Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution FritzpollBot to help WikiProject editors make new geographical articles Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Proposed policy regarding threats against schools and students Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Terekhov

Unreferenced POV self-promotion. The creator has no other article edits, either. Biruitorul 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:V, and WP:NN. --Brewcrewer 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No significant independant coverage. Epbr123 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Clubmarx (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as having no verifiable notability. Pastordavid (talk) 19:41, 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, obsolete to Category:London Broncos players. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Broncos players

The page appears to have been created inadvertently in place of a category description. It is not linked anywhere else. Donald Hosek 23:59, 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. --Angelo (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark ranger

Article is barely a stub, showing its extreme lack of notability. It is just a small recitation of the plot of some Warcraft games in an in universe style, and is entirely duplicative of the Warcraft game articles. Judgesurreal777 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Warcraft III. --Brewcrewer 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and crufty. I doubt it has the notabilty to be merged. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete only has notability in-universe. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 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. - @pple complain 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TourneyCentral

Contested PROD. Original prod reasoning was "non-notable software company". - PeeJay 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. - PeeJay 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete — article fails to assert notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If some appropriate outside references can be added, then it meets policy, but until then, it should be deleted. Andrwsc 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I failed to mention that the article may have been written by members with conflicted interests. - PeeJay 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:SPAM. --Brewcrewer 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Obvious spam. --Komrade Kiev 14:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no apparent proof of notability. ---- Angelo (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Spam. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War profiteering by Halliburton

This is an unreferenced, non-neutral, polemical essay contrary to WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It may be that Halliburton are as bad as they are made out but, per WP:SOAP, WP is not the right platform for sounding off about it! andy 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - All this type of information should be included in the Halliburton article and sourced or not included. Judgesurreal777 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unencyclopediac opinion; nothing to salvage here. Kablammo 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, clear WP:POVFORK. shoy (^words _words) 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unreferenced soapbox and fork; we already have Halliburton#Iraq_controversy. Biruitorul 00:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:V. --Brewcrewer 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio of [1]. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake of the woods district hospital foundation

Not notable. The hospital for which this foundation is fundraising does not have an article and isn't listed in List of hospitals in Canada. Even if the hospital is notable, the foundation isn't. Cricketgirl 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. WP:ADVERT. --Brewcrewer 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Possible case for WP:N for the hospital itself, but the charitable trust doesn't make it. — BillC ^talk 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Agree Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Moderately weak delete per nom and everyone else.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - @pple complain 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Drucker

Non-notable intern. Also, may fail WP:AUTO. Article claims he has written for magazines but Google search doesn't yield much in way of proof, or proof of his writing's notability. KnightLago 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:V, and WP:NN. --Brewcrewer 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no third party sources. No real notability. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. Epbr123 13:19, 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. - @pple complain 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Jordan

Disputed prod. Article is likely a hoax, though would not pass notability guidelines even if true. Kubigula (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Brewcrewer 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete "politician from Birmingham" is the only claim made to notability; close to CSD:A7. — BillC ^talk 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unverified and not notable anyway. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per everyone here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:01, 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. Hut 8.5 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris gilders

Couldn't find anything on him in google, no sources, possible hoax. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete probably not a hoax, as at least some of the shows do exist. However, clearly fails WP:N, by a long shot. — BillC ^talk 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:V at the moment.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Content references noteworthy television documentaries: http://catalogue.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/programme/LDFB697D (Producer, House Of Love + see FORTY MINUTES ON: HOUSE OF LOVE * Docu series revisits memorable episodes from 40 Minutes series); http://catalogue.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/programme/LRPB306P (Producer: Everyman: Brother Beast, etc); Clip from Transformation Express featuring controversial Exegesis leader Robert D'Aubigny is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/gurus.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.91.254 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 Nov 2007

Notability is not transferable. A show that itself is notable does not confer notability on all those that participated in its production. — BillC ^talk 15:43, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pit Lord

Article has no notability, no referencing, and no hope of establishing notability. The article is a short retelling in an in-universe way of random plot details from the Warcraft articles and is thus duplicative of them. Judgesurreal777 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Warcraft universe. --Brewcrewer 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete only has in-universe notability, does not meet notability standards for fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 20:04, 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.. There may be better ways of organizing this information within one of the existing search engine articles, but not in this format. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Search Engine Statistics

I am not convinced that Wikipedia is the right place for this information. It doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article, nor can I see any probability of its developing into an encyclopedia article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Search engine... maybe. You're right that this is not an encyclopedia article, but it's near impossible to justify throwing out information people could realistically be looking for. I don't know i kan reed 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Near impossible to justify"? Please read: WP:NOT#STATS. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep see a high probability of article being developed. --Brewcrewer 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And what form possibly could such an article take? Can you even finish the sentence "Web Search Engine Statistics are..." with simply rearranging the words of the title? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep "Market share" is relevant in the study of competition among businesses. This could use some rearranging, however. At the moment, the intent seems to be to make tables for every month beginning in May 2007 (June and July were added). There are more efficient ways to sum up this type of comparative data. Mandsford 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per WP:NOT#STATS. A collection of statistics is not an appropriate encyclopedia article; this lacks context and is merely a recreation of external research. (I wonder if simply recreating the same tables from the original press releases, without any analysis or interpretation, might even be a copyvio of Nielsen//NetRatings - anyone know?) The sources this relies on can be linked to from within the relevant texts. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with article on search engine optimization. Heathspic 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe Wikisource could use it -- doubtful -- but it doesn't belong here. No merge. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Not an encyclopedia article, so no worth to stay here. --Angelo (talk) 21:23, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gryphons (Warcraft)

Article has zero notability, thus wont have any references or development information, and as such it is a two paragraph in univers retelling of a few plot points from the Warcraft series. Judgesurreal777 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete on the grounds that there will never be enough relevant information to make a full length article, and that by itself, such a creature is not notable. Since there are multiple reasonable redirects I'd favor a redirect with a good reason behind it over deletion. As a side note "the role playing game warcraft" is an amusing quote. Presumably referring to WoW. i kan reed 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete of Merge into Warcraft universe. --Brewcrewer 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete only has in-universe notability, does not meet notability standards for fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 20:05, 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 (potentially CSD A7, in any case the discussion failed to prove any kind of notability for the article). --Angelo (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JOUD Appliances

Fails WP:CORP. No refs or meaningful claim to notability. The 'first' claims mentioned are interesting but notability is from sources not being ISO etc. The refs listed are their own page and thus not WP:RS. Not discussing JOUD which is said to have been started in 1933, just this Appliance company. Prod dropped with no comment. Obina 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless article is cleaned up wikified, and notability is fleshed out. --Brewcrewer 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I note that the article creator has edited just this one article. No notability even asserted hence Speedy is appropriate. Springnuts 12:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Pastordavid (talk) 20:06, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Albano

Contested prod (possible sockpuppets). This is a vanity article. It is non-neutral in tone and contains unverified claims. Apart from the subject's own statement that he is notable there is nothing to support a claim of notability per WP:NN - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" andy 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be non notable, and as vanity. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:NN. --Brewcrewer 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
'Weak keep as possibly notable, but needs a lot of cleanup of peacock language. Rescue? Bearian 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Brewcrewer who is if anything generous in his comments. Springnuts 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete:Vanity not notability I think Victuallers (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
'Keep as it does seem to have enough references to establish notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - actually it only has two references (I have just removed two others which were devoid of any information about Chris Albano). Both are uncritical descriptions of some recipes and don't do anything to establish notability - no reviews, comparisons, awards etc. On this basis every chef and every restaurant that gets a mention in any medium (radio, newspaper, blog...) is notable - i.e. most of the food industry of the developed world. andy (talk) 12:46, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit

I know that this song exists because friends taught it to me at summer camp years ago. However, it is unreferenced, so there is no way to know if it's notable or not. My impression of other songs in Category:Children's songs is that many of them are more notable than this one. Two people have questioned the existence of this article on the talk page, so I decided to bring the discussion here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Although it is more than notable enough, verifiability seems to be a problem. If that is fixed, I would swing over to keep. Martijn Hoekstra 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalejo. Martijn Hoekstra 13:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Lack of references means the article should be improved by adding references, not deleted. Rray 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per RRay. Notability means there cannot be valid references, not that there aren't. I don't mean to play the "I've heard of this so it's important" game, but who hasn't heard of this? And wouldn't they come here to find out? i kan reed 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, if I could find any reliable sources. The first 5 or so pages of google results didn't have any reliable sources on the subject. I would be happy if I could even find a reliable source claiming 'who hasn't heard of 'beans beans, the musical fruit', or something of that nature. Martijn Hoekstra 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Here you go: "Is there really anyone out there, whether you're 6 or 106, who can't recite that old children's rhyme, "Beans, beans, the musical fruit..?" (There are other Google Book results, too.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unless referenced. --Brewcrewer 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Zagalejo has clinched it. Phil Bridger 11:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Added reference and new data. Starczamora (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, does that second ref actually say anything about this song? I don't see it mentioned anywhere... Zagalejo^^^ 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as everyone would agree that it is notable, while verifiable sources can be found, and reliable sources are being found and added. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is referenced all over the place, including Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart. Kingturtle (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it is referenced and notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:09, 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 No Concensus with strong suggestion that sources found in this debate are added to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajmohan Pillai

Suggest Speedy deletion - Vanity article that has been re-created numerous times by User:Vinodgr. Listed here for consensus. Pastordavid 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

keep and strongly oppose speedy I can immediately find a national newspaper covering this person via google... though the subject matter is not included in the article and probably should be. indian express newspaper. I'm objecting to the speedy because this is not a recreation of the same material, or if it is, the previous versions were deleted unfairly. "no claims of notability" is a blatant falsehood. i kan reed 23:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable and because it appears to be a vanity article. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There are certainly claims to notability here, but it's whether anyone can provide multiple reliable non-trivial third party sources...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed there are claims to (in Wiki terms marginal) notability here, but not convinced by the references given or found searching. Springnuts 12:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are sources available: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Epbr123 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

comment: First ref does not read as independent. Shades of this too in second article - which mentions that one book is as yet unpublished. Third ref just proves he exists - the article is not primarily about him. Final ref is a report of an interview: this is not notability in the wiki sense. This is not the same as "fame" or "importance". See WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Springnuts (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The first two weren't published by Rajmohan Pillai or anyone associated with him, so they are independant; they may contain quotes, but so does Wikipedia. The third ref does seem to be primarily about him. Epbr123 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Inquisitor Isillien

Unsourced with unnotable fancruft and plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

Along with having no sources, it has no third-party sources to depict its notability, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have any interest in this article whatsoever.

The page appears to contain fancruft which may have opportunity to attract original research, furthering itself away from being sourced.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. These type of issues would generally not be wanted here. IAmSasori 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete thumbnail sketch of non-notable fictional figure. There is no need to use the word fancruft, however. AnteaterZot 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non notable character, and as such the article is just plot regurgitation. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: An article having plot summaries is not a guideline violation. If the article is LARGELY plot summary, then there's a problem. Please be careful with your rationales. —Quasirandom 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge per WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters. —Quasirandom 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Judgesurreal777. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. This cracked me up, though: "...in the fictional game World of Warcraft." And all this time I thought it was a real game! Pagra shtak 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unlikely to have any out-of-universe context, per WP:WAF. Marasmusine 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pure plot summary. ---- Phirazo (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable fancruft. RMHED (talk) 01:44, 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 Redirect since the character already has an entry in List of Warcraft characters--Tikiwont (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tirion Fordring

Unsourced with unnotable fancruft and plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

Along with having no sources, it has no third-party sources to depict its notability, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have any interest in this article whatsoever.

