles must be attributed to their original authors, and this copy-and-paste recreation is a GFDL violation. To paraphrase you, do you even take the time to read things you talk about? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for finally being specific. If that is your problem, the rest of the history is at User:Timmccloud/The_noob. If you could find an appropriate administrator, then I'm sure the article history can be recovered from the copy in my userspace. Please note in the current article history that I am NOT the one who recreated It. If you have issues with the cut and paste of the article back into wiki space, please discuss it with User:Jonathan Allew, but please remember WP:BITE - don't bite the noobs when you give your constructive criticisim. Timmccloud 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's not the full article history, that's yet another GFDL violation. Any article being worked on in userspace should be restored with the full article history intact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, well then you need to take that issue up with the administrator Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} who did the restore in the first place. Good luck with that, he's the one we called to task in an administrative review. So, we can drop the GFDL issue then, since the history is available to administrators and it can be restored to repair the mistakes by a new editor and the failure to do a proper job by the deleting administrator. So now we can move back to discusiing the merits of the article, which I have already enumerated elsewhere, and stand by. Pity you weren't around the last time so you could have corrected the GFDL issue when it occured, instead of derailing this AFD with what turns out to be a repairable issue caused by mistakes. If the GFDL was an issue, why didn't you bring it up in the discussion page, so it could be fixed, instead of running full speed into an AFD? Is there some WP:IDONTLIKEIT about webcomics that has you all flustered? Timmccloud 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have you read the timeline of events? It's on this very page. I discovered it was a GFDL violation after I nominated it for deletion, not before. I've nothing against webcomics, I simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT having the same arguments presented about an article about a non-notable webcomic that's full of unverifiable original research, when we've already had this discussion and you're bringing nothing new to the table. There are no new sources, there is no new information, this AfD is a prime example of process wankery that serves no useful purpose. Your article was deleted before, it's going to be deleted again, accept it and move on. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not only failign to fix the previous problems, but also a GFDL-violating copy-paste. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please elucidate your assertion of GFDL violation. As I personally have emails from the author which clearly state the existance and permission for this article to exist, I would like you to expand upon your assertion. Timmccloud 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The author of what exactly? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I notice that you are neither GRBerry or Jzg, whom both of these questions were addressed to, and that you simply copied and pasted the same comment twice. Interestingly enough, I acutally read both the articles and the commentary, so redundancy isn't necessary for me, but apparently I have to reiterate my points for you since you aren't getting them. My apologies. The authors name is Gianna Masetti, in case you missed it from the first sentance of the article we are discussing. Timmccloud 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see what has changed since the last AfD. Still no reliable sources or real assertion of notability. Per User:GRBerry above, this is an obvious recreation - indeed, it's actually got fewer sources than the previous version - and I don't see why it doesn't qualify under CSD G4. ELIMINATORJR 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, one of the criticisims of the previous article was that it had too much "fancruft" - which was removed. Therefore the article is smaller, as requested. Timmccloud 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It may have been trimmed, but it still doesn't address the main problem - notability and reliable 3rd party sources. ELIMINATORJR 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this is pretty much the same as the previously deleted versions, but with less content and sources. The only sources that look like they might be reliable: Yahoo! Actualités and Pegasus Magazine (January 2007 page 4 ISSN 1890-0704) don't seem to exist anymore. It is still an excess of plot summary and character info, with little about why it is notable or real-world significance. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please check your web browser and/or install of adobe acrobat reader - the pegasus magazine link opens a pdf - the article is on page 4 like the link says, and it opens up fine for me. You need to look in the middle of the page, it says "THE NOOB" in about 32 point font, it's hard to miss. I'm sorry that the editor who added the link to the french yahoo didn't note it as "retrieved on such and such date", nevertheless the link was active at one time, and The Noob was reviewed in the French Yahoo Portal. Timmccloud 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The keep arguments are not at all persuasive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am persuaded of notability by the above arguments. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps you'd like to do something about the verifiability as well then? Seeing as that's more important that notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any verifiability problems in the article. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Where's the reliable sources for the entire article then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• All of the sources appear sufficiently reliable for the claims they are making. Which claims do you find suspect? -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty much all of them. There's hardly anything that's reliably sources, due to the lack of third party reliable sources. Without them, the notability argument isn't relevant. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This crusade against webcomics is an embarrasment to Wikipedia that has gotten it significant negative press coverage. -- Jtrainor (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Jtrainor, for recognizing this crusade against webcomics for what it is. ONIH obviously has certain comics on his watchlist so he can AFD them and keep Wikipedia in his ideal image, even though we don't share it. Apparently he has never read WP:CCC, as shown by his repeated insistance that nothing has changed. Timmccloud (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shame on us for having policies and notability guidelines then! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The fact that you feel the need to reply to every single keep entry with a snarky comment puts serious doubt on the good faith of this nomination. -- Jtrainor (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Shame on me for re-nominating a recreated article that's been deleted by process and endorsed by deletion review, shame on me! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's wonderful One Night In Hackney! Since you admit being ashamed of your self, are you ready to recuse yourself from this discussion and leave it up to the process you tout so effectively to decide the fate of the article, or do you need to see your name on ever line with a sarcastic comment about the process? I'll make you a deal - I'll stop posting on this thread if you recuse yourself from the process, and I will do likewise. :D Timmccloud (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Based on previous experience you're unlikely to stop posting in this thread, and you're also likely to carry on long after the horse and stick are worn out. Your repeated defence of a policy failing article about a comic that fails notability guidelines shows your judgement on this issue to be somewhat suspect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I made the offer, you not only chose to ignore it, you instigated an edit dispute on the article to boot, the latter in a sign of bad faith, in my opinion. But we move on - allow me to introduce you to a concept One Night In Hackney₃₀₃, it's called Championing, and I am not embarrassed in the fact that I'm an advocate of this article, nor that I have spent time improving it from the original edit, nor am I unashamed of my opinions about the article. In all of the references above that you chose to include in this debate (thank you for looking them up by the way), I did not intstigate the debate, but I am entitled to my opinions, and believe that wikipeda should be inclusionary, and not exclusionary. The offer still stands by the way - recuse yourself, and I will too - unfortunately I doubt you have the ability. Timmccloud (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someone has to point out the WP:ILIKEIT votes ignoring guidelines and policies you've been busy canvassing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Comics Choice Awards, MMORPG featuring.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It did not win an award, therefore it fails WP:WEB. Even ignoring notability, it still fails verifiability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Quote: "Honorable Mentions:The following webcomics deserve an Honourable Mention for being the runners-up in this year's WCCA nomination process. These are comics that many voters clearly felt were deserving of top accolades. As a result, the WCCA wants to honour them accordingly. Some are familiar names, but many are underdogs or lesser-known to mainstream webcomic readers. No matter how popular or undiscovered, though, all are deserving of the Honourable Mention:... The n00b (Gaming)..." http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note User:One Night In Hackney is now edit warring on the article, apparently in order to keep original research out. While he is obviously entitled to his edits and opinions, I feel the need to notify editors here that the version of the article they are reading may be tailored into a particular direction to influence their decisions. Note that I am not asserting a specific direction of the asserted bias, as some might argue it is/was written to influence editors to !vote keep (by including alleged OR), and others may argue it is/was the other way around (by removing alleged OR). User:Krator (t c) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst edit-warring is never good, in what way is keeping OR out of an article a problem? ELIMINATORJR 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's great, but neither of the things Hackney is removing seem to me original research. Or, at least, one is cited to the official Blizzard website mentioning the comic. Both could use some cleanup in the statement in question (the second thing he's removing more accurately shows that people have named their characters after the strip, not that the author has encountered said characters, and the first thing doesn't support the prominence for games other than WoW, but in all cases the sourcing seems good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• By all means feel free to repair the article and restore the content, you would be the third person to try and restore the content that ONIH has repeatedly deleted. He seems to be taking a real interest in an article that he want's deleted. Timmccloud (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have fully explained how neither of the statements were supported by the references provided. Please provide citations that actually support the text, rather than this and this allegedly sourcing "The noob is very well known among the players of various online games like World of Warcraft, RuneScape, and other MMORPGs" and this allegedly supporting "The author of The noob commented at one point that she had encountered characters in World of Warcraft named after characters from the comic, evidencing the size of its sphere of influence". That's original research at its worst sorry. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• They were trivial to fix without deletion, and it was lazy and irresponsible of you to do otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed Phil, ONIH is out to destroy this article, easier to delete than fix. Timmccloud (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, no. I'm trying to stop you making false claims and adding original research. How about the fact you've just sourced "Notably, it criticizes MMORPG staff for incompetence and also shows the perceived image of MMORPG players as inclined to act antagonistically with regard to seemingly minor infractions and situations in the virtual worlds in which they interact" with [8] and [9]? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I did. Did it ever occur to you in your tirades that you might actually have a point every 15th time or so, and that someone may try to address them? Please explain the problem with the reference - I think it provides a clear link to two places in the comic where the MMORPG staff acts antagonisticly against the players for a seemingly minor infraction in the virtual world in which they interact. I added that reference because YOU put a citation warning there. Here is how it works - an editor tags the article, another editor trys to address the problem, and removes the tag. If you don't like the reference, you can a) correct it (like you did for the movie references - well done), b) bring the issue up on the discussion page for community consensus, c) politely contact the editor in question to work out a better way of doing it.