The page appears to contain fancruft which may have opportunity to attract original research, furthering itself away from being sourced.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. These type of issues would generally not be wanted here. IAmSasori 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, even among Warcraft characters he lacks notability. -- Atama sama 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: An article having plot summaries is not a guideline violation. If the article is LARGELY plot summary, then there's a problem. Please be careful with your rationales. —Quasirandom 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of this information is already in List of Warcraft characters; redirect to that page, to retain links and keep the edit history. —Quasirandom 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to character list. No out-of-universe information, no real-world notability. Pagra shtak 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article has insufficient content, real-world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Warcraft cannon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:18, 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 since its is not clear if the character even warrants an entry in List of Warcraft characters. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karandra Fordring

Unsourced with unnotable fancruft and plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

Along with having no sources, it has no third-party sources to depict its notability, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have any interest in this article whatsoever.

The page appears to contain fancruft which may have opportunity to attract original research, furthering itself away from being sourced.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. These type of issues would generally not be wanted here. IAmSasori 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No notability, so article is just plot summary. Judgesurreal777 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: An article having plot summaries is not a guideline violation. If the article is LARGELY plot summary, then there's a problem. Please be careful with your rationales. —Quasirandom 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters. Not independently notable. —Quasirandom 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to character list. No out-of-universe information, no real-world notability. Pagra shtak 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete only has in-universe notability, does not meet notability standards for fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 20:11, 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 since its is not clear if the character even warrants an entry in List of Warcraft characters. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taelan Fordring

Unsourced with unnotable fancruft and plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

Along with having no sources, it has no third-party sources to depict its notability, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have any interest in this article whatsoever.

The page appears to contain fancruft which may have opportunity to attract original research, furthering itself away from being sourced.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. These type of issues would generally not be wanted here. IAmSasori 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: An article having plot summaries is not a guideline violation. If the article is LARGELY plot summary, then there's a problem. Please be careful with your rationales. —Quasirandom 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters. Even less independently notable than many. —Quasirandom 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to character list. No out-of-universe information, no real-world notability. Pagra shtak 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article has insufficient content, real-world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Warcraft cannon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caer Darrow

Despite how a Merge template have recently been placed, I feel the contents of this article still do not belong as it is unsourced, unnotable fancruft with plot summaries

There are no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to depict notability, as non-players of the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

It has mainly fancruft which can easily attract original research, furthering itself away from being properly sourced.

Finally, it basically contains plot summaries, which is what Wikipedia is not. Such content are generally not wanted here. IAmSasori 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Probably not worth merging anyway. Judgesurreal777 23:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:08, 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeroth (Warcraft). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarren Mill

Despite how a Merge template have recently been placed, I feel the contents of this article still do not belong as it is unsourced, unnotable fancruft with plot summaries

There are no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to depict notability, as non-players of the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

It has mainly fancruft which can easily attract original research, furthering itself away from being properly sourced.

Finally, it basically contains plot summaries, which is what Wikipedia is not. Such content are generally not wanted here. IAmSasori 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Article has no notability. Judgesurreal777 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:06, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Hunter (Warcraft)

Article has no notability, is just an in universe recitation of plot points from the Warcraft series, and as such is just a duplication of the plot sections of several game articles. Judgesurreal777 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete only has in-universe notability, does not meet notability standards for fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 20:12, 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Elf (Warcraft)

Despite how a Merge template have recently been placed, I feel the contents of this article still do not belong as it is unsourced, unnotable fancruft with plot summaries that would just increase to the already overloaded article it was targeted to that is also going through an Articles for deletion.

There are no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to depict notability, as non-players of the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

It has mainly fancruft which can easily attract original research, furthering itself away from being properly sourced.

Finally, it basically contains plot summaries, which is what Wikipedia is not. Such content are generally not wanted here. IAmSasori 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The article has no notability, and as such is just plot recitation. Judgesurreal777 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge/redirect into/to Playable races in the Warcraft series. Delete Not notable enough for separate article, no out-of-universe perspective. Pagra shtak 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Playable races in the Warcraft series is itself up for deletion, so a merge would be premature at this time. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete only has in-universe notability, does not meet notability standards for fiction. The fact that the article that could contain this info, Playable races in the Warcraft series, is also up for deletion makes it less likely to be notable, not more. Pastordavid (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge with some other Warcraft article. Shinigami27 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect→Azeroth (Warcraft)#Native races and tag with Template:R to list entry, thus satisfying the notability issue (this template implies that the redirected title is not sufficiently notable for retention of a stand-alone article). I am not advocating merger, merely redirection. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:22, 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 no consensus, sourcing concerns were never really addressed, but some trivial sources were added. It shall remain to be seen if acceptable ones can be found, posters and a press release aren't, but some assert they can do better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aputheatre

No notability asserted. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article is unreferenced. There are not enough Google hits (about 300). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Shalom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think this article may be redeemable. Notability is certainly asserted. I don't know if there are any particular notability guidelines for theatre companies, but by analogy with the guidelines for bands the fact that this company has toured nationally and internationally should be enough to make them notable, if it is verifiable. There seems to be an attempt to provide a reference: “A significant shift in Aids Theatre” - (Plays and Players May 1990), although it is not wikified. It's unclear whether this is supposed to apply to the preceding or the succeding text. If the reference does confirm that this company toured as stated then the article should be kept. Phil Bridger 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Phil Bridger 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I came across many pages for this group while doing research on John Roman Baker, another Afd nomination lately. He was kept and the article improved. The same can happen here. For those who don't know, this group is the one which produced several of Baker's plays. If he's notable, then so is the group, in my eyes. Jeffpw (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's not a true syllogism, Jeffpw - Baker's plays were/are probably produced by many groups, and not all the groups are notable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - the content of the article makes many assertions of notability; what it lacks are citations to support such assertions. I have added a couple of Template:Fact instances where I think really key references should be added; I do know and agree with the annoying nature of that template, but I thought it useful in this case. Being generally unfamiliar with the topic, I argue the article should be kept on the weight of these assertions of notability ... unless it can be demonstrated that the topic is the body of a hoax, which I don't believe that it is. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some work on it this eveinng to improve it. The article is messy, no doubt about it (something that drives me nuts), but it is definitely notable. There are probably many more Dutch than English refs, so I'll search them out. Jeffpw (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Assertions of notability aren't enough - if they can't be verified, assertions are no more than cruft. Unless the article provides a source for one or more of those assertions of notability, it should be deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:26, 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 Keep. According to the discussion, sources exist for editors to improve the article. That should also help to prove notability. Seraphim ^Whipp 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Roman Baker

Besides being abysmally written (which isn't a reason for AfD, I know), this biography asserts the notability of being the winner of the Brighton Festival award for Best Theatre, which doesn't seem to be backed up anywhere. Other than one non-sourced assertion, there's no notability. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable, no source except his own web-site. JohnCD 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
KEEP - Google gives a lot of info about him. He has written over a dozen plays, and did indeed win the Brighton Festival award. He has worked with the Dutch gay organization COC as well. There is enough information from my little web search to significantly expand the article. The editor who created it (or others) should be given the chance to do so. -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:41, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banshee (Warcraft)

Unsourced with unnotable fancruft and plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

Along with having no sources, it has no third-party sources to depict its notability, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have any interest in this article whatsoever.

The page appears to contain fancruft which may have opportunity to attract original research, furthering itself away from being sourced.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. These type of issues would generally not be wanted here. IAmSasori 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Has no hope of being anything other than a poorly written in universe stub due to its lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:08, 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 --JForget 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Delfouneso

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nathan Delfouneso

Articles for deletion/Nathan Delfouneso (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Nathan Delfouneso (3rd nomination)

Already deleted by a previous AfD, then recreated, I am relisting this since a subsequent CSD G4 speedy deletion request was declined, as you can see from the article history. The subject is a 16-year old English guy who clearly fails WP:BIO for sportsmen. Angelo 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. and previous AfD. JohnCD 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per previous AfD. He does not meet notability criteria for footballers. When/if he makes his debut for Villa, the article can be reinstated. King of the North East 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - astonished that anyone had the nerve to re-create this. Non-notable all ends up (at the moment, which is the crucial bit - re-create only if and when he makes a first-team appearance for a fully-professional club). Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete If his career were to end tomorrow, we would be left with an article about someone who had only played in the reserves and for England youth sides. That's not a notable sportsman. Fails WP:BIO, has not played in a fully professional league. As an aside, I see the article is completely unreferenced as well. --Malcolmxl5 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete The lack of references to this article is a major concern. Moreover, he has yet to make a league debut in the senior side as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - even if I don't agree that he is just "some 16-year old guy". A regular youth international and a reserve team player at 16 years of age is quite unusual (IMO more notable than one League 2 game), he still is perhaps a little short of notability. If he would have played the U-17 WC, won something with the Aston Villa youths or been member of a CL or UEFA-cup squad, I would have regarded him as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebisthlm (talk • contribs) 12:10, 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 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Origin Series

Is this notable ? thisisace 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Delete, no notability claims to be seen, full of OR as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Vague, and likely false claims of notability at the end. Does not use concrete terms, no references. Fails WP:WEB by far. i kan reed 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and create redirect page to State of Origin since it is colloquially known as the origin series. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:15, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Light

Poorly sourced with unnotable fancruft and plot summaries.

The sole source on the page is a reference to Wikipedia, which is obviously unacceptable. With that, there are no valid sources on this page.

Along with having no sources, it has no third-party sources to depict its notability, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have any interest in this article whatsoever.

The page appears to contain fancruft which may have opportunity to attract original research, furthering itself away from being sourced.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. These type of issues would generally not be wanted here. IAmSasori 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No notability outside of the Warcraft universe, and as such its just plot recitation. Judgesurreal777 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No out-of-universe information, no real-world notability. Pagra shtak 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:21, 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 Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bel Air Mall

Nothing notable about this mall, searches for both "Bel Air Mall" and "Colonial Mall Bel Air" turn up very little useful info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article says that it's the "oldest continuously operating mall" in the state, which would make it notable -- but I can't find a single source that says that it is the oldest. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Are you serious? Bel Air Mall's forty years of continuous operation can be easily confirmed through calls to the mall's current and former owners and local newspaper clippings and press releases from August of 1967.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NitekMobilian (talk • contribs)

Then source the article with said newspaper clippings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If Bel Air Mall is so un-notable, then what makes other regional shopping centers such as Brookwood Village, Madison Square Mall and others so noteworthy? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by NitekMobilian (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The mall's size, at over 1.3 million square feet of gross leasable area, places it well past the Super-regional shopping mall category starting point of 800,000 square feet, and makes it one of the largest malls in the area. Alansohn 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Exactly, Bel Air Mall is the largest enclosed regional mall between metro New Orleans and Tampa/ St. Petersburg. NitekMobilian 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. 1.3 million square feet is huge. It's a major mall that serves a whole region, not just a neighborhood. ---- Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment This [6]PDF is from the Mitchell Company, one of the original developers of Bel Air Mall. It confirms the 1967 debut of Bel Air and the 1974 completion of its JC Penney wing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NitekMobilian (talk • contribs)

It's also a Google cache. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. WP:BIGNUMBER notwithstanding, it's a major mall. It needs references, but the introduction asserts notability from the third sentence (oldest continuously operating super-regional mall in the state), and it was for over a decade the largest mall in Alabama (again, this information is from the article, although it's not referenced). Referencing will be the same problem it is with most malls, since most of the links will not qualify as reliable sources, although I am sure that the Mobile newspaper's archives will have information about the mall. That might be a task for WikiProject Alabama to tackle. On a side note, from reading this table, this would be the largest mall deleted from Wikipedia, and the third largest ever nominated for deletion. Horologium t-c 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm withdrawing this nomination and tagging it for maintenance instead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:22, 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 per WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Johnson For Number 1 in the Charts

I think this is more a current news item. I can't CSD it, so although it technically meets WP:N,m I'm nominating for deletion, as it only gets fleeting coverage in news sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete this is a political stunt of very short-term interest. JohnCD 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per JohnCD. --Malcolmxl5 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Hi I'm new to creating pages on Wikipedia so don't understand why it us up for deletion as you say "it technically meets WP:N". This isn't a political stunt as the people behind it aren't connected to any political party or the mayoral campaign.