This is not original research as your NEW tags suggest, this is a webcomic; if there is a point you wish to make in the article, you give a link to a representation of the point. It is becoming painfully obvious ONIH that you haven't read many webcomic articles on wikipedia; normally I would suggest you do so, but there is the risk you would have a anurisim when you read the other articles, based on your opinion how "verifiabily" and "original resource" work, and I wouldn't want you to take that risk. Nor would I like to see you put warnings on the entire webcomic community here, as you are doing exceptionally well in marking up this article in specific. Believe it or not, I believe that your citation warnings are actually improving the article - which is how you should have approached the article in the first place, instead of jumping in with both feet to an AFD. Care to withdraw your AFD nomination for a two week period while you and I work on improving the article together? Contentiousness aside, in the article, you are pointing out some very relavant flaws, and some of us are trying to address them, all the while improving the article. Some times it take a true critic to bring out the best in all of us. Timmccloud (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is original research, it's the most blatant original research you could ever possibly see. This and this do not source "Notably, it criticizes MMORPG staff for incompetence and also shows the perceived image of MMORPG players as inclined to act antagonistically with regard to seemingly minor infractions and situations in the virtual worlds in which they interact". You are interpreting a primary source and drawing your own conclusions. Please read the "This page in a nutshell" section right at the top of policy Wikipedia:No original research, it shows exactly that it's original research. If, as you say, there are more articles failing policies in such a blatant manner then someone needs to take a flamethrower to them. Please bring your contributions into line with non-negotiable policies. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per timmccloud and jtraino. Mathmo ^Talk 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to the closing admin: Please note on-wiki canvassing for keep comments by Timmccloud. See here. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I understand, the main issues the nominator has are verifiability and notability. Notability is more than enough established by the 4 links provided. Even the nominator agreed to that in the comments above and put emphasis on verifability. However, the no-verifiability claim is eliminated by the comic being an actually published work. Any claim made in the article can be checked by perusing the actual page from an actual book from lulu publishers. WP:V's reluctancy to accept self-published sources only extends to claims about the subject. When Harry Potter article says Ron Weasley's hair is red, you don't need an academic work explicitly stating that, when you can quote the actual page it was written on. All information about Gianna Masetti herself cannot be backed by her own works, but information about the world and characters she created can, and should. • Maurog • 09:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is not established per WP:Notability or WP:WEB, I did not agree the comic is notable please do not spread falsehoods. I qote from WP:Verifiability - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", so the verifiability is very much not met. Lulu publishers is a vanity publisher, and are not third-party. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are discussing the comic itself again. What does it need to verify beyond its own existence, which is established by the four notability links? The nominations for awards, launch date, mentions, format, color, everything is verified. The claims in the body of the article about characters can be verified by the published book itself. So what does it need to verify further? • Maurog • 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which four links are you talking about? The only links I can see source very little. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per there being no valid reason to delete. Verifiability does indeed trump notability, but what's to verify? It's a webcomic; it's right there on the Internet for all to see; it plainly exists so verifying its existence is not a problem. As for notability, I am sufficiently convinced of its notability by the foregoing keep comments. Rogue 9 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and page protect, no notability or importance verified by reputable third party sources. Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources, and we have no new information since the last AFD, Deletion review, etc. Delete it, protect the page from recreation, and stop wasting our time and our readers' time with this. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I haven't seen a good argument as to why the current sources are not sufficiently notable to warrant notability for a web comic - certainly mention of honours for a comic award that is also verifiable (link supplied in this discussion) gives good cause for the comic to be notable and for the verifiability of the notability. Topazg (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's been reviewed in Pegasus magazine, which qualifies as a secondary source, satisfying notability requirements. It's also published at an independent site. Buspar (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It actually hasn't been reviewed by that zine. I know, the article says that it has. --Dragonfiend (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Buspar. Furthermore notability doesn't have to be established, or have we elevated it to policy above all others? Once again the struggle between those who would clean up and those who would throw away rears its head. One day we will work out a better way to co-exist. What is the ultimate flaw with this article? And can people stop quoting that daft line from WP:V which some numbskull added regarding if no third party sources exist. That was never meant as a clear blue line, there was always intended a grey area, hence the use of the phrase "Wikipedia should not" rather than "Wikipedia must not". Should means it applies in general, must means it always applies. Some of us take care when we frame policy, knowing that WP:IAR applies. Could the people advocating deletion please explain how deletion of this article improves Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Because there seems to be some confusion above, let's make clear that this comic did not win and was not nominated for one of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Checking the source, you can see that there are 29 comics listed with "WINNER!" after their titles. Those are winners. In each category you will see about five comics listed besides the ones with the "WINNER!" label. Those 90+ other listings represent nominees. The 29 "Honorable Mentions" are those that were runners-up for nominations, not runners-up for awards. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I quoted the "honorable mention" text in full above, minus the list of other comics. I don't see confusion here...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is the text, in full:

Honorable Mentions
The following webcomics deserve an Honourable Mention for being the runners-up in this year's WCCA nomination process. These 
are comics that many voters clearly felt were deserving of top accolades. As a result, the WCCA wants to honour them 
accordingly. Some are familiar names, but many are underdogs or lesser-known to mainstream webcomic readers. No matter how 
popular or undiscovered, though, all are deserving of the Honourable Mention:

Alpha Shade (Colour), Beaver & Steve (Outstanding Comic), Butternut Squash (Environment Design), Checkerboard Nightmare 
(Comedic), Copper (Short Form), Count Your Sheep (Short Form), Flick (Sci-Fi), Gossamer Commons (Newcomer), Inverloch 
(Character Art), Megatokyo (Environment Design), Nine Planets without Intelligent Life (Sci-Fi), No Rest for the Wicked 
(Fantasy), Order of the Stick (Gaming, Writer), Perry Bible Fellowship (Colour), PVP (Outstanding Comic), Questionable Content 
(Reality, Writer), Reman Mythology (BW Art), Rob & Elliot (Newcomer), Scary Go Round (Colour), Sinfest (Short Form), Smile (BW 
Art), Something Positive (Outstanding Comic, Writer), Wapsi Square (Outstanding Comic),      The n00b (Gaming)     , The Saga
of Earthsong (Fantasy), Two Kinds (Fantasy), Venus Envy (Reality), VG Cats (Character Art, Artist), Zebra Girl (BW Art)

I added the spacing to highlight that the n00b was a recipiant of Honorable Mention. Timmccloud (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, that should help prevent anyone from mistakenly thinking this comic was one of the final nominees, and will hopefully help the closing admin understand that "runners-up" in this case doesn't mean second place, but instead that this comic came in fifth or sixth or something in a single one of the many categories and did not actually recieve one of the 120+ nominations that year. So, we have an award which is not well-known, that this webcomic didn't win, that this webcomic wasn't second-place for, and that this webcomic wasn't even one of the final nominees for. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the sourcing guidelines , like all guidelines, are intended to be flexible, and they are so intended in order to accommodate articles like this. I am glad consensus has changed to the extent that this has become recognized. WP will probably become an outmoded medium eventually, as media do tend to fossiliise, but we should try to keep it alive and responsive a few decades longer. DGG (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there are very, many webcomics so we need some criteria to distinguish those that merit inclusion from those that don't. This has has not won any awards and lacks the necessary reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. BlueValour (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, doubtful notability and clear conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reitek

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

As if it was not obvious, the author, User:Webreitek has told me by e-mail that he works in the marketing department of Reitek S.p.A. Clear COI. Is the company notable? -- RHaworth (Talk

• Comment The company may (barely) be notable, but the only sources I'm seeing are PR repeaters - and press releases are not independent sources. The company has a website, but again - not an independent source. If news articles or independent coverage (a product review, perhaps?) can be found, then this subject may warrant a stub. The timeline, glossary (!) and non-english, non-sourced quotes (including the one about Youtube) would need to go. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, Reitek was already quoted into the Computer Telephony Integration article, close to most famous names as Avaya, Siemens and Cisco: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Telephony_Integration and this is a fact of indipendent Wikipedia source and market co-leadership in this industry.

Press resources are all from indipendent journals and magazines, included the one (quoted) about Youtube (Corriere delle Comunicazioni 2007): it's even one of the same press sources cited by Dylogic.

Again, the timeline is very similar to Dylogic's one. And sorry but I can't see any glossary :-)

P.S. obviously, the company has a website. Like all the other companies' articles on Wikipedia.

P.P.S. and what about the external links? 18:32 15 November (UTC+1)

I beg your pardon but I'm not able to understand HTML language like: Steps to list an article for deletion 1. 2. 3. 4. —Preceding unsigned comments added by Webreitek (talk • contribs)

Comment. My search of Google, among other places, turned up only Press Releases and the company's website. I acknowledge that most every company has a website, and that's good - but, we can't use information from the website unless it's confirmed independently. The press comments included (bottom section) in this article might be suitable, but there are no links to verify that the sources of the quotes are indeed independent sources. Unfortunately, we can't use the Italian Wikipedia as a source, for the same reason that they can't use us. Do you have links or, at a minimum, publication dates and information (volume and issue, ISSN, etc)? By Glossary, I referred to the list of related terms under See Also - that list should be condensed and moved to the end of the article. The timeline information should be conensed and either mentioned as a milestone in the text of the article, or deleted. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ultraexactzz, I did not understand some senteces but now it's more clear. Thank you for your advices:

The External links section now indipendently confirms informations, as all the press resources (with details about number of volume, page and journal website as you suggested). I've shortened the "See also" list and moved it to the bottom, and I've also condensed the timeline. This article is very short: do you know if it's possible to not use the small Index box? Thank you. 15:53 16 Novembre (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webreitek (talk • contribs) 14:56, 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. Kubigula (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J.C.V.D.

J.C.V.D. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The topic fails to assert both general notability and notability for films. There is only the Slate.com article which falls under the website's "Low Concept" category, defined to have "Dubious and far-fetched ideas". It talks about six minutes of YouTube footage of actor Jean Claude Van Damme parodying himself. However, it fails notability because there is a lack of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources (and considering that this was filed in the dubious-style section of Slate.com, it can't be too reliable). There's no indication that this is anything beyond a mere six-minute video clip. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there is nothing to really verify the existence of this supposed film. If it actually is being filmed and released, then the article can be properly created. Collectonian 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails both notability guidelines listed above. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete failing both CRYSTAL & multiple sources. SkierRMH (talk) 05:19, 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. Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Melnik

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

Biography for a non notable author/musician. He used to be in a band where the other member left to join with someone notable. That band produced an album that was never released. Since then he has self-published a book through IUniverse. In addition there are a couple of competitions mention. Unfortunately, none of this meets WP:BIO and even if it did there is a dire lack of indepedent, reliable sources to back the article up with. Nuttah68 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No independant, reliable sources found. Epbr123 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not establish grounds for HIS notability Victuallers (talk) 22:38, 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 Keep. Davewild (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun and Moon (Middle-earth)

Sun and Moon (Middle-earth) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and completely in-universe. Wikipedia policy requires topics of articles to be relevant outside of the body of fiction to be relevant - major Tolkien characters are usually notable, minor aspects of his universe are not. See WP:FICT, WP:N. Chardish 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This was a prod contested by the creator of the article. - Chardish 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails to establish notability or present real-world context about these elements in the fictional universe. Best suited for a Middle-earth Wikia of some sort. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Needless, trivial, no notability. Tarc 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep... this isn't a terribly well-written article right now, and it needs its primary sources better specified and referenced and some more out-of-universe perspective, but it has what appears to be one real live academic reference, and as with other Tolkien subjects, there's a pretty good chance there are others out there. Pinball22 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability is not totally in doubt, as there appears to be a section of creation information, which if referenced would establish some notability. I say if there is doubt, which there is, don't delete. Judgesurreal777 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man in the Moon (Middle-earth) is leaning toward redirecting that article here; prodding this article while that merge was under consideration was premature. The subject seems to have some notability beyond the setting; although this particular article is in need of heavy cleanup, that's not cause for deletion. Powers ^T 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank-you for agreeing with me that prodding this article was premature. It will have an extremely chilling effect (reducing the freedom of discussion) if people feel that something as innocuous as suggesting a merge destination will produce a response of the suggested merge destination being nominated at AfD. I would be even happier if Chardish would also acknowledge this. Chardish, how do you feel about all this? Carcharoth 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Background to the nomination - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man in the Moon (Middle-earth) for the background to this. Two people suggested merging that article to this one, first Uthanc, and then me. Nine minutes after I suggested the merge, one of the 'delete' voters in that other discussion, Chardish, placed a prod tag on this article. See here for my noting of this in that discussion. When discussing merge destinations for a particular article, it is disruptive for participants in that discussion to prod the proposed merge destination article while the other discussion is still going on. If this isn't in a guideline somewhere, it should be. Carcharoth 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I call them like I see them - I don't go out of my way looking for non-notable articles to nominate for deletion, but if someone kindly links me to one, I'll nominate it for deletion. Process is important, but instead of arguing process, could you instead find sources that say that this topic is notable independently of Tolkien's work? - Chardish 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll help find the sources. Just to be clear: if you are aware of a discussion about an article going on in one location, you see nothing wrong with nominating that article for deletion without having the courtesy to inform people at the original discussion? Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, not an exercise in tagging. If you had said at the original AfD that you had concerns about this article, then something could have been done about it. Did you consider discussing your concerns with anyone (you knew there was a discussion going on where you could have voiced your concerns), or do you think that communication should be done via prod tags, edit summaries and AfD nominations? What about the article talk page? Did you consider using that first? Why did you jump several possible stages and go straight to prod? Carcharoth 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Chardish, thanks for the message on my talk page. Please don't take the above personally. It is the general philosophy some people have of tagging and nominating for deletion without discussion that I'm unhappy with. Your nomination just brought that to the surface. As I said on my talk page, I'll try and stick to finding sources. For your part, I would hope that you might consider discussing things in future before tagging or nominating. Carcharoth 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No offense taken. Personally, I feel that nomination for deletion generates discussion and generally improves articles that get kept - I've found that of the articles I nominate for deletion, the ones that don't get deleted wind up being better articles. This is a side-effect, however - I don't nominate articles that I think can be saved via cleanup. (I do a lot of tagging of pages with cleanup tags, too.) - Chardish 06:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I can see merits on both sides, but (as I have previously discussed with Carcharoth) I am also concerned that some potential mergers are discussed without adequate assessment of the notability of the merge target. There is a danger of a lot of energy being expended on merging non-notable stubs into a non-notable list of trivia. Sometimes these mergers can produce a good article, but it should not be automatically assumed that merger solves the problem; the first question that needs to be asked is what level of detailed coverage of a subject can both establish notability and remain within the boundaries of WP:PLOT. In a situation where masses of trivial stubs have been created, it seems unlikely that all of them are worth keeping, even by merger. If AfDs prompt closer examination of that question, they serve a useful purpose ... and (as I have also suggested several times before to Carcharoth), projects such as M-E could greatly reduce the likelihood of outsiders tagging and nominating articles if they were more clearly making that sort of assessment themselves. The middle-earth project has recently made big strides in that direction, but that's partly because of piking from outside. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • The assumption has never been that merging solves the problem. It just makes it easier to tackle larger articles in one go, instead of tens of smaller articles. And mergers can make articles better. See here, where another editor says: "Second, and more important, depending on the alleged grounds for deletion merger could solve the problem for both articles, e.g. in the case of notability or an article being little more than a definition." Also, I fear people are falling into the trap of thinking that each separate section or part of an article needs to be independently notable. It is only the article topic as a whole that needs to be notable. There is ample precedent for this. Also, as I said when you first got involved in this area, excessive amounts of AfD discussion and tagging and so on, detracts efforts from finding sources (as I did below). I recognise that you haven't made these nominations, but when I provide sources like I have here, I was thinking that you might have considered adding support? In the end, I think that low-level continuous improvement of a group of articles over several years is more productive and more efficient than a set of tagging and AfD nominations (as you encounter groups of articles) in an attempt to "poke" people into working harder and faster. You may see yourself as performing a valuable service by dispassionately finding these areas and tagging them and raising concerns, but the end goal should be improving things, not disrupting ongoing efforts to clean-up an area. Some of your contributions have been very helpful, but as you can see from several ANI threads, your approach leads to more drama than other approaches might. Do you think you might possibly think about considering whether to try another approach (such as adding sources or discussing with other editors, as opposed to tagging and nominating for deletion) and see if you get better results with less effort (ie. more efficiency)? Now, this post has turned out to be more about your approach than I intended, and so is out of place here. But equally, your post about general strategy is one that is better discussed on the WikiProject talk page. I find the best and most productive editors drop by WikiProject talk pages or article talk pages and try and discuss things before tagging or nominating. Carcharoth 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) I agree with your basic point, but the recent spate of fiction-related nominations can make it difficult to perform those assessments within the time constraints of the AfD discussions. I continue to maintain that it would have been more productive to try to establish a consensus for broad guidelines within the subject area rather than nominate apparently random articles for deletion. Not accusing you of doing so, BHG; it's just your comment that sparked this one. Powers ^T 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
              • LtPowers, you may not have noticed that establishing that consensus at WikiProject Middle-earth was exactly what I did, and new referencing guidelines are now in place. Carcharoth suggests that it is a good idea to drop by a wikiproject and discuss things, which I also did, for long enough to each a consensus on a number of points.
                Carcharoth, your point about notability of the merged article as a whole was exactly the one I was trying to make: the merged one may be notable, but it will not necessarily be notable, and I see far too many cases where the assumption is not tested and WP:PLOT is not considered. As above, my concern is that editors who ask for breathing space because they are overstretched may be spending their energies merging articles which should all be deleted.
                As to tagging, if an article is sub-standard, that can be changed over time, and one of the purposes of tagging articles is to note that the improvement is needed and to give time for that to be done. I hoped we had reached some sort of agreement about tagging substandard articles, but maybe not as much as I had thought. :( And I'm still concerned that there appears somewhere in the midst of this to be a trace of WP:OWNership, a resentment that anyone outside a project might have the temerity to identify deficiencies in articles within its scope. The quote from Jimbo Wales in WP:V is quite blunt on this subject, that unsourced material should simply be removed. He argues there that tagging is often far too lax an approach (particularly wrt to BLP cases, which of coure don't apply here), but I can see nothing to justify the view that unsourced material should remain in place without being tagged as such. I have no problem with an article remaining as a stub for ages if notability is demonstrated and the facts are referenced, but I'm rather fed up with the repeated suggestions from some quarters that verifiability and notability are something we should not even mention, because someone might address them some day.
                This is not myspace, it is an encyclopedia whose core principles include verfiability. Lack of verifiability should not missing word inserted later. be treated as a dirty secret which should go unmentioned in case some editors are offended by it, and there is too great a tendency to blame the messenger in these cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Some brief responses: (1) I think you mean "shouldn't be treateted as a dirty secret". (2) The Jimbo quote had an important qualifier that you forgot: "unless it can be sourced" - my view is that if you don't know whether it can be sourced, look for a source or ask those who do know. If you remove material that is later found to have been verifiable, then you haven't really helped. If you remove information that was libellous or misleading, then you have helped. But please do try and find out which it is before editing. (3) I am not shooting the messenger, I'm saying that the method of delivery (AfD) is more blunt and aggressive than discussion on talk pages or at WikiProjects. (4) Not asking for breathing time, but asking who determines at what pace things get done? You or the editors working on the articles? (5) Not 'ownership' - I have invited you several times to participate and get involved with helping, and that offer is, as always, open to anyone - anyone can edit. Not everyone can delete though, which is why people wanting deletion have to go through AfD. (6) No resentment. Pointing out deficiencies is always welcomed. There is no guarantee though that people will agree with you (or me for that matter). (7) The need for verifiability and notability - no disagreement from me there now (we've discussed this in the past), though I may disagree on your interpretation of notability. Tag away, but please discuss at the same time if people ask you to do so. Carcharoth 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