I added this as I knew there was a similar entry "Get Hasselhoff to Number 1" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hasslehoff Nicky love (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This has been covered by two more articles in the national press today, The Times and another article in the Daily Telegraph, which I have added to the entry.

Nicky love (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Boris Johnson. Pastordavid (talk) 20:21, 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 keep and merge three album stubs into the band's article. - @pple complain 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eluveitie

Band with no assertion of notability (WP:BAND). Commons:Eluveitie indicates that they have performed at festivals, and their website links to coverage by what would seem to be fringe websites and publications, so giving them the chance of an AfD instead of speedy deletion appears appropriate.

Also nominating their albums for lack of (inherited) notability:

Vên (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Spirit (Eluveitie album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Slania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
... and all unfree images used only in these articles. Sandstein 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:BAND.--SJP 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it "clearly fails" WP:BAND. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep on the band, who are apparently signed to Nuclear Blast Records, which seems to be a notable record label. As such, my suspicion is that there will be sources establishing the notability at least of the band, if not of their albums. I'll see what I can find, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep meets the following criterion "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." According to this, they've toured France, Germany, Slovenia, Belgium, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands. Furthermore, Nuclear Blast is not just notable, it's one of the biggest metal labels. Óðinn 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, if they really are on Nuclear Blast then they are notable by default. Ours18 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Óðinn, Ours18. tomasz. 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Nuclear Blast is a huge name in the metal world. The band has also recieved coverage on Rockdetector- [7] along with reviews on loads of ezines that are familiar to me (as in, I have used them as sources in other articles) here. I'm not even gonna bother linking to specific pages, the number of reliable sources on that Google search speak for themselves. -- J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Óðinn, and per J Milburn. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as signed to Nuclear Blast label. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:31, 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 smited. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible Boat

Borderline advert ? thisisace 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete G11, blatant advertising. Nom is right on the money here. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:42, 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. Hut 8.5 07:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genna Rose Sheedy-Feldman

Absolutely no Google hits for this artist. No assertion of notability or citations to demonstrate this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete along with The Doggy Picaso. Non-notable, looks like it's an advertisement to me. -- Dougie WII 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Impossible to source. Because no sources are avaliable, you can't prove the claim of notability in the article.--SJP 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete no claim to notability. the other article is just astroturfing. Clubmarx (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as blatant self-promotion. Pastordavid (talk) 20:23, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Spring

Nonnotable bio. Assertion of notability is that the one job this "actor" had was in a TV commercial nominated for an Emmy. The only problem with the Emmy nomination is that it is from "The Suncoast Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, a nonprofit Florida corporation..." that offers an "annual Emmy Award called The Suncoast Regional Emmy Awards." Not the famous Emmy from Hollywood. KnightLago 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No real claims to notability. As said above, the only "claim" is that the author won a Emmy, but not the well known Emmy. The Emmy he won does not make him notable enough to have an article.--SJP 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't win the Florida "Emmy" he was nominated for. KnightLago 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - being associated with something that was nominated for a Florida regional Emmy award does not satisfy WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutral -Perhaps Knightlogo overstates when he says that the campaign didn't win the "Emmy" as the award has yet to be given to anyone, I would say keep it if he wins. --Lessjake333

My mistake then. I thought he was only nominated. Even if he won though this is not a notable award IMHO. KnightLago (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per sources added to the article. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BRD

Delete and redirect. Appears to be an unsourced, original research, content fork of West Germany. Pastordavid 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It seems to be a translation of the material at de:BRD, which is better sourced. It is a discussion of the use of this controversial abbreviation (!) and its political ramifications, not the country in general. The topic is evidently notable, given the book cited on the German page and the website given here (scroll down to BRD in the left column to get it to work). Rigadoun (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Rigadoun . Greswik 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to West Germany. If the name's controversy is really that notable then let it be discussed in the main article. There is no reason for this article to exist stand-alone as I see it. In addition to that any user searching with the query "BRD" will likely be looking for info on the country not the word itself. If the main article is too large and this sort of topic needs to be in a seperate article then that article should be titled BRD naming controversy or similar. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:26, 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. IAR application of A7, articles without assertion of notability. Fram 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuarterBall

There is no evidence that this game is notable to anybody but the author. Treygdor 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This game does not meet notability requirements and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Useight 21:03, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nan Hua Primary School

Delete nn primary school sourced to its own website; no significant coverage in independent WP:RSes showing notability Carlossuarez46 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nn school. -- Eusebeus (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rose power

I can find no evidence that this person exists or did any of the things listed. Treygdor 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Won a Turner Prize? Sorry, but no. Something for the crack in the Tate Modern. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No such person has even been short-listed. The illiterate spelling shows it's a schoolboy hoax. JohnCD 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Probably a hoax. Even if this is a real person, there is not evidence she won the Turner Prize. The claim she won the Turner prize is the only claim of notability in the article, and it can't be proven, so of course delete this.--SJP 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - use title as redirect to Rose Revolution? Grutness...wha? 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete An amazing lack of ghits for someone "appreciated world wide".--Fabrictramp 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nawa pind shonkia da

Not notable PhilB ~ ^T/_C 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep All towns and villages are notable. Graeme Bartlett 20:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Problem A Google search (without the English-only filter on) brings back zero hits for that name. Additionally, the article seems to state (though I'm not sure) that it's just part of a town and not a town itself. So this a very cut-and-dried case: if someone can verify its existence as a town, it's a keeper. Otherwise, it's a delete...r. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep you needed simply to search just for "Nawa Pind" which seems to be more common, I use google cache simply because it highlights the term to save me wading through, but it exists in a normal search too

I was planning to move the article to have currect capitalization, and put in a redirect for the short name as requested on WP:AFC but when it appeared on AFD, I decided to leave it in in place till debate was over. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[8] sources seem very brief although there are a few of them, we may need some Indian editors to turn up some other sources. But it seems mean to delete their village (which is known as a village.) Anyway, parts of a town are allowed as long as they have an identity of their own, (see Haight Ashbury Camden Town and numerous others) as from it's 'nickname' this village does. It seems a bit mean to delete it, which would seem as if it were just because we don't know it, whereas small bits of western towns/cities get in.Merkinsmum 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As long as they really exist, all towns and villages are notable regardless of size. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiley W. Hilburn

Yet another in the string of well-written but tragically non-notable biographies by Billy Hathorn, this one on a newspaperman. The article makes no real assertion of notability, and take a look at the sources: most of them are pages hosted by LA Tech (the subject's employer), others are samples of writing, and still another is simply an obituary of the subject's mother. No one likes to see a decent piece of writing go, but this is just not up to snuff. —dust mite 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say Keep on this one, in light of the number of books he's written. As Billy will no doubt confirm, I'm near the top of his list of critics when it comes to his unusual interpretation of WP:RS and WP:N, but that doesn't mean all his contributions are invalid. — iridescent 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll admit that I was hesitant nominating this article, and do consider it a borderline case. It might be worth noting, though, that his books are put out by small (and apparently one-book) publishing companies and have Amazon sales rankings of 2-3 million at best. A Google search for one of his books turns up practically no relevant hits. For these reasons, I consider his books relatively unimportant; I myself have an uncle-in-law who has two volumes of published poetry, and I assure you, he is far from notable. :) Anyway, my two cents' worth. —dust mite 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Was actually chair of the Journalism Department at Louisiana Tech University, which together with his awards (admittedly, local awards), and the books, possibly makes for a certain amount of real notability. Writing articles like this which give equal emphasis to his cousins and in-laws and parents, siblings, and children, does tend to obscure things. I wish we could find some way of convincing the author that all individuals should not get a write-up in exactly the same length and format .DGG (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per DGG. And this needs much better sourcing. Nburden ^(T) 07:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep

Here's proof of notability:

From Wikipedia: Pages in category "Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame inductees" There are 68 pages in this section of this category.

A

A. Leonard Allen Oscar K. Allen B

Jesse Bankston Kathleen Blanco Hale Boggs Lindy Boggs Kenny Bowen John Breaux Victor Bussie

C Jefferson Caffery James Carville William C. C. Claiborne Harry Connick, Sr.

D Jimmie Davis Charles and Virginia de Gravelles Charles W. DeWitt, Jr. Bill Dodd Hunt Downer

E Edwin Edwards Allen J. Ellender

F Jimmy Fitzmorris Murphy J. Foster, Jr. Murphy J. Foster Douglas Fowler

G Camille Gravel Francis Grevemberg Dudley A. Guglielmo

H John Hainkel Wiley W. Hilburn

J William J. Jefferson Bennett Johnston Jr. Eddie Jordan (attorney)

K Robert F. Kennon

L Mary Landrieu Moon Landrieu Dudley J. LeBlanc Harry Lee Bob Livingston Earl Long Gillis William Long Huey Long Jimmy D. Long Russell B. Long Speedy O. Long

M Wade O. Martin, Jr. John McKeithen W. Fox McKeithen Harold B. McSween Henson Moore Ernest Nathan Morial De Lesseps Story Morrison Edgar G. "Sonny" Mouton, Jr.

O John H. Overton

P Mary Evelyn Parker Leander Perez Cecil J. Picard

R Edmund Reggie Buddy Roemer

S Victor H. Schiro Melinda Schwegmann Barbara Boggs Sigmund

T Billy Tauzin Zachary Taylor Francis C. Thompson David C. Treen

W Joe Waggonner Edward Douglass White T. Harry Williams

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blanked by author W.marsh 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Star Premature Deaths

This smacks of original research. How do we judge a death to be "premature"? Since we don't know when people should have died, this is not an encyclopedic topic. I recommend deletion. 1 != 2 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete exactly per nom. It's functionally equivalent to "rock stars who died" in fact since very few are actually dead from natural causes yet in a genre that's only a few decades old. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I know people who are 90 who'd consider their death premature. Rock stars want to live for ever! What about Rock Star deaths that should have happened earlier?--Doc^g 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rockstars that should have died young but just keep living? 1 != 2 19:45, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead

Contested prod. No assertion (or evidence) of notability. Currently violates WP:CRYSTAL. Evb-wiki 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. --Komrade Kiev 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The articles claims are quite limited, and all the negative ones are backed up by the References in the article. (I'm not sure the bit about his brother is sourced, but that is not negative BLP matter so far as I can see.) Thus the BLP argument is not dispositive for deletion. The question of deletion thus turns on the usual issue of notability. The sources clearly demonstrate that his story received coast to coast coverage in the U.S. and some coverage internationally. This is probably why the consensus below was that he is notable, and thus, that the article should be kept. As my advice, editors on the article's talk page should consider WP:BLP1E, whether his notability is currently for only one event, and if his notability is only for a single event, how to write an article about that event that this article can be merged to and redirected.

Additionally, in reviewing the history, I found that a cut and paste move occurred back in July, so I'll be temporarily deleting the article solely in order to fix that problem with GFDL compliance. GRBerry 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mordecai Tendler

Serious problems with WP:LIBEL as well as WP:BLP since this is an article about a living person who is still in the middle of various litigations. The allegations in the article are not even fully borne out by the sources that were subsequently added. Furthermore, prior to the alleged misconduct it is doubtful that this young congregational rabbi would have merited a biography of his own. His main claim to fame was that he was the son and grandson of some famous rabbis. Thus this is also WP:NN. IZAK 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards not very strong delete on this one. The fact that there is current litigation and the only sources in the article are regarding his alleged misconduct, I wouldn't keep this on here. Then again, he is a rabbi who allegedly did some bad stuff. Bad enough that the RCA would throw him out. That might be notable, in and of itself. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep The individual involved has been extensively covered, albeit in Jewish-oriented media, and the circumstances of the charges, his departure from the RCA and other circumstances regarding the overlap of Jewish and secular litigation systems make this a notable article. Any potential WP:BLP issues need to be considered, but the high-profile nature of the charges and counterclaims does not detract from notability. There is no need to wait until any litigation is settled, as all claims must be supported by reliable sources. Alansohn 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant delete I, like IZAK and many other people in the Jewish community, am aware of the allegations against Rabbi Tendler. I don't think he is notable for these allegations, and he is certainly not notable for his role as a community rabbi or his being the son of Rabbi Moshe Tendler. Nothing has ever been proven against him. I certainly understand that the authors of this article were well-intentioned, wanting to place on Wikipedia a summary of the sexual harassment allegations with a link to an external website that discusses the case in detail. However, Wikipedia generally frowns on such articles because of BLP, and I think BLP should win here. Note that Baruch Lanner, another disgraced rabbi, does not have a Wikipedia article even though he was convicted and is serving a prison sentence (whereas Rabbi Tendler was never tried in court, and perhaps never will be tried in court). Note also that sexual harassment allegations, in and of themselves, are not generally notable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aside - There's now an article on Baruch Lanner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as somebody who has written his grand fathers books Igros Moshe he is a very notable rabbi--יודל 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He didn't write it, his grandfather did. He was only the go between his grandfather and the printer. Einsteins helper doesn't get credit for the "theory of relativity". Itzse (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
Keep. The incident received a substantial amount of press coverage and led to changes in the way the Rabbinical Council of America handled sexual harassment allegation cases as well as to notable halakhic (Jewish religious law) consequences. See the description of the incident in Role of women in Judaism#Women as witnesses for a discussion of the impact of the case on the issue of the acceptability of women's testimony in a Beit Din (Rabbinical court) in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but source in more detail. There is sufficient documentation from RSs that this is more than gossip. BLP is the policy for writing such articles, it does not necessarily say to delete them. sounds like we need an article on Lanner--there are lots of missing articles.DGG (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In a previous edit dispute involving the The Awareness Center (See Talk:The Awareness Center) it was noted that because the Center is an advocacy organization it would be inconsistent with WP:RS to consider it an uninvolved source for the allegations it makes, so would not use it as a source for any of the claims involved. However, the newspaper clippings etc. reproduced in the Awareness Center's article on the subject can be cited directly and used as sources. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't think this violates WP:LIBEL but it is presently in violation of WP:BLP and should be removed or referenced post haste. Should its statements be referenced I see no reason to delete, but it cannot be allowed to stand as is. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Added a few references. --Shirahadasha 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing the actual statements would be required really. Especially those relating to the accusations leveled against him. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you identify a specific "actual statement" the article makes that you believe is unsourced? Since the specific allegations don't provide the primary basis of notability -- notability is based primarily on the religious and secular legal issues the case raised and how they were handled -- why is it necessary to go into any detail in specifics about them? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and this article violates the do no harm principle of WP:BLP. --MPerel 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC) changing my mind, see below

- Comment Rabbi Tendler claimed that because a woman's testimony is not traditionally acceptable in rabbinical courts, there were no valid witnesses against him. The legal analysis involved in refuting this claim represents a signicant development in Orthodox Halakha. The notability of the incident from a Jewish point of view depends primarily on Rabbis Tendler's arguments and how they were handled. Every legal case involves allegations. The issue of how Orthodox Judaism handles harassment allegations in light of its rules regarding the Role of women in Judaism is simply not a tabloid issue. As the general media references show, the allegations which formed the basis of the Jewish-law issues received enough independent mainstream media press coverage to address WP:BLP concerns. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  - noooo! cummon thats nothing to do with this. Do no harm is for Brian Peppers type stuff, if its in the papers it is fine, i mean how can an article do harm if it is only quoting news sources. I mean thats obvious no? Did he really say that Shirahadasha? That is messed up! As much as theawrenesscentre is run by a raving loon, almost all its pages could have wikipedia articles. Lobojo (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, changed my mind. As Shirahadasha has pointed out, the case is prominently in the news and has impacted Halachic interpretation. --MPerel 03:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, though he is a nobody, there are multiple sources. So what can you do? Lobojo (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If he is a nobody then he is Not Notable. There are multiple sources about the allegations against him, not his importance. Please reconsider. Itzse (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
delete non notable. Shirahadasha's pointed out that this article relates to the development of Jewish law may be true. nevertheless the material would be better suited to an article about the development of Jewish law. This reminds me of the allision stoke AFD about a girl who was only notable for having her picture posted across the internet, which was deleted (any relevant material was merged into an article about internet privacy). BPL is clear, when a person is notable for only one thing - talk about the event not the person. Jon513 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article is factual and involves the main editor of Igrot Moshe, as stated in the article. Very notable. Goeie (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The main editor of Igrot Moshe, is the Igrot Moshe himself. His role was minor. Itzse (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Izak wrote "prior... it is doubtful that this young congregational rabbi." I disagree, He was on his way to importance. He taught in the YU Rabbinical school, had noted legal positions of his own, and engaged in various major debates on Kashrut and family law. In addition he was claiming the mantle of his grandfather on many issues. If one gets past the scandal- after page 10 of gooogle on him- there was quite a bit on him. It is unfortunate that the article is mainly about the scandal --Jayrav (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. First, this person is not a random congregational rabbi, he is the grandson of the most important American authority on Jewish law in the last 50 years (Rabbi Moshe Feinstein) and he played a pivotal role in editing R. Feinstein's highly influential Igros Moshe. Unfortunately, the scandal has raised questions about his interpolations of Igros Moshe (e.g. vol 8) and work with R. Feinstein. Secondly, while it is unfortunate and unpleasant, this person's scandal is well-documented and covered by notable sources. (Also, pls be sure when you look at the article you check history to make sure the sources and notable text haven't been deleted by an anon IP.) The case has raised questions about, besides the handling of sexual harassment, the plurality of juridico-administrative power within Orthodox Judaism. HG | Talk 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as WP:Not Notable. Even if all the allegations against him are proven true, I think it would be improper to have an article on him. Although I'm generally an inclusionist; I believe that people who are alive need to be really notable to merit an article; with the exception if it's needed for completion of a series (i.e. all Chasidic Rebbes, notable or not). In this case I think he is not notable at all. His claim to fame is being a grandson of a great man; so, we have many grandchildren of great men who are Rabbis and nobody would think of having an article on them. As to him being the editor of Igros Moishe; his role was minor, something like a copy editor compared to the real editor who was its author. I would describe his role as a midget compared to a giant. BTW, we would be better off, if he would have been less involved and just printed what his grandfather gave him. I think that the only thing notable about this article is its salaciousness (as in man bites dog). Shall we have an article on every clergyman who is caught disgracing his robe? If it has some historical content then maybe yes; but if not, I would say that Wikipedia is not the place to document someone’s wrongdoing just because he is a Rabbi or a Priest. Itzse (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itzse, welcome back. I won't repeat why I think he's notable, except to dispute your statement that "his role was minor" with Igros Moshe, one of the most important contemporary works of halakhah. On the contrary (aderaba), he played a fairly important role in working with Reb Moshe on the teshuvot and the books. See pp.1-4 of vol 8. HG | Talk 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by working with Reb Moshe? Would Reb Moshe even think of asking him for his opinion on how to rule? Besides, I think that Jon513 has it right; that he isn't noteworthy; but if the event is, then this event should go in those articles dealing with the development of Jewish law or in an article about the RCA. BTW I don't see anything here in the development of Jewish law, but in the politics (the social part) of how the issue was dealt with. No Halachic changes took place. Itzse (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First, Mordecai Tendler worked intimately with Reb Moshe on his responsa work, helping him deal with his correspondence, etc. Second, Mordecai Tendler was pivotal in editing Igros Moshe. (Reb Moshe was not the editor, contrary to your statement above.) For instance, he bore responsibility for putting in the headings and structuring of the responsa -- which, as we all know in Wikipedia, is quite important for how people read a text. In addition, Tendler wrote many interpolations within the Igros Moshe texts. Just look at volume 8, please, you'll see that there are two fonts used in the responsa -- regular font and a small font, which shows Mordecai Tendler (and S. Rappaport's) interpolations. These constitute extensive annotations and hence interpretive moves within Igros Moshe. From what I hear, there was pressure on the editors to publish the annotations in a different font (pressure due to Mordecai Tendler's situation, maybe?) because the published responsa differed so much from the handwritten manuscripts. This difference is noted carefully on p.1 by the senior generation (incl Moshe David Tendler, Mordecai's father). Third, you can speculate about whether the interpolations will influence the halakhah or are merely political. But the fact that they've made this unusual change in volume eight, the last volume, surely reinforces the notability of Mordecai Tendler's role as editor and his controversial status. Notability need not be halakhic, it can be political, too. HG | Talk 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Working intimately with Reb Moshe by helping him deal with his correspondence, and even his role as editor, is quite a far cry from helping him on formulating his responses, which were of monumental importance. I admit that I wasn’t aware to what extent Tendler was involved in editing, as I have never read the prologues and introductions, I only glimpsed in Igrot Moshe here and there. I heard first hand from people who were involved, that Tendler published some responses which Reb Moshe had retracted or didn’t want published (I alluded to that before). So fine, I now agree that Tendler had a pivotal role in publishing and editing his grandfathers’ writings; but how does that make him an important person? Was his editing of great scholarly importance or was he merely the "bocher hazetzer" (typesetter in Yiddish). Are his interpolations of any earth shattering importance to make him important? If not for the allegations against him, do you think that many people would have heard of him? I wasn’t referring to the political and social aspect of the Tendler case; I was referring to the RCA where their actions might be noteworthy. As far as I see Tendler as a person remains non-noteworthy. Itzse (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was moderately well known within Orthodox circles before the allegations because of his family and his various work (see the Forward on his agunah prayer). Of course, he's better known because of the scandal, which has drawn attention to his role with Igros Moshe and -- though this hasn't been put into the article yet -- it became a friction point between Israeli and US rabbinical institutions (Sample coverage). So, yes, there are various unfortunate ways that he is more notable than he would have been absent the allegations. HG | Talk 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he is now more notable due to the allegations; but the question remains; is he notable enough to warrant an article or should the notability of the allegations and its ramifications go in different articles. Itzse (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP requires two not-trivial press mentions. I don't understand what all this discussion is about. Lobojo (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP reqires two not-trivial press mentions about the man not the event. If not for the event; the press wouldn't have found him news worthy. Itzse (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple aspects of this case. For instance, did you know about the Sept. 7, 2007 article in the NY Daily News? Lead quote: "A controversial rabbi has fended off a lawsuit that charged he seduced a woman in his congregation by telling her she needed "sex therapy" to help find her a husband. A divided appellate court ruled 3-2 that Adina Marmelstein's "thinly veiled claims of seduction" against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler are prohibited by civil rights law, and therefore she has no grounds to sue him." Maybe somebody should add this to the article, too? HG | Talk 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different opinion on that too. Take for example the article on Shlomo Carlebach. The article is about the accomplishments of the man not his failings. To give the picture as a whole it also has a paragrah for the controversy surrounding him. I'm not sure that it belongs there, and if it was up to me, I would remove it; but atleast I can understand the argument for it. In our case; what's so great about the man. It's not as if a great man has fallen from grace; he never was there. The only thing noteworthy about the man and the event is its salaciousness. Do we really want to have such an Encyclopedia? Even Meir Kahane's personal life is not in his biography, because it's irrelevant to what made him notable. Itzse (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are too many press mentions. Here is the Google News Archive. There are clearly many many more as GNA is maybe only 30% comprehensive. And as to the argument about the "man"/"issue" dichotomy, you would then need to support a "Tendler Sex Scandal" article in its stead. You also ask..."What is so great about the man?" The answer is nothing. There is nothing great about him - he sucks. Wikipedia is not a almanac of great men, it is a collection of information on notable people, and that is defined by "multiple non-trivial". And that is that. This shouldn't even be under discussion. Lobojo (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me change my question; What is so ~~great~~ notable about the man? So he edited a scholarly book; big deal. Itzse (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The press he has got makes him notable. House rules say "multiple non-trivial", are you saying that they are not multiple, or do you think they are trivial? It must be one or you have no case. Lobojo (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that they are trivial. I gotta go; I'll leave the discussion to others; thanks everybody. Itzse (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look Now even Mordechai Gafni has his own page. Lobojo (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not funny. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni. THanks, IZAK (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler: There has been a recent tendency to post articles on Wikipedia about disgraced and defrocked rabbis (similarly, see the Rabbi Mordecai Tendler article.) Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism. This is an entirely WP:NN individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of alleged sex scandals. This may be WP:LIBEL and even WP:NOR because not everything has been proven in a court of law and the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person online, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of WP:NOT#ANARCHY (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of WP:NPOV as well. Note that Category:Sex crimes only has a sub-category of Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does not have a sub-category Category:People accused of sex crimes or Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not antisemitism, but that these people pass WP:N and should have articles. Lobojo (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree, that is just one issue -- as anything that touches upon attacks on Jews may intersect with the subject of antisemitism, that is not my imagining, and it's not the main issue. So there are many considerations, but why create one-sided articles? There is more than one lense to take pictures, and it does not always have to be the "attack, attack" one. IZAK (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable. • Lawrence Cohen 18:42, 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. (Non admin closure). —Qst 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Protein Factor