                  • 1)Yes, you're right about the typo.2) We've had this discussion before, when you supported IronGargoyle's second removal of {{unreferenced}} tags from about a hundred unreferenced articles. The people in a position to add sources are the people who know the subject, but a passing editor can note the lack of them. That's the fundamental problem here: the assumption that it it is rude or disruptive to mark an article as needing attention, or that this should only be one by an editor prepared to devote their energies to the subject. Nor does this necessarily need discussion: {{unreferenced}} means just that. 3) The bluntness is more in the receiving than in the delivery. Noting that something is unsourced or under-sourced should not be perceived as rude, unless editors place a very low priority on verifiability 4) Who determines the pace? Ultimately, the community. But as before, if the editors working on article want to remove the markers indicating that there is a problem, I think that it's right to assume that they don't want to fix it, and to put the article up for wider assessment. 5) As above, anyone can edit, but not everyone has to fix every problem, and it's the responsibility of whoever adds material to source it. 7) I am always ready to discuss whether any tags I have applied are accurate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

                  • Try to avoid assuming that an AfD nomination is anything other than a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. To quote fuddlemark: "Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest." - Chardish 17:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
                • As I said, BHG, I wasn't accusing you of doing (or failing to do) these things. Powers ^T 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sources - four found so far, one in the article, other three to be added:
  • Bolintineanu, Alexandra (2006). "Astronomy and Cosmology, Middle-earth" - an entry in the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia
  • The Astronomy of Middle-earth: Astronomical Motifs and Motivations in the Work of J.R.R. Tolkien, a collection of papers presented by Kristine Larsen
    • from Larsen: "A Little Earth of His Own: Tolkien's Lunar Creation Myths." Tolkien 2005, Birmingham, UK. August 12, 2005.
  • Kisor, Yvette L. "Elves (and Hobbits) always refer to the Sun as She": Some Notes on a Note in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien Studies - Volume 4, 2007, pp. 212-222
  • Honnegger, Thomas "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien", published in "Root and Branch" (2000), from Walking Tree Publishers book review.
• Does this satisfy the nominator's concerns? Carcharoth 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If the article were re-written, based on those sources and using an out-of-universe perspective, possibly. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to describe fictional universes in their entirety. This means that the article should probably contain a brief overview of the importance of the Sun and Moon, and literary criticisms that explain why they are important to Tolkien's work. We are building an encyclopedia of general knowledge - knowing what to omit is equally as important as knowing what to include, and I think that it must be shown that content such as this is relevant to the real world and worth knowing by those unfamiliar with Tolkien's work. - Chardish 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'll try and do a rewrite in the next few days. I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't room in Wikipedia for specialist (rather than generalist) knowledge - it seems to be the case that many areas already go beyond generalist knowledge into specialist knowledge. I agree that WP:PLOT and WP:WAF are important considerations when writing about a fictional topic. I'm also sure that we could have a long debate about what "relevant to the real world" means, and when something is "worth knowing", but this probably isn't the time or place. Carcharoth 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Chardish, I think you're demanding something that's both impossible in the time this AfD will run and beyond the scope of what AfD is meant for. We're here to decide if it's appropriate to have an article on this subject, and Carcharoth has shown that multiple independent sources exist, which means this subject is notable by our standards, and thus it is appropriate to have an article about it. AfD isn't meant to be a means for deleting articles on notable subjects just because they're not as well-written as we'd like; we're not on a deadline, and there's no need to demand that the article be perfect before the AfD is done. Also, we're making more than an encyclopedia of general knowledge... as the first pillar says, "It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." There's no reason we shouldn't include something that's verifiable and notable just because it may not fall into the realm of general knowledge... it's not like we're going to run out of paper. Pinball22 13:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • indeed. if you think the article is badly written, slap a cleanup notice on it (or even better, clean it up), but don't bother afd with it. Incidentially, I don't even happen to think this particular article is extremely bad. Of course it can be improved, but compared to what passes as "bad" on Wikipedia, it is actually rather fair. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keepchanged toSpeedy keep per sourcing and serious concerns with the potential that this was improperly nommed in the first place. K. Scott Bailey 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep. arguably merge to Middle-earth cosmology, but this can be discussed calmly off Afd. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep for now in the hope that it can be rewritten per the sources mentioned, and demonstrate notability. There might be a decent article to be written on the subject, but this is not it, and a complete rewrite would probably be a better approach, but if editors prefer to start from here, let's give them a chance. However, if it's still like this in a few months, it should be a strong delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Middle-earth cosmology Will ^(talk) 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Needing to be rewritten is not a valid reason for deletion. Rray 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because of the sources. If it's better merged somewhere, this can be discussed elsewhere. Uthanc (talk) 02:48, 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. Singularity 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Silver Tornado

The Silver Tornado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Extremely minor character, mentioned only in passing in one issue of a limitedseres. Fails test for notability Konczewski 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Collectonian 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, unless there's somewhere good to move it which I can't find (a List of minor Amalgam Comics characters, or similar). The only attempt at out-of-universe commentary, in the final sentence, seems to be original research. EALacey 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable. Decoratrix 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - Hoax, patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African Biting Waterlion Rose

African Biting Waterlion Rose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. Written in the style of a hoax and with 1 unrelated ghit for african biting watermelon rose and zero ghits for "Sir Edward Larcaster" - Q.E.D. nancy 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom Collectonian 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, complete bollocks. shoy (^words _words) 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS Doc Strange 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No-Consensus. We have no clear consensus on this one and there has been sufficient discussion to suggest that relisting this won't achieve anything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ran Libeskind-Hadas

Ran Libeskind-Hadas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD; in the PROD summary, I wrote, "Doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:PROF: professor at a small college, nothing about notable publications or awards or influence in the field. Last paragraph is almost entirely unencyclopedic (and documents activities that are worthy, but don't demonstrate any notability.)" These concerns still apply. Another editor added a citation to one of Libeskind-Hadas's papers (with no assertion that it is a particularly influential paper) and mentioned that Libeskind-Hadas has 36 publications, which is not an unusually large number for a computer science professor. Delete. SparsityProblem 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Stong Keep This person is highly notable, having published significant papers in top flight (eg IEEE) journals in his field. More importantly his work is noted by other academics in his field. His work on nodule optimisation is very important as a breaktrhough in computer science of solutions to large scale circuitry design problems. By the way Harvey Mudd is a top tier west coast school as part of the Pomona Colleges. Decoratrix 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest familiarizing yourself with the guidelines at WP:PROF. Publishing papers in major journals is not in itself grounds for notability, per Wikipedia standards. Nor is being cited by other academics (though having written papers that are widely cited is). Nor is being a professor at a good school; Harvey Mudd is a good school, but not every professor at Harvey Mudd has a Wikipedia article devoted to them. I suspect that most professors at even Harvard University don't have biographical articles on Wikipedia. It's possible that Libeskind-Hadas may meet some of these guidelines, but the issue is that the article still does not assert that he does. SparsityProblem 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    • I am familiar with the guidelines at WP:PROF which the subject meets. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the actual content of his papers and their significance. Decoratrix 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, there's no need for me to do that. The burden of proof is on the creator(s) of the article to demonstrate that the subject's papers have encyclopedic significance. That's how Wikipedia works. SparsityProblem 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

the guidelines are guidelines, and are reasonably interpreted to mean that he need to have published sufficient papers in good journals to establish his work as being important--because publishing significant work in good journals is what professors do that makes them important. Being cited widely is how significant papers are recognized as being significant--thats what the word means in science. It's the criterion used in all academic subjects, though the details vary. The papers are not necessary or even usually individually of encyclopedic significance, we are writing about the man, and his encyclopedic significance is in his work as a whole, and it is judged by the way people in his field think of it--which they show by appointments, awards, and citations. That's how science article about scientists in Wikipedia work. DGG (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• note three cited publications listed in ISI:

• Ferrel I, Mettler A, Miller E, & Libeskind-Hadas R (2006) IEEE ACM T NETWORK 14:183-190 (3 citations)
• Hartline JRK, Libeskind-Hadas R, Dresner KM, Drucker EW, & Ray KJ (2004) IEEE ACM T NETWORK 12:375-383 (1 citation)
• Barden B, Libeskind-Hadas R, Davis J, & Williams W (1999) INFORM PROCESS LETT 70:13-16 (5 citations)

I realize that h-indices are particularly poor at judging CS clout due to the importanc of conference proceedings, but 1 & 3 citations suggest that these IEEE publications don't confer notability. Pete.Hurd 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think using Google scholar for h-indices works better than ISI, because it includes the conferences more consistently. Their data is not as clean, but can still be compared with other authors using the same data. By that measure, I make out his h-index to be 9. I would expect more like something at least in the high teens for most established full professors in CS at research universities, with many being higher than that. Though I am not convinced that h-indices measure the right thing: I'd be much more impressed by one paper cited 200 times than 10 papers cited 10 times each. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• further note weird, doing a general search, rather than a cited reference search on ISI (not how I usually search for citations) turns up more cited papers. 10 papers listed, citations: 3,0,1,0,22,0,6,5,2,0. The 22 citations paper is:

• Libeskind-Hadas R & Melhem R (2002) Multicast routing and wavelength assignment in multihop optical networks IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING 10:621-629

I still don't see notability. Pete.Hurd 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep I think the notability is borderline. He's a full professor at a good college, but it isn't a research university. He has a reasonable but not very high number of publications, cited a reasonable number of times. If the standard is more than the average professor, a full professor at a good college is already safely in the upper half, as it's the top of the three ranks. The current cleanest way to do a WoS search is neither a general author search nor a cited reference search, but to use the author finder in the general search part (the interface is in the process of changing over the next month or two to eliminate the general search/cited reference search distinction, and make it work more like Scopus--but the way will still be with the author finder. That is, when it works (compound names are sometimes a little weird). What I get, like Pete, is 10 items that WoS considers citable papers. sorting by "times cited", I get the counts Pete got. As Pete remarks, nothing works all that well for computer scientists, due to their manner of publication. Pete on balance doesnt think the record is notable, Harvey Mudd seems to think otherwise, and i don't think I can decide between them. DGG (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete He has an endowed chair, but it's an "Endowed Chair for effective teaching", which doesn't suggest any additional research impact over the typical prof, his publications aren't cited nearly enough to demonstrate the influence Decoratrix suggests his work has had, other than that, he has a typical number of publications and conference papers, and holding an NSF grant, which isn't atypical. If Harvey Mudd thinks he's notable, it seems to be for his teaching and undergraduate supervision. I don't see how he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per Pete Hurd. Note that the NSF grant is for running an undergraduate research program. --Crusio 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment One can be notable as a teacher, but i think it would involve significant award outside the university--just as any significant award for anything establishes notability. (there have been a very few afds here on this point, and I think they turned on that) A distinguished teaching chair would then not be enough--but if the NSF grant is for running a educational program there, perhaps it would count. Just perhaps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Keep. I feel that the provided academic record, in combination with the professor's endowed chair and role as acting Department Chair last year, is sufficient evidence of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. --Goobergunch|? 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Wikipedia is not an index of people with PhDs or professors at universities. He has nothing that makes him stand out from his peers. --DHeyward 06:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe his notability is established in the current article. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Pub record is nothing special and I see nothing else to make up for that in terms of notability. Not particularly known in algorithm design and analysis and complexity theory, which the article claims to be his primary research areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 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 merge to foot fetishism. I'd do this, except the article is unreferenced, so I'm redirecting. Material can be merged when referenced.. Doc^g 11:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've been bold and changed the redirect to point to Non-penetrative sex, since IMO that's a more useful target given the current contents of the two articles. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Doc's remarks about merging with references (to either article) still apply. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foot job

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

This is going to be a more borderline AfD, but I do not think that this topic has any independent notability from foot fetishism. It warrants a mention there if someone can find a reliable source, but that's about it. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with foot fetishism. It's mildly conceivable that there might be potential for an encyclopedic article about this, but as it is, it's more or less a dicdef. SparsityProblem 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from the internet, it seems this is popular in Japan. 132.205.99.122 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment is there a second party physical penis stimulation article to merge it to, if not, then Keep ? 132.205.99.122 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into foot fetishism. The article does suggest that it's sometimes part of foreplay among people without foot fetishes, but that's presumably true of any kind of penile stimulation. It's only in the context of foot fetishism that this is likely to be notable enough for a description. EALacey 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• I vote for the Merge into foot fetishism. 82.153.19.100 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge:foot fetishism. Tiptoety 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Pavel Vozenilek 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into foot fetishism. --Simon Speed 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per almost everyone else here. Rray 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into foot fetishism. --Man from the Ministry (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; do not merge. No reason for deletion or merge as Handjob already exists. Prior "merge" and "delete" votes have, variously, either no valid reasoning or no reasoning at all behind them. Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 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. Singularity 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrin Brooks-Meade

Corrin Brooks-Meade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy and prod. The reasoning however remains the same, this player is yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league and fails WP:BIO. Nuttah68 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that subject doesn't satisfy the professional league requirement under WP:BIO since Football League Two is semi-professional, but he appears to have a substantial number of mentions in secondary source material. --Sesameball^Talk 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. League two is fully professional, however, this player has never played at that level. Nuttah68 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Ah, I thought he actually played a game for Darlington. --Sesameball^Talk 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Yes, it fails WP:BIO, does not have enough sources, but i still think it can be expanded and turned into a good article, but like i said it fails BIO, so. Tiptoety 23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Peanut4 10:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per "the same old history concerning WP:BIO". --Angelo 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no appearances at all for either Fulham F.C. or Darlington F.C., also his loan spell is due to expire in November. May only be emergency cover for first/second choice keepers. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:08, 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 and salt. - @pple complain 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CoffeeAM.com

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

Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable company. No sources at all aside from company web site. Information. Google hits are almost all links to site itself, or to coupons for it on other sites. {{unsourced}} and {{verify}} tags are repeatedly removed without comment by original author. The article is a barely-changed copy-and-paste from this page. Appears to be effort to promote the company and nothing more - in other words, spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Probably speedily, per G4? The creating editor was informed of the problems and how to fix it in a section at EA, but failed to follow up on it. Adrian M. H. 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy was declined by another editor due to an unsubstantiated assertion of the company's market position. The original author has ignored all warnings and simply reverted them out. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It was speedied twice previously [10]. Adrian M. H. 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, I move to delete and salt. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete recreation of deleted vanity/advertising article Collectonian 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. as already-speedied spam. If it bobs up again, may need to salt. JohnCD 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete looks like wiki spam to me. 82.153.19.100 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Update: The original author removed the AfD notice from the article, and is now obviously acting in bad faith. The notice has been reverted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm inclined to add my support to a salting of this title if this should be deleted once more, given the history of the article and the editor's actions. Adrian M. H. 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Another Update someone once again removed the AfD, though this time hiding behind an anonymous IP. The removal has been reverted. Collectonian 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge with foot fetishism.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foot girl