Questions the notability of this, even with one reference. Possibly redirect to Vitamin B12. Montchav 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep It was notable historically. DGG (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge. Google books gives 637 hits, suggesting that there's some notability, even if historical. --Itub (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep if it was notable in the past it is worth having in an encyclopedia, even if the idea is superceded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It has historical significance. Kingturtle (talk) 15:18, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argus (Warcraft)

This article has no notability, will not be anything more than an an unreferenced stub, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:FICTION. An unreferencable in-universe subject - Peripitus (Talk) 06:38, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Riot

Seems to fail WP:BAND, as non-notable, despite the reasonably large Google hits Montchav 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Perusing the ext links, it seems the record was self-made, and there's no mention of tours. They placed in the top 100 Billboard World Song Contest and are in rotation at 1580 Indie Mix and Rancid Radio XM; I don't think any of those are significant enough to meet the criteria (if they are, then I stand corrected). I didn't see any google hits that seemed reliable and independent, but I didn't look at them all. Rigadoun (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete does not appear to meet either WP:N or WP:BAND Ga rr ie 04:05, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horror of Horrors

This article has been orphaned for over a year. It also contains no sources, nor has it done so for over a year. This is not a notable band. Metal Head 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for failing verifiability unless somebody can locate some reliable sources. This is a challenge with some metal bands, but I've looked through each of the 50 unique hits for the band's name & the title of their "critically acclaimed" album without finding anything that would serve. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King County Journal

A former newspaper. No claim of notability, a few have suggested a merge to King County. I'm just nomming it here as it is the only page in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from January 2007 without a deletion tab on it. With this gone, that category can be deleted, and progress on the notability project will have been made Montchav 13:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Keeping the article would be just as helpful in making progress as deleting it. Phil Bridger 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep — It was this region's fifth largest newspaper, and a number of us have mourned its passing. It is sufficiently notable to stand by itself and expand. — RJH (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added more information and references to this article. I believe it now satisfies the template issues that were listed at the top of the page, so I took the liberty of removing them. — RJH (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep If it were once notable, it would remain so after it ceased. First time I've heard an article being nominated for deletion in order to clear up a category in a Wikiproject. Cart before horse, I'd say. DGG (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it looks okay to me. Deb 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- this was a notable local paper and shouldn't be merged to King County in any case. --Lukobe (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Notable. Kingturtle (talk) 15:19, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mack Zulkifli

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mack Zulkifli

Not Notable Erkin2008 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not even a claim to wiki notability. Springnuts 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 06:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. TGreenburgPR 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note I have just fixed the listing for this AfD, which until now was not properly tagged at the article and was in the wrong place. Choess 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Red Lion

No references given since tagged a year ago, and Google finds only this page and mirrors. Either not-notable or a hoax. LeContexte 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete If this club actually exists, the page can be recreated by its members. There seems to be no interest about the it right now, and its likely that it does not exist. --lk 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. and lk; not notable, even if it exists. JohnCD 19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom —Scouter Sig 12:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there are a lot of bogus "secret societies". Several of us have tried to maintain some sort of order over at List of collegiate secret societies, but nobody has really gone into the existing articles to look for references. This is a good start. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as entirely unverifiable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:27, 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 speedy keep. The article isn't perfect, but few are. It may need some work to be up to an acceptable standard, but it doesn't even look that bad to me. There is no reason for deletion. J Milburn 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapier

Repeated violation of Wikipedia policies: "No original research," "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" Oglach98 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article appears to be well-sourced, though every article could use more sources. Could the nom specify the violations in the article? Which parts are NPOV, for example? Extensive enough problems do warrant deletion, but if it's just a section, then that's a cleanup issue and not a deletion issue. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This nomination is ridiculous. The article is good and slowly being tightened and polished though a community peer review and editing process. It is only one or two people who have an agenda that have a problem with it (and no, I am not talking about the entries by Ranp). Someone is irate because the claims of the survival of contiguous rapier systems are being challenged. Well they should be--no one who has made such claims has ever produced any documented evidence. Besides, in the general scheme of things, this is a minor point--9 out of 10 users don't care about that and just want to read about what a rapier is and the historic masters who taught its use.Marozzo 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The sole problem is the section on Modern Practicioners. The rest of the article is OK, but the sections at the end have been continuously biased and unsourced. I would certainly expect those who deny the existence of modern traditions to defend their point of view here in this discussion...and that's fine for them to do. But since they are unable to cite any factual evidence (they state, instead, that a "negative does not require poof or a citation"--a methodology which could be used to uphold any number of falsehoods--or they cite forum postings or their own internet essays), their opinion (passed off as "fact") does not belong in this article, and certainly not to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. Due to the highly political nature of the various viewpoints held by modern practitioners, this section is never going to amount to anything other than a continuous argument. These viewpoints are not going to be reconciled any time soon. If we could just get rid of the "Modern Practicioners" section altogether, the article would then fall into Wiki-policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oglach98 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not the way it works. When you make a claim (for example, "I am a medical doctor"), it is not up to the rest of the world to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claim--in this case with your MD (or DO). The matter of a lineage or a master's certification works the same way. If I call myself a maestro di scherma, it's not up to you to prove me wrong, it's up to me to provide the certification, and information about the certifying body.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and Close. None of the nom's reasons are valid. Especially per his last statement that his problem is with the tone of one section of the article that can easily be removed or rewritten. AfD is not the place for this discussion. --Smashville^BONK! 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and Close - per the above reasons. The article seems abslolutely fine. Rudget _zŋ 19:27, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barthilas

The article lacks any real-world notability, it has no references, and appears to be all original research. The character isn't even notable enough within the Warcraft game world to merit mention on the List of Warcraft characters. -- Atama sama 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Notability is completely lacking. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Totally pointless article, should be in List of Warcraft characters if anything. Fangz the Wolf 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagra shtak 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all arguments above, additionally article is a GFDL violation, copying content from [9] without crediting original authors. --Stormie (talk) 10:24, 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 merge to Dartmouth College publications. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aegis (Dartmouth College Yearbook)

Delete article about college yearbook - or merge with Dartmouth College - are we going to have articles for every university yearbook, Greek council, student government, dormitory, lecture hall, or other subsidiary topic for each university? this falls below the WP:N line. Carlossuarez46 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Don't merge to Dartmouth College, merge to Dartmouth College publications (it's already listed there anyway). Dylan 19:11, 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 Yikes, Keep by means of WP:SNOW! Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

Delete a physics paper submitted last week, covered in all the sites the pick up all papers submitted - much like lots of sites that pick up every company's press releases - but no reliable sources independent of the paper itself for what's in it why it matters, etc. which is perhaps less a sin because the article doesn't have any of that either.Carlossuarez46 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) keep!!! waah! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.132.110 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - there is cover in the New Scientist and Daily Telegraph. JohnCD 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now. I found the article because of news coverage. Thue | talk 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Big enough in the press right now to warrant an article. Hopefully a few people will use this article to help interpret the subject for those of us who don't follow physics that closely. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, being covered by quite a few reputable sources of scientific information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, of media and scientific interest (eg. here Martin Hinks 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a typical stub article with proper references and a claim of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a pretty notable claim. This isn't some quack's theory. Based on the press, it seems like the real deal. However, even if this later goes on to be disproven, the theory is notable enough on it's own, I think, due to its unique author and the E8 connection. Shnakepup 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's notable. This is the real deal. Needs more links to and from the other relevant articles and categories in this subject though. Time to remove the tag for deletion on the page? Oldsoul 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep This isn't obscure or fancruft, and if we can have pages about various string theories that make virtually untestable predictions, I think it's not too much to ask to have a small page about a theory which, while probably wrong (according to the author), is at least testable in the near term and intellectually interesting. - JustinWick 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's gotten a lot of coverage and made the Telegraph on November 14.—Lividfiction 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is a hot topic that's being posted on everything from NFL to political message boards and is creating a lot of excitement. While unproven, it is a serious scientific theory that requires more background knowledge for most laymen. This seems to be exactly what Wikipedia was created for. OntheRoad 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk)
Keep - Dealing as it does with the elusive solution to the unification problem, this paper does seem to hold a more than usual measure of interest. --IslandGyrl 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, of media and scientific interest (eg. here Martin Hinks 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a typical stub article with proper references and a claim of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a pretty notable claim. This isn't some quack's theory. Based on the press, it seems like the real deal. However, even if this later goes on to be disproven, the theory is notable enough on it's own, I think, due to its unique author and the E8 connection. Shnakepup 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's notable. This is the real deal. Needs more links to and from the other relevant articles and categories in this subject though. Time to remove the tag for deletion on the page? Oldsoul 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep This isn't obscure or fancruft, and if we can have pages about various string theories that make virtually untestable predictions, I think it's not too much to ask to have a small page about a theory which, while probably wrong (according to the author), is at least testable in the near term and intellectually interesting. - JustinWick 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's gotten a lot of coverage and made the Telegraph on November 14.—Lividfiction 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is a hot topic that's being posted on everything from NFL to political message boards and is creating a lot of excitement. While unproven, it is a serious scientific theory that requires more background knowledge for most laymen. This seems to be exactly what Wikipedia was created for. OntheRoad 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk)
Keep - I also found this article because of news coverage. Although, it should be noted that the article contents need to be updated as some sections appear to be copied verbatim from the actual actual paper that Lisi submitted. 203.109.151.60 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, thus defaulting to keep. Ceyockey's housecleaning helps, though more needs to be done to avoid having this discussion again in the future.--Kubigula (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scavenger, Inc.