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

Possibly a non-notable neologism, and is kinda dicdef-ish. I suggest either a deletion or a redirect to foot fetishism. Could not be anything more than a stub. Google seems to just turn up porn, and no apparent reliable sources. Nothing in the mainspace links to it, either. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, and because it verges on POV by referring to adult women as "girls" outside quotation marks. SparsityProblem 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's acceptable in some informal situations to refer to young adult women, colloquially, esp. under the age of 25, as "girls".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• However, an encyclopedic article should be written in a formal style, and colloquial language is almost never appropriate (except in some limited situations like quotations). SparsityProblem 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with foot model. I do agree that "girl" in this context is just industry jargon. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't notice there was a foot model article - that'd be an appropriate merge and redirect, but with emphasis on the different contexts of a "foot model" and a "foot girl".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would rather merge to foot fetishism than foot model. It's not clear how important fetish modelling is compared to modelling for advertising, and devoting two-thirds of the foot model article to fetish modelling might be undue weight. I also suspect that reliable sources treating "foot girls" are more likely to be about foot fetishism in general than about foot modelling in general. EALacey 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's a valid point actually, as I kind of noted above.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Foot model was good, quick thinking, but per EALacey and HisSpaceResearch, merging to foot fetishism seems most appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with foot fetishism. 82.153.19.100 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I support the foot fetishism merge with the relevant policy being WP:V as I do not really see any references. I also suspect that those found will be lean more heavily on foot fetishism. SorryGuy 20:32, 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 and cleanup. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roadgeek

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

Page appears to be entirely original research, especially the Sites of interest section which makes up the bulk of the article. There are no sources given and I do not think that there will be enough (or any) independent third party sources found about the concept to justify an article under the the primary notability criteria. At present this article is non-notable roadcruft which I do not think it will be possible to improve upon. Guest9999 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Roadgeekdom is a popular enough hobby that I suspect coverage of it in reliable sources can be found. The sites of interest part should go, though, or be whittled down into a brief section of sourced examples of popular places for roadfans to go. Pinball22 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There actually is some newspaper coverage. See [11], [12], [13], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've actually heard of most of those "sites of interest" from third parties, but references are absolutely wanted, as the previous two commenters said. --Cubbi 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. —Scott5114↗ 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. --Station Attendant 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, per Scott5114 and Station Attendant. Concur keep per Pinball22 and Zagalejo statements. --Son 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The list is actually too short, but every entry showing now is to a WP article and each of those I checked provided a notability rationale. Until some discussions of the participants and their organizations are added, the list is what makes this an article, rather than a definition. I suspect that the list will eventually be long enough to require its own page. There is at least one FA on a California road, the Ridge Route, which has introduced many to a contender for Primo Road Geek. I'll add that.--Hjal 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the list that in anyway links it to the term in question. It is 100% original research a reliable source needs to be found linking the locations in the list with the term - or group of people the term describes. Just showing that a road is interesting is not enough to assume a group of people is who like interesting road are interested in it A + B does not always = C [[Guest9999 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• I deleted the list as it is completely unsourced and - if the article is kept - the list should be based upon sources not the other way around. [[Guest9999 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Deleting the bulk of an article that you have nominated for deletion seems to violate process to me. Regardless of the AfD, the bulk deletion was improper. At least some of the linked articles clearly demonstrate that the listed roads have formal organizations dedicated to their history or maintenance and to enjoying their use for travel. Even if the specific people who wrote a book about a highway or formed an association of interchange admirers do not identify themselves as "Roadgeeks," that does not keep their existance from providing an example of the subject.---- Hjal (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree - article's are often cleaned up during AfDs. There is one source in the entire section and that does not give any mention tof the term roadgeek or (as far as I can see) any people who might obsess about the area with out this information it is just synthesis. I am going to remove the section again as it is unsourced and the linking of the places to the group of people is original research. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Actually looking at it, I think that the section on behaviour should also be removed, parts of it are completely unsourced and very likely to be original research, the rest is sourced to what appears to be a blog which does not qualify as a reliable source. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep and clean up. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:07, 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. - @pple complain 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfield elementary school

Fairfield elementary school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Demolished elementary school with no notability asserted and no sources. Prod removed by anon without comment. shoy (^words _words) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While apparently not notable for an individual article, the school could be mentioned at the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board article, which currently says almost nothing about the district's elementary schools. Perhaps that article should discuss the "capital plan" that resulted in Fairfield's closure. EALacey 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Good proposal EALacey. but delete anyway Victuallers 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No opinion on mention in other article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arthur 18:57, 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 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words difficult to translate into French

List of English words difficult to translate into French (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although it's an interesting subject, I am not convinced that it is encyclopedic, nor is it at all sourced. I believe it to be original research. Does the community agree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree. Delete. shoy (^words _words) 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• "Difficult" is subjective. Delete as OR. GlassCobra 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree. Definite original research. Rudget _zŋ 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in its current version. There is no criteria for inclusion on the list (making it WP:OR in my mind), and from my understanding of French at least some of the tranlsations are not problematic. There are also multiple versions of French throughout the world, some with greater capability to translate concepts. The lead itself mentions 'particular languages', not French and English, and there is no source for either why the words are difficult or the suggested translation. Further, wikipedia is not a dictionary and not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the list could be sourced as to why the translations are difficult, that page could be of merit but as is I don't see the page as eligible for wikipedia. WLU 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR violation...this is opinion Doc Strange 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be found for every single entry. And really, this should be one entry in a list of English words difficult to translate into every language. Daniel Case 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: OR. Article would find it difficult to satisfy WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Besides all the problems others have noted, it violates (as currently written) "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook". EALacey 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as purely subjective. All words are difficult to translate unless you know the corresponding word/phrase in the other language, in which case it's easy. Nuttah68 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Translation all depend on our translation skill. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as subjective OR. And where are the "fried apples"? -- But|seriously|folks  19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete interesting to think about but not encyclopedic. JJL 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Supprime (I think that's French for Delete) for all of the well-stated reasons above. --Hnsampat 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom. This is a subjective list, in fact, I think most advanced speakers of French would say that most of those words or terms are not all that difficult to translate. It is basically WP:OR, with no WP:RS, and no real way to WP:V the claim that they are difficult to translate. Ariel♥Gold 04:42, 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. GRBerry 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 New Hampshire General Court Session

Violation of WP:NOT#INFO Delete This is a Secret ^account 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The article fails WP:NOT#INFO 2.9.4 and does not seem to convey anything meaningful to the general reader -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional delete: The article as written doesn't even explain what it's about. It's possible that I may change to keep if both context and a claim to notability are added; both are currently lacking. Sarcasticidealist 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep how douse listing the members of the New Hampshire legislature fall under WP:NOT#INFO it douse not have an faq, Plot summarie, Lyrics, or Statistics, it seems that your main argument is that since "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" you can discriminate against information you don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.211 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That isn't a list of all the members, it's how they voted on two laws, that's stats right there. This is a Secret ^account 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I hate to get rid of something that mentions Jeff Fontas (he's a buddy of mine that goes to school with me), this definitely fails WP:NOT#INFO. GlassCobra 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep. The article could use some work but it certainly does not fail WP:NOT, at least not under any understanding I have. The material herein is possibly very useful to a user and cannot be easily merged into another article. JodyB _talk 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is only about two votes on a report. I misread it above. JodyB _talk 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I had to look quite hard to find that this was the NH legislature. The article might be converted to a proper list, with the names linked to articles on those concerned. However we already have categories for NH senators and NH representatives. These do not distinguish theose of the 2007 session from earlier ones, but the recent consensus has been against categories for "current senators" etc. because the categories become obsolete. I do not know whether all members of the General Court have (or even need) articles, but there might be merit in conversion to a proper list. In any event the voting columns need to be explained, and a brief introductory text provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demoniac Dance

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

non-notable book which has not even been written. Merkinsmum 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be notable in itself anyway, but not even written yet.Merkinsmum 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not even best-selling authors get wiki pages for books they haven't yet written. should be deleted immediately. Drunkenmonkey111 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as crystalballery. Once release information is out, if the author is notable, no prejudice to recreating the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JohnCD 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 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) 10:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfonso Bonzo

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

Failed PROD; unnotable book that does not seem to stand on its own beyond having a "famous" author. Collectonian 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There was a (spinoff-generating) TV series adapted from the book. Timeineurope 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable book and notable TV adaptation. Note that notable doesn't mean that it has to be very famous or have a major impact on children's literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons stated above. I remember this when growing up. 82.153.19.100 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, I remember the TV show when I was young. Lugnuts 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, I remember this and I imagine most UK-based people of a certain age would too. I seem to recall a catchy theme tune as well...? Richard of York 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Menzoberranzan. Interested editors may want to evaluate further if and what content is worthwile to merge. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bregan D'aerthe