Delete nn company, fails WP:CORP - working closely with company XYZ does not make one notable or every employee of IBM, Google, the Government - all work closely with their notable employer - is notable. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Aside from its connection to a larger corporation, the company doesn't seem to do much. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: The company plays an integral role in the european game development history and its relation to the demoscene talent pool. The article has been improved to reflect this uniqueness. Jarscience 12:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Jarscience. Nezbie (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've done a bit of housecleaning on the article, including placing the external links present in the article as citations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:02, 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. Hut 8.5 07:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bricks In The Wall

Would have requested speedy deletion, but wanted some community thoughts and because notability had been asserted and the original revision, wasn't that promotional, I decided to bring to AFD. The band in question, a dedication band to Pink Floyd, has only one real source of notability, and that's the bands website, according to Google. Although please note, I have not based this solely on that. Rudget _zŋ 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete There aren't much references out their that could help to expand this article. I say delete on a case of notability because their isn't significant coverage or secondary sources about this band. Icestorm815 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doc Strange 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Weakly. Slightly concerned that the article, while not written promotionally, acts a promotion insomuch that it was created by a new user - and possible SPA. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN, likely WP:COI as well. --Bradeos Graphon 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable band. --Malcolmxl5 22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I created this article and am founding member. Bricks In The Wall is a LLC filed in Texas. I am new to wiki and having trouble navigating around here. There are archived articles of performances in The Fort Worth Star Telegram and Dallas Observer. The last performance was October 13th at House of Blues Dallas. This band is similar to Wish You Were Here in Cleveland who is also listed in Wiki. So not sure why its not notable. --User:tsatterca —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bricks in the Wall has been signed on to be the exclusive Pink Floyd tribute band for the House of Blues venue in Dallas, and their last show (in October 2007) sold out the assigned seating section in less than 3 days, and sold a total of around 1000 tickets. These facts can easily be proven by contacting House of Blues management (any advice on what other types of mechanisms for proving this is also welcome - an email, quote, etc?). This band is well established and venerable among many Dallas venues, local Classic Rock Stations (such as 93.3 the Bone, which has sponsored many events for them), as well as at Ridglea Theater in Fort Worth, TX, where they have performed The Wall for many years to a full crowd. There is no reason why this entry should be deleted, for as they continue to play HOB and build a fan-base, the need for a wiki page becomes more and more prevalent. --User:Svguerin3 —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable band. Captain panda 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I hate to say it but.. All in all it's just another cover band. If this band had any original and notable work of their own I'd say give them a chance. But as it seems they are just a "tribute" band their work is already notable, only by someone else. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The argument that cover bands shouldn't count b/c they do not have original music doesn't seem to fly, given the many tribute bands listed on this website (several of them being Pink Floyd tribute bands themselves). I fully agree that every tribute band and their mother shouldn't be listed, but I also strongly believe that notable ones that attract huge crowds, are endorsed by local radio, sell out large venues, encompassed in an LLC, and sponsored by a venue like House of Blues, should probably be considered. --User:Svguerin3 —Preceding comment was added at 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Two links to write ups have been added to the article to support. This band is a relevant tribute band. Equally or more relevant than some of the other Pink Floyd tribute bands that do have pages in Wiki. Cover bands don't have original work, hence the concept of a tribute band. What they do accomplish. Some much more than others is the ability to re-create the concert experience of the band they are paying tribute to. This band has accomplished this and is recognised for it.User:Tsatterca

Note: - The users, Tsatterca and Svguerin3, have been blocked as suspected sockpuppets. See here. Rudget _zŋ 13:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Another Brick in the Wall. Will ^(talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Bricks in the Wall is definitely a "notable" band. Not only do they do a great job of playing PF songs, they create they PF concert experience with with the lights, video back-drops, inflatable pig, etc. They play not just in their hometown of Dallas, but regionally with shows in various cities in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. I'd put them up against any other PF tribute band, many of which have Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDT2007 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. Bricks in the Wall attracts more people at the House of Blues than other bands with "original" music. Ergo, notable. It's about both the experience and the nostalgia!! --David M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.230.159 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OneTwoThreeFour

Is the band notable for being on a label run by someone who once put out an album that hit #31 on Billboard, and having gotten a record review for their 4-song EP available for free download from the label website and their myspace page? I say this fails WP:N, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and (because of the single-purpose account) WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JohnCD 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable.--Komrade Kiev 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (2nd Nomination)

This article is completely redundant - the material within it is covered in List of ethnic slurs which is a more complete and more importantly - better sourced - article. The whole concept of the page is badly described in the introduction and seems to be inherently POV. The fact that the lead in contains phrases such as "or downright insulting and racist manner in the English-speaking world" - which sound bias and unencylopaedic indicate that whole whole concept of the list is questionable. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not contain "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides" per policy (WP:NOT). Guest9999 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

keep. It is sorted by ethnicity. List of ethnic slurs is sorted alphabetically. Until we have DBMS engine in wikipedia boith lists play their navigational role, because the list is quite long. `'Míkka>t 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But where does it end - do we really need multiple articles containing the same information listed in different ways? How many lists of Ethinc Slurs could be created - listed by prevalence, by country of origin, by first usage, etc. [[Guest9999 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Comment I think the way this list is sorted is very reasonable, but I agree that there doesn't need to be two different lists for the same kind of information. But there are sortable wiki tables that could solve this problem. See for example 2007_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Semi-final. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - t's an informative, and most of all, well-sourced list. The fact that an article is a key target for vandalism is not a good or even, valid criterion, for deletion in my opinion. If it were, we could never have anything informative on ethnic hatred, atheism, abortion, sexual reproduction, homosexuality or other LGBT related facts: just because it is controversial doesn't mean delete. Also, the fact that the article hasn't been edited that much since the last AFD or has been the subject of much discussion, suggests to me the nominator hasn't done the right steps in deciding whether this should be at AFD or not. Rudget _zŋ 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

At no point in the nomination was it mention that the article was a target for vandalism - I agree that would be a bad reason to delete an article. It was the reason given in the first nominatiom but that should not predujice this one. [[Guest9999 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Sorry, I must have mixed it up with another AFD I was previewing. But, I still standby my decision to keep the article. Rudget _zŋ 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to List of ethnic slurs. The material is redundant and having different ways of sorting isn't a sufficient reason to have two versions with slightly different content. These lists are vandal-magnets and the fewer of them we have the easier they are to maintain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - whilst I think the article should be deleted I do not think that being a vandal target is any kind of reason to justify deletion. What would Wikipedia be like if Wikipedia just removed content that was frequently vandalised. There wouldn't be articles on George W. Bush, Chickens or Lard. Deleting an article because it is frequently vandalised would be letting vandals dictate content on Wikipedia and I don't think that would be acceptable. I do still think teh article could be deleted as it just replicates the content of another better sourced article. [[Guest9999 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Keep Well sourced. Vandalism concerns are not a valid reason to delete. Rray 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, vandalism concerns were not mentioned once in the nomination. [[Guest9999 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

COMMENT - At no point in the nomination were concerns over vandalism mentioned as a justification for deletion. Vandalism is not a good reason to delete a page; however not meeting policy and being the duplicate of another page may well be. [[Guest9999 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Comment Oh, you're a big talker. Mandsford 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Sorry, I was getting a bit frustrated by people replying to an arguement that wasn't made. [[Guest9999 12:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Keep Depending on the list, sometimes a sortable table is best, sometimes a separate article. At this point is not not seem obvious how to convert this to a sortable table. DGG (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I would suggest merge the other text here, alphabetical ordering is much less informative. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Valuable for a number of academic reasons. Kingturtle (talk) 15:21, 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Buzdygan

Former CEO of small ISP, amateur graphic designer, Usenet user, probably Internet troll. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Visor 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. — _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Concerns per ~~WP:HOAX,~~ WP:LIVING and WP:V (the quality of the refs is very poor).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There are more references on Polish Wikipedia that certainly seem to eliminate hoax concerns. Maybe an editor more familiar with the Polish media (Piotrus?) can confirm whether these come from reliable sources. Phil Bridger 14:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Not notable for sure, but his latest legal action against Wikimedia Polska will bring him some more notablity... still not enough IMHO. The pl: article had two deletion requests, both failed, I guess because of his fame in Internet. 89.171.112.254 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment'. I'm not sure, if I can vote, but this person is one of the most known polish troll. It's not a hoax, what can be proved by various links. What's more, this is first person, who have sued Polish Chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, what was widely commented in mainstream media. -- 83.29.143.251 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Seems to be not a hoax and references in Polish Wikipedia article seems to be verifiable. However, the person still doesn't meet criteria of notability per WP:BIO, especially WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. As cited in BLP1E, Cover the event, not the person. Therefore, I suggest to include informations about accusation of Wikimedia Foundation in Wikinews, Wikimedia Foundation article or/and Polish Wikipedia article. His other activities such as being a CEO of small ISP, CEO of small company and Usenet trolling are unworthy to be included in English Wikipedia per WP:CORP and WP:BIO. Visor (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- And what his political activity? A.J. (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  - OK, I suppose it's not an irony. According to the article, In 2005, Buzdygan tried to start in the presidential elections, but failed to meet the registration requirements. See Politicians sub-section at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. He obviously fails all of its criteria. Visor (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    - I just want to cover all topics in this discussion. Thanks for pointing this criteria: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone. A.J. (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or state what did this guy really do. Having been a certified internet clown is not enough to deserve an entry in Wikipedia as per WP:BIO. greg park avenue (talk) 20:30, 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. GRBerry 04:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wungabongas