Bregan D'aerthe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Little is written about this chracter outside of its universe, so too few substantial secondary sources are available to write a sustainable, verifiable WikiPedia article on this subject. Mikeblas 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Of course, the nominator might want to read the article he's nominating, since the first line clearly indicates that it's a fictional group, as opposed to a fictional character. One could suspect a cut-and-paste nomination here. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Are nominations with typos inherently invalid? If so, let me know and I'll open another AfD for this article as the subject remains non-notable, despite my error. -- Mikeblas 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Procedural errors do not negate the intent of an action. Jay32183 05:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Menzoberranzan with some significant trimming and referencing. Pinball22 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• A Merge to Menzoberranzan would be adequate, I think. Also an admonition to Mikeblas to at least try to get the details of an article correct when nominating it for deletion. Powers ^T 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Menzoberranzan also has no secondary sources, merging solves nothing. Jay32183 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. A current lack of secondary sources doesn't necessarily mean that such sources don't exist... Menzoberranzan has appeared in sufficiently many books that it's likely to be sourceable. Pinball22 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • But it does mean that the article should be aggressively deleted, WP:PROVEIT. No sources in the article and no sources existing makes no difference to some one reading the article. If sources exist, go get them. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Jay32183 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Menzoberranzan as suggested above. Secondary sources are not necessary for every element of an otherwise referenced work, as primary sources (the texts themselves) do exist for the already-established topic. Merging accomplishes this without loss of information. ◄Zahakiel► 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My point against the merger is that neither article has secondary sources. Both should be deleted, merging is a waste of time and effort. Jay32183 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That is an issue for another AfD; as long as Menzoberranzan exists, this article is suitable for a merger with it. If you would like to add Menzoberranzan to this discussion, there are avenues for that, although you're likely going to run into a Faerun situation. Until and unless that happens, the merger proposal is quite valid. ◄Zahakiel► 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. Not all AFDs have to happen at once, and you need to learn to recognize what articles meet the requirements. You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted. The deletion of that article may not be up for discussion here, but the appropriateness of a merger is. The merge is inappropriate and a waste of time. The merger is simply an attempt to save content not worth saving. Jay32183 14:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If you wish to instruct me in the art of AfDing, you'll need to cite some policy that says, "You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted," and then you also need to support that by showing me where your objective evidence is that this will even be the case. I've never seen such a statement. The "content not worth saving" comment is also simply your opinion, and one that has not been supported in the least by the precedent set by previous and frequent AfDs of this kind of material (and see a couple very recent examples here and here. While we aren't to keep articles just because others exist (i.e., WP:WAX) there is something to be said for repeated examples of consensus. So then, please do not confuse your current inclinations with the way things are done on this website; that, not mergers, not even AfDs, is a waste of energy. You assume one article "should be deleted" and then claim that merging this one into it will be a waste of time... that's an overt attempt to circumvent established process. ◄Zahakiel► 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Content not worth saving is not an opinion. There are zero reliable sources for real world context. By definition the content is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The only thing that matters in this discussion is whether there are reliable secondary sources to provide real world context. If there are, keep; if there aren't, delete. There aren't, so this article should be deleted. Jay32183 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • The statement "This article is not worth saving" is an opinion. I'm sorry if I somehow mis-spoke above or didn't make that clear enough. Now, you may think you're basing your opinion on facts, but it's an opinion, and one (as I said before) not currently supported by the majority of AfD contributing editors, including myself. Let's just leave it at that and see what happens in this case. ◄Zahakiel► 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
            • • That is not an opinion. If you want this article saved you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. This article is in complete disregard for policy and guideline for no reason at all. You have no fact to back up anything your saying. There are no possible valid arguments for "keep" or "merge" because "unsourcable" is not a fixable issue. There are no sources for this or any article that it could be merged into. You also shouldn't be offended when people nominate article for AFD for failing inclusion criteria. "There are no sources but we should keep the article anyway" is what you're claiming, and it is the worst argument one can present in an AFD. Merging won't make this problem go away. The problem needs to be fixed, not brushed aside. Jay32183 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into Menzoberranzan. Individual character does not seem to have established independent notability; the setting, otoh, looks to have been mentioned enough in reviews that notability can be established by someone with enough subject knowledge and time to do so. —Quasirandom 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per almost everyone else here. Rray 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no sensible reasons for keeping or merging. There are no primary sources that can be cited to verify the source of this article, so copying and pasting this article else where is just moving the problem of identifying the source of this article elsewhere. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this fictional group. Lastly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better of at fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as fairly comprehensive article about aspect of notable game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 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 --JForget 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of stereotypical names

List of stereotypical names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, no real assertion of notability, and little prospect of expansion to an encyclopaedic article. Jeodesic 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, completely original research, no clear inclusion criteria. shoy (^words _words) 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as original research. No citation of sources, and who is suppose to define a "stereotypical name"? Rudget _zŋ 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Blatant OR -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's original research. Majoreditor 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. "Ect" is short for "Ectetera" Mandsford 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is one of the relatively few remaining lists on WP that actually does justify the label of "indiscriminate".DGG (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butchered From Inside

• Nomination withdrawn with no other delete votes.

Butchered From Inside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN "hacker magazine" with no sourcing, no assertion of notability, and more pixels for logo than for text. The original author is clearly an committed editor, but I can't find any reliable sources (news or elsewhere) to vouch for this publication's notability.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I could go either way on this one. Given that its a somewhat niche market, I think the question is as much, is this group/site/publication notable within their community (e.g. hackers)? Stick their name in quotes and Google down on the English Google, and it seems borderline. Could this AfD remain open until a few Italian speakers can review this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butchered_From_Inside and some Italian Google/news research on the group? I have a feeling it will probably end as a delete anyway, but we don't have to be in any rush, really. • Lawrence Cohen 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Asking for my benefit, doesn't this get tangled up in WP:LOCALFAME? Lots of NN things are notable among hackers. --- tqbf 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously, as one of the authors and editors of the magazine, keep. May I point out that BFI is the first, foremost and most long-lived hacking e-zine in Italy, that it has published various paper editions, that it is being translated in English and in Spanish to overcome the language barrier, that is widely renown for being a difficult venue with criteria as stringent as Phrack (which in particular to the nominator are well-known :) ), and that some well known, published software such as KSTAT (Kernel Security Therapy Anti-Trolls) have been published and developed on it? --Raistlin 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you cite sources for those claims (the equivalence with Phrack, the recognition as "foremost hacking zine in Italy")?
2. Why are you editing an article about a small e-zine you edit? WP:COI.

Thanks for the response. --- tqbf 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• As for WP:COI I exercised great caution :) and as you may see, other people edited the article, so evidently they don't find it too biased or wrong. You are correct, creating that article was one of my first edits on Wikipedia, today I would probably avoid it - still, as neutrally as I can, I find it totally reasonable even today. As for the recognition, I suppose I won't find easily any non-Italian sources to point out. The BFI staff has been interviewed a number of times by in-print media, I can probably find online or pdf versions of that if you want to establish notoriety. I can remember, for instance, a 2004 interview on "ICT Security", the only Italian printed magazine on, well, you may guess the topic... :) It is reproduced in txt format here [14]. Google search gives more than 1000 hits in the long form of the name, more than 500 by looking for BFI S0ftpj. I am pretty sure that any Italian wikipedian can crosscheck and verify notability. I will yield to your collective opinion, of course. --Raistlin 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• BTW: content from S0ftpj, tipically published on BFI, is cited in at least 4 books. [15] --Raistlin 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Cited as "nice mag" on Phrack [16], cited on VX Heavens [17], and in mixed other archives such as [18] --Raistlin 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you get those into the WP article? I think we're converging on keep. --- tqbf 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done, cross-check pls :) --Raistlin (talk) 09:54, 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 --JForget 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystra (goddess)