Only real assertion of notabiliy that I can see in the article is that they appeared on Peel Sessions. However, no proof is given in the article, and I only get 5 ghits when searching for the full name - and no proof they ever actually were on Peel. No assertion in the article is verifiable from an independent third-party source - this is why we have WP:V and WP:NOR as 2 of our 3 core rules. This article fails all those, as well as being suspiciously close to WP:VSCA. I'll also assert it fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Well, there is an additional assertion of notability in the international tour aspect, but the threshhold here, as the cominator notes, is verifiability. Omitting similar, there are only 12 google hits for the word Wungabongas, and nothing in it looks like a reliable source. Given that a search for the name of one of the participants, Giovanni Herst, brings back just Wikipedia, I begin to wonder if we aren't looking at a WP:HOAX. There's no mention of this band at the "website" of the record producer, What's Your Rupture. (The myspace link for the record producer is a bandsite.) If this is a real band, they don't seem to have received much press. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not sure if it's a hoax or not, but there's certainly not enough here to sustain an article on a band. Even if the claims to notability could be properly sourced, I think it still falls a little short of the threshold for musical groups. ◄Zahakiel ► 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. Hut 8.5 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Kid Nobody Could Handle

Non-notable solo artist, article asserts "local acclaim" but no record label, no external sources. 93 ghits include links about the Kurt Vonnegut short story, not this act. Article written by single-purpose account with a name similar to the artist. Fails WP:N, WP:VSCA, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The best assertion of notability that I see is by association to an artist involved in other projects, but there's nothing to establish that those other projects are themselves notable. The artist does not appear in the first 100 google hits for his name. The indie band in which he plays does not even have an AMG article. A combined search of the band name & the acclaimed EP gets 4 hits, only one of which is related to this band, and that's the wikipedia page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article seems to fail WP:N. From what the article states, this artist doesn't appear to be recognized outside of the local area. Icestorm815 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Road Love Affair

Article written by a single-purpose account, in a highly promotional tone, about a band that seems to only have 39 ghits. The single-purpose account has also posted "The copyright for all material written about Open Road Love Affair, Gypsy George Mihalopoulos, Gypsy George and/or George Mihalopoulos is held, in perpetuity, by George Mihalopoulos" - so I guess it all has to be deleted for violating copyright? Anyway, this article fails WP:N, WP:AUTO, WP:VSCA, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom: difficult to think of more ways it could fail... JohnCD 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V if not for the reasons given. The reasons given for keeping it are spurious. Sandstein (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lilarcor

Non-notable fictional object. {{prod}} removed by User:Athaenara, so listing at AfD. Because there are so few substantial, reliable third-party sources for this topic, it is difficult to write a sustainable Wikipedia article on the subject. Mikeblas 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete only has in-universe notability, does not meet notability standards for fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I read the concern after seeing this article in Category:Proposed deletion, read the article, found it interesting, saw that it was linked in five other articles, and looked at some of the 4,430 ‘Lilarcor sword -wikipedia’ ghits. I had never heard of it before, know nothing about any of the games it's in and do not care to presume non-notability (fiction). — Athaenara ✉ 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge→Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn The sword is listed in the "Prominent characters" section and the use in mods could be included in either the "Trivia" section or in a subsection of "Priminent characters". I agree that the article should not be maintained as a stand-alone. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:21, 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 and recreate as redirect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar Nazi

Neologism, dicdef, and full of original research. Seems to be a part of a long string of articles that we have whereby a neologism is considered by people here to be more notable (due to recent coverage of its use, see Wikipedia:Recentism) than many established English language words which are more widespread in use, but would still violate WP:NOT#DICT hence us not having an article on these words. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Linguistic prescription, where the actual phenomenon is discussed in less PoV terms. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Linguistic prescription per nom. and Smerdis of Tlön. JohnCD 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per Smerdis of Tlön. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the AfD tag was removed from the page between 22:33, 17 November 2007 and 13:54, 19 November 2007

Unlink from Nazism and redirect I first thought the redirection was a bad idea because of how the expression is used, but considering that only 2 articles link to this page and that the article has been transwikied, I see no downsides to the redirection. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or AccInsure. There's no reason to believe this page at this point. I also don't think that it has anything to do with real Nazism; just a bunch of garbage some guy thought up in school one day. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There is increasing mention of this term in everyday media. It is possible to find references to it in The New York Times, however, I will not have time to cite such things until this weekend. Grammar Nazi is a widely-used term, and there is more to it than a dictionary-style definition. Benwedge (talk) 13:59, 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 Delete as nonsense. --JForget 02:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snow phenomenon

No claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't use the phrase in this sense. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete (I think it qualifies) since it was "first experienced on Novembnr 15, 2007 in Carmel, Indiana" Wikipedia is not the place for articles written while under the influence of hallucinogens. Mandsford 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Barnes (athlete)

Unreferenced biographical article with a hoax tag. Needs to either be sourced as true, or deleted. TexasAndroid 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete...even if it is true, he's not notable. --Smashville^BONK! 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable if no independant secondary sources can be found (that is if the subject exists at all). [[Guest9999 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Delete as failing WP:V or WP:NOTE or as a hoax. Take your pick! --Malcolmxl5 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete even if all claims were true, appears to fail WP:BIO.JavaTenor (talk) 14:35, 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 02:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torrington F.C. season 2007-08

Season article for a club that doesn't play professionally, following on from consensus here. Simon KHFC 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Simon KHFC 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-professional teams should not have season-by-season articles. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - PeeJay 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It's clear that this club doesn't warrant its own season by season pages. It surely has to be deleted. Sorry to hear about the FA Cup! Good luck Torrington! Petepetepetepete 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per пﮟოьεԻ 5 7. The current state of the article and the fact that it appears to be sourced entirely from FA Full Time suggests that nothing other than "bare bones" results would be available anyway (i.e. no details of scorers, red/yellow cards, etc) and WP is not a results service ChrisTheDude 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and previous consensus. --Angelo 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as above. GiantSnowman 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence that there has been significant coverage of the subject so fails to meet the criteria laid out in the primary notability criteria.[[Guest9999 17:57, 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 No Consensus. Pigman☿ 03:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of vaporware

Unencyclopedic listcruft, original research, and unverifiable. Current entries are based on the opinions of arbitrary editors who happen to edit the article. I don't think this list could ever work, because the entries need more context for why they are particularly notable for being on a vaporware list, and also to cover the other side of the debate per WP:NPOV. If this were satisfied, it simply wouldn't be a list anymore. The list format only encourages users to add uncited, unsubstantiated and unimportant entries. -- intgr [talk] 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There's no clear way of deciding whether a product is "vaporware", even if we define the term based purely on development times. Other connotations of the word – Wikipedia's vaporware article states that "[t]he term implies unwarranted optimism, or sometimes even deception" – make it even more subjective. And because the term is loosely-defined and subjective, even a media reference to a product as "vaporware" needn't mean any more than that the author wanted to complain about it. EALacey 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep They simply get moved into the "late arriving" column if they come out. All they need is a reference in the press describing them as "vaporware" for verifiability. Truth isn't a Wikipedia pillar. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

However, neutrality is. -- intgr [talk] 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep These is a notable list, per previous keep comment Doc Strange 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This entry is speculative, subjective, unclear. Game media is mostly amateurish, there is never any lack of guided speculation about this game or that one as being Vaporware. What's worse is that corporate shills will often try to establish a competing upcoming title as vaporware. Wikipedia at the very least should strive to maintain neutrality and not be used as a tool in commercial unfair competition practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.88.5 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Doc Strange. Rray 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep perhaps sources have been added after it was nominated, but it doesn't appear to be OR or unverifiable now. It's a good illustration of what vaporware is. Mandsford 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as above keeps Think outside the box 12:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Strange mix of marketing promises, renamed projects, vague plans made by individuals and really failed projects, without context and out of proportion to the real world problems (games are nothing compared to disastrous business projects). Perl 6 is not yet dead, Arc was just someone's vision and never firmly promised etc. etc. If kept only notable SW failures documented in specialized magazines or books should be included. Fans webpages and gossip rags are not encyclopedical source here. The article title is definitely misleading. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge - merge (then redirect this page) relevant entries into Vaporware. --Philip Laurence (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is notable, and of historic sgnifcance. Kingturtle (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pour into Category and Delete—My opinion runs closest to that of User:87.203.88.5 in that the description "vaporware" is usually used either with the intention to malign a competitor's or vendor's product or informally within a development group to express dismay at promised deliverables that have not materialized. As such, it is a loaded word. However, I do agree that Truth is not a WikiPillar ... and I also agree that Neutrality is. By establishing this list as an article, we re-inforce POV statements via press release or blog entry through the mirror-and-remirror propagation of Wikipedia content throughout the Internet. Categories are not subject to such a potent mirroring effect, and reporting of the vaporware label to a product can be addressed in context of the article about the product (or company producing it) so as to mitigate potential for POV content; abstraction of that content out of the context of the articles where it belongs unduly supports the POV effect of the attribution. Wouldn't a category do the same thing? It could, but to a lesser degree; furhter, such category should probably not be called Category:Vaporware (as it currently is); rather I'd suggest something like Category:Software described as Vaporware, which is a more accurate statement of the reportable fact. If one wanted, one could have either a sub or sib category Category:Software formerly described as Vaporware, but I don't think that would be necessary. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced content should not be merged, and cross-site redirects are not possible. Sandstein (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalaran

Poor sourcing with unnotable gamecruft and plot summaries.

This article only has one source which leads to a gaming site. There are no third-party sources to establish notability amongst the real world, showing that non-players of Warcraft games are not likely to read these articles.

It has gamecruft which is a usual attractor to original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

Finally, there are plot summaries in this article which Wikipedia is not. Such content are unencyclopedic and unwelcome in Wikipedia. IAmSasori 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 15:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Its just an in universe summary of plot points from the other Warcraft game articles which already cover this. Judgesurreal777 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - It is part of Azeroth so it should be merged with Azeroth (Warcraft). Joeking16 13:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki if possible otherwise Delete As Wowwiki is apart of Wikia now and is the place for this. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge→Azeroth (Warcraft)—The fact that Dalaran is mentioned as a major location (one of four) on Template:Warcraft Universe without a mention in either Warcraft universe or Azeroth (Warcraft) seems strange; those absences certainly suggest to me that a paragraph mention in the Azeroth article should be sufficient and that a stand-alone article is a bit too top-heavy for what amounts to a minor location in this fictional universe. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunshine Mall

Ack, looks like Twinkle messed up again... Anyway, this is a non-notable mall in Florida, not to mention that the page is cluttered. No reliable sources can be found in a search -- at least nothing that establishes more than a minor amount of local notability. (Thanks to the page's author for at least informing me of a couple more major stores here -- that info was helpful for a list of malls in the U.S. that I'm working on.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not a very large mall. If you take out the opening day traffic jam and the rumors you are left with a list of tenants. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Vegaswikian above. Cricketgirl (talk) 17:45, 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 --JForget 02:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The shitts

A band that claims notability in creating a DIY music scene in northern Wisconsin. No sources to attest to notability. Not finding any secondary sources to verify the article. Martijn Hoekstra 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll put up more secondary sources this afternoon, I have to go to class right now. I found a link to Shitnoise Productions, the singer's company that produces independent artists' music from around the country.

Also there was an article in the Rhinelander Daily News in the August 30th, 2006 issue about the Lack of Labor Day Music Festival, but I'm not really sure on how to include newspaper references.--Mrfries 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Here be local band, no notability nor sources. am doubtful any that are found would be acceptable. also, i'm guessing an area the size of northern Wisconsin probably had some form of d.i.y. scene before 2006. tomasz. 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN on the basis that no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources independant of the topic appears in the article or is likely to exist. [[Guest9999 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Delete unless better sourcing is provided. I did some scanning through the google hits without coming up with anything reliable. (Needless to say, most of the hits are completely unrelated to the band.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Shitts are actually hugely popular to the folk-punk genre, a new but increasingly popular musical subculture. I strongly suggest keeping this article on the basis that it widens the reader's knowledge of folk-punk groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.32.53 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As a resident of Northern Wisconsin I have to say that there wasn't really a D.I.Y. scene around here until 2006. You used to have to go 30-60 miles to see a show, and all of those were battle of the bands or bar shows. Since the scene in Rhinelander started it has become an established network of venues and musicians that attracts artists from all over the country. Here's a short list of bands from outside the scene that have come here: Brook Pridemore, Johnny Hobo And The Freight Trains, Dan Costello, Punkin Pie, Boogdish, and Jenny Is A Boy.

I guess more than less the point i'm making is that over the past year, the scene has turned from 'High School Teachers Cover Band is playing at the bar tonight so they can get free drinks' to 'Local High School Students are playing with established New York musicians in a basement, and it's going to be recorded by the local fair-trade record label.'

Maybe The Shitts aren't ready for their own wikipedia page, but the scene/collective as a whole is definitely a legitimate thing. It's a small collective of musicians that plays all over the city/county/state/country/continent just like many others that you have on here.

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

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

The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildhammer Clan

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft containing plot summaries.

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

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

This article contains plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not needed here. IAmSasori 15:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No notability or references. Judgesurreal777 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Warcraft characters, as was done with the links in the "see also" section of this article. Basically, delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:06, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Hand

Essentially no sources with unnotable gamecruft with plot summaries.

While there is a source on the article, that source was directed to the actual World of Warcraft article on Wikipedia. Obviously it is not an acceptable source, and if removed, there are no sources on the article whatsoever.

Along with this, as there is no third-party sources, this article is unnotable to the real world, and readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

It contains gamecruft which can encourage original search, furthering it from ever being sourced properly.

Finally, there are plot summaries on this article, which is what Wikipedia is not. Such content should not belong here in the first place and is thus not needed. IAmSasori 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No notability, no referencing=no article. Judgesurreal777 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:13, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scourge (Warcraft)

Poorly sourced, unnotable fancruft with plot summaries.

Out of the sources, five came from the Blizzard website, one came from the manual, and two came from Wikipedia itself. Obviously, referencing Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia is not acceptable.

Along with that, there are no third-party sources to establish its notability. Readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in this.

It contains gamecruft which is a likely attractor to original research, something unwelcome to Wikipedia.

There are plot summaries in the article, which is what Wikipedia is not. There are many problems to note that usually do not belong. IAmSasori 15:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Zero notability on its own, so it shouldn't have its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. Formica

I'm bringing this here on behalf of the subject who objects to the article. I'm somewhat neutral about whether or not the article meets the notability guidelines. I see no third party sources. Neutral TheRingess (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have declined speedy deletion several times despite the requests of an IP claiming to be the subject. Note however that even the briefest of Google searches (never the greast indicator, but..) indicates possible reference information. Pedro : Chat 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MJF jumping in here. Yes, I have a dense Web presence. Yes, there are links to some very legitimate sources of info both inside and outside the Wiki. My issue is that I did not ask that this be placed here, I don't know who wrote it -- which totally creeps me out -- and it is up for grabs who edits it. Pedro, I understand your desire to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and its intentions/policies. But kindly to take into consideration my right to privacy. I'm a tiny presence in a big world, not a Ken Wilbur or a Dan Goleman. Were that I were! Thanks. --69.177.176.129 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

HI 69.177 (i.e. MJF). I have really worked hard here but I can't find any policy or precedence at WP:BLP or elsewhere for the subject to ask for total removal on these basis of not wanting it. Of course WP:BLP is very strict and if there is anything wrong or defamatory it can be removed without consultation. But the article looks balanced. If there is any invasion of privacy that can and must be removed but I can't really see any information that is not available on your website or elsewhere. I totally respect your right to privacy however. If someone could show me a policy indicating why I should delete I will, but as an administrator I can't justify speedy deletion of this article. Pedro : Chat 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have to agree with Pedro. I am not an admin, but I know of no policy that allows a single user to completely delete an article without following a process. In my opinion, if there were, the project would fail. Looking at the history, the article was created on October 19 of this year, by someone registered as ArtfulDiva (you can find this information by clicking on the history tab). If this person is an acquaintance, it's unfortunate that they did not ask you before creating the article. I too see nothing that is objectionable, nor any information that is not readily available through a google search, so I can see no privacy violations. Yes, anyone can edit the article, but their edits must conform to the core content policies of Wikipedia, which are in place to guarantee accuracy and verifiability and to safeguard subjects' rights. Often discussions of this type revolve around whether or not the subject meets the guidelines for notability established by the community at large. Pedro has included links to those guidelines and you might be able to make a stronger case by reading them and seeing if they apply to the article. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There is a policy asking us to take the wishes of the subject into account. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards. That is not an absolute, and has to be weighed against the subject's notability otherwise - if Michael Moore or Brittany Spears were to ask us to delete their articles, we would have to politely turn them down - but in this case, I don't see anything in this article that clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (persons) anyway. He was associated with a lot of people and developed a program that was used by a state, but I don't see anywhere that he personally was the subject of detailed articles, won major awards, or anything similar. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There you go...Thanks Mouse. MJF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.199.229 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A deletion discussion usually takes about a week, and other people will weigh in too. Who knows, maybe you're hiding a Nobel Prize you won somewhere? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish. I'm nobody special. The part that creeps me out is that the author might be a patient or former patient...read:stalker. Been there, done that...very unpleasant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.199.229 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Mr. Formica's request. Unless he's secretly Britney Spears' baby's daddy... --Smashville^BONK! 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The policy seems pretty clear that when the notability is gray that the subject of the article gets a nod - which seems right and reasonable. Cheers, Ryo 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Based on notability only. Although there is information on him (his entire CV) online, if he was notable he would have no grounds to even request deletion as there would be so much information available that it would seem futile to remove it from one source such as here. Gtstricky 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm pleased that this AfD is going this way, and trust the community understand why I would not delete via the WP:CSD process. As I am involved I will not close and delete, and if the closing admin has any queries I will respond, of course. Pedro : Chat 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, though without prejudice to recreation if significant third-party sources exist. The current article provides two pretty marginal references that obliquely refer to things he's done, but aren't really about him. Some quick searching turns up his name a lot but no particularly good references on his biography—no biopics in a newspaper or a book or anything of that sort—so I'd lean towards deleting as per his wishes, for now anyway. --Delirium 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for now. Though not without possibilities appears to fall short of WP:BIO. Key claims are watered down by "contributed to" etc., and many career steps are "worked with X". Notability isn't transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The objection is that the subject wants to control his own article, and actually says that we dare not write an article without his permission. Totally wrong, and letting people do this destroys the encyclopedia. The course is to write a proper article, since there seem to be sources. Could be done now, or after this astoundingly weak article is deleted. But either way, we need a clear statement that we do not accept that it is necessary or even preferable to consult the subject before writing an article. In fact, I'd regard doing so as clear COI. We work from public material. Perhaps we should incorporate "My issue is that I did not ask that this be placed here, I don't know who wrote it -- which totally creeps me out -- and it is up for grabs who edits" in the BLP policy as the sort of thing that does NOT justify deletion. DGG (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of this comment? Your user page smacks of narcissism, and the fact that you are an MLS only confirms, as an academician, my opinion of MLSs.

You think the article is crap. I don't want it here. Instead of going on the attack (read:defensive, to push your own agenda), why not just agree that it does not belong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.199.229 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Based solely on lack of notability. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP deletion standards. Is this a good time to suggest a snowball closure? --Malcolmxl5 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - first, I would like to apologize to DGG, as my comments were harsh, unprofessional and uncalled for. Long day, glass of wine, and a general sense of frustration. I took his words personally, and should not have. Secondly, I would like to say that I am pleased with the manner with which the community is, ultimately, handling this situation. I feel confident in the consensus that this bio is non-notable, although am admittedly flattered that some of you would think it may merit future inclusion. You are most gracious in that. Finally, what in the world is a snowball closure? Sounds ominous! Cheers... MJF @ --69.182.28.205 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (PS...sorry the IP keeps changing; it's dynamic, and it keeps dropping.)

apology accepted. And one one point I agree with you-- even if you are notable, it is not as an academic. DGG (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

- Reply A "snowball close" refers to WP:SNOW. In this case Malcolmx15 is saying that as no-one has come up with an argument for keeping the article there is no point continuing this process as there can only be one out-come (deletion). I've no objection to another amdin closing this as SNOW and deleting the article, but I can't (wont) due to my involvement in it. Pedro : Chat 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Snow This has too much discussion on various points to be a snow close. Others may have something useful to add, so it should run it's time..DGG (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - despite, not because of, the subject's wishes. The article fails its notability check. That said, I wish to concur with DGG's concerns. Wikipedia is not censored!. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that this is in fact the subject of the article (and I've seen no proof of that), the subject has no privileged position; and concerns like "I don't know who wrote it -- which totally creeps me out -- and it is up for grabs who edits" show a misunderstanding of or hostility to the principles under which we operate. --Orange Mike 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Newbies will not necessarially understand polices Mike. Pedro : Chat 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to comment - I readily acknowledge the justice of what you say. But by the same token, their input may not be as solidly grounded as that of more experienced editors. --Orange Mike 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. But try to remember we were all new once. Pedro : Chat

Comment The article seems to be going away, but isn't the procedure for a person objecting to an article about self to contact the Foundation with their bonfida's? The point of editing wikipedia anonymously is that one is anonymous! Although we can assume that the person behind the ip requesting deletion is that person, we have no proof. I don't know how to contact the foundation/head office these days and will have to look up the info when I'm not using my employer's computer. At any rate, I would ask Dr. Fromica to contact the Foundation as well, just so we know what we are doing. (You don't have to be new to not recall some of our murkier protocols.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Call me up. Number is on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.109 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I don't think that's needed: anyone can suggest pages for deletion. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:43, 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 all → Top Cat As I am closing this AFD, I'll undertake a first-pass merge; I anticipate the result to be a bit rough, particularly because I am not familiar with the topic. I look forward to other more involved editors refining the article to smooth the merged content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Cat (character)

following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choo Choo (Top Cat character) I will also list the other characters that had pages created shortly after I nominated Choo Choo for deletion (or at least his article). The Choo Choo debate ended with the result merge into Top Cat. Another option is to merge it all into a new List of Top Cat characters. Martijn Hoekstra 15:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

also nominated:

Benny the Ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Brain (Top Cat character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Fancy-Fancy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Spook (Top Cat character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Added after Merkinsmum and EALaceys votes:

Officer Dibble (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

merge all into Top Cat. 'List of (...) characters' articles tend to be pretty redundant as the characters that are worth mentioning will already be in the main article. So the list ends up on AfD.Merkinsmum 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge all into Top Cat. That article isn't very long, and the character articles are all very short, so I can't see a need for a separate "characters