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

Non-notable fictional character. This article is written in-universe. The character is not covered by substantial primary sources, so creating a sustainable wikipedia article will be impossible. Mikeblas 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Lots of good information here, it just needs to be dramatically cleaned up to be presented from an out-of-universe pov Maelwys 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another nomination of a quite notable (though fictional) character. A Google search for the specific search object "Mystra D&D" returns 19,000 hits. While this is not a sure-fire test of notability, there's a lower-bound there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's below 19K on a very limiting text string. These are becoming quite routine, and nom. might do well to try to dialogue with members of this project before sending the next bale to AfD. ◄Zahakiel► 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Google hits mean absolutely nothing because there is no guarantee that anything list is reliable or provides significant coverage. Significant coverage is a part of being notable and Google hits can't demonstrate that because it doesn't matter how much of the text is actually devoted to the topic if it's mentioned at least once. Jay32183 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: Google hits do not mean "absolutely nothing;" they are simply not a guaranteed measure, which is what I said in my previous statement. No doubt, a lot (maybe even the majority) of those hits are fansites and forums, but it strains credibility to imagine for a moment that the many thousands of pages mentioning this character (remember, the 19,000 was only from one specific search term) do so only once or in passing. As I pointed out, there's a lower bound somewhere. ◄Zahakiel► 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Google hits are completely meaningless!! Fiond reliable sources or you have no point. Jay32183 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So... your statement "Google hits are completely meaningless!!!" links to a page that says, and I quote, "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is." That is, admittedly, used in a cautionary statement about their usefulness, (i.e., "no guarantee," which I've been saying all along anyway) but your choice of wiki-link was, well, disingenuous. I don't have any particular interest in this topic, so someone else will have to take up your challenge to WP:PROVEIT, but to say (however loudly) that this character has no notability is just silly. ◄Zahakiel► 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate notability you need the guarantee. A subject is presumed notable when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That has not been demonstrated in this case, therefore, the article should be deleted. Jay32183 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no; to carefully read the WP:N guideline, (and yes, it's a guideline) we find, "secondary sources [...] provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." In other words, Notability is not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be; several factors must be taken into account. A large amount of primary sourcing (and there are, indeed, such sources, namely the multiple books in which I believe this character appears) contributes a great deal toward depth of coverage and quality. I know you like the WP:PROVEIT button, but if your argument is about the "notability" of Mystra, there's some flexibility allowed, supported by strong precedent, that relegates your "the article should be deleted" position to a matter of opinion rather than policy. For the record, I think your opinion has merit as a general rule. I just happen to disagree with it in this particular case. ◄Zahakiel► 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My issue isn't the "multiple" part, it's the "significant coverage" part. There is no significant coverage beyond plot summary, WP:PLOT. We don't disagree, you are wrong. Jay32183 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no... "plot summary" has nothing to do with character descriptions, and if you think I'm "wrong," then of course we disagree. ◄Zahakiel► 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Character descriptions are plot summaries if they can be sourced to just the story. It's a plot summary with a character specific slant. There needs to be real world information, and there needs to be sources for that information. No evidence for such sources existing has been provided. Disagreements are about opinions. I am not disagreeing with an opinion you have, I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect. Jay32183 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm disagreeing with you about that :) A plot summary is (...wait for it now...) a summary of a plot in a work of fiction. A character description, particularly when featured in more than one plot, is not a "plot summary." I'm just giving you definitions, and of course you're quite free to disagree with these particular facts. You can take it, you can leave it; it's not going to change the consensus that is being quite reasonably sustained against a small group of 3 or 4 editors who robotically seek out and vote "delete" regarding works like this. Since we're hardly talking about the subject of this article anymore, I'm just going to leave it here... but I wonder if you're going to learn anything from the continuing keep results or if you're just going to keep on plowing ahead. Time will tell. ◄Zahakiel► 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you call it a plot summary or not. There is no real world context in the article, and there never will be because there aren't any sources. The reason all of the pages get deleted is that they are violation of every one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Try reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:FIVE, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF rather than making up your own rules in an AFD. Jay32183 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, this is not something I'm going to argue with you about, because you're ripe for a soapbox at this point... but I am curious about something you just said. What are "all these pages" that you think are being deleted? As far as I can see, the fantasy articles routinely nominated by this particular nominator are almost as routinely kept, not deleted (I mean, seriously, the guy couldn't even see the problem with nominating Rincewind for AfD!). If I thought it'd make a difference to the agenda here, I would supply a large number of examples, but since we are assigning homework to each other, first let me point out that I never said there weren't any sources (and I have no intention of conceding that ridiculous point) and second I'd like you to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. ◄Zahakiel► 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with someone else -- I didn't nominate Rincewind for AfD. -- Mikeblas 16:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. I'm talking about this statement here. I know you didn't make the nomination. ◄Zahakiel► 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You still don't have a valid reason to keep this article. You are hurting Wikipedia by being unwilling to delete unsourced articles. Jay32183 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, friend, it's okay to disagree about content in AfDs. It happens every day, but you're inching closer and closer to the WP:CIVIL line (specifically the rudeness example) by your statements that I am "hurting" Wikipedia by opposing your view, (the sky is not going to fall if you don't get your way) and more obviously that I "should not be contributing to Wikipedia" in another AfD in which we're both involved. Let's keep this about content, and if we have nothing further to say about that, let's keep it to ourselves, shall we? ◄Zahakiel► 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources to establish notability, that means the subject does not get an article. There is no opinion there. There is a fact and a logical conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to keep the article, unless you start talking about things other than the content, which don't matter. It doesn't matter that people put in effort, it doesn't matter how important the character is to the plot, and it doesn't matter how many people find the information interesting. Take advantage of Wikia rather than trying to make Wikipedia a fan site. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - as angrily written directly above. Find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (and, also, not just some website) if you wish to demonstrate notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of references, more will be found, character spans multiple books. The article needs clean up, not deletion. Or is Wikipedia running out of space that the handfull of K this article is using up? Web Warlock 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately, all the references in the article are primary sources --they're from TSR and WoTC. It's substantial, verifiable secondary sources which make a subject notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Mikeblas 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's one that I didn't even use a search engine for: [19].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's another from Stanford University: [20].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Neither appears to be a reliable source. The first doesn't seem to exhibit much editorial control from its submitters, although it does have more control than a wiki. Although the second one is hosted on the Stanford University servers, it is a person website of either a student or faculty memeber. It is self published, not actually controlled by the university. They don't comply with WP:RS. Jay32183 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Zahakiel and WebWarlock. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the well-organized article does contain references and concerns a character from a notable and influential game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not what matters and you are well aware of that. Jay32183 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this stock character. All of the citations are of no value; they are there to reinforce the heavy in universe perspective, which provides no real-world context. Most importantly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better off being fanwikied to fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a place where this article could be transwikied to? While I agree that she is a non-notable fictional character without many (if any) secondary sources, it seems like List of Forgotten Realms deities links to dozens of similar articles. I'm not comfortable with setting a precedent here that allows the nuking of all other character pages without giving interested fans a chance to sort this out and consider saving them somewhere else. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A transwiki still results in the page being deleted from Wikipedia. We aren't going to tell a compatible wiki that they can't have the content unless the reason for deletion is a legal one. Jay32183 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not against deletion at all if it wasn't that for when articles are deleted, normally no-one can easily access the information any longer to save it to his own fan wiki / wikia, and most people unaware of the AfD don't even know that the information even existed once. It is good that WP cleans out all the nn fiction articles, but I really struggle to recommend straight-out deletion for legacy articles that were created when the notability guidelines were not as strict. As I am (irrationally) hopeful that this article and its siblings should be allowed a reasonable chance to find a new home somewhere, I would at best recommend a redirect or better just let the AfD run its course. (Seems like it's heading towards no consensus). – sgeureka ^t•c 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Just ask the closing admin, they'll always temp restore for a transwiki. Jay32183 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable fictional character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 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 20:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystaliris-bluechevron

Crystaliris-bluechevron (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is joke/hoax. I've watched all ten season of Stargate SG-1, and the four seasons of Atlantis, and I'm positive there is no mention of this. The only non-Wikipedia-Mirror link that shows up on a Google search is for a Gateworld.net forum discussion (http://forum.gateworld.net/archive/index.php/t-22381.html). Ank329 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RMHED 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt: CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material. Article is substantially similar to first AfD'ed article. Since article is showing frequent recreation, protect against further creation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suparno Satpathy

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

WP:NN as an un-elected politician. Only notability seems to be grandson of a notable. Toddst1 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly written (which is fixable) but has had opportunity to provide cited sources on previous AfD and did not do so. No notability asserted or proven. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - lack of sources, notability not asserted. Snigbrook 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While some assertions of notability are made, they come up short of WP:BIO. This is compounded by the lack of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. There was a previous AfD of this article. I'm comparing text, and if there's no great change, it's subject to speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is substantially similar (or if anything, inferior) to the version deleted in May. Accordingly, this is eligible for speedy deletion under G4 and will be so deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 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 and then redirect. Lack of verifiability prevents merger. GRBerry 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binford Tools

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

Delete - no reliable sources establish the real-world notability of this fictional company. At most it merits a sentence in the article for the TV show. Otto4711 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide secondary sources. Jay32183 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Applying WP:FICT here, and it doesn't exist outside of Home Improvement or for that matter Toy Story. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tool Time or Home Improvement and merge a sentence or two into the target. Pinball22 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge and redirect to Tool Time. The bit about the real-world branded tools is interesting and rings a bell but I can't find anything to source it. It's a plausible search term, though, and Binford Tools "memorabilia" like baseball caps are occasionally seen in the DIY world. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it. It can be improved. There is a page that lists some (all?) of the 'Binford tools' that appear in the show, as well as there are pages that show the use in other films. There are pictures of a 'Binford' toolbox and a logo. I just don't know how to get it all together (put a photo here; may I do that at all...) and if I get into it and 'improve' the article, do you really keep it? I'd rather waste my time on something productive.
  • The issue is that there aren't any sources. Effort will not fix that problem. Jay32183 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pinball22. The fact that there is a page loaded with fancruft does not justify it existing here. JuJube 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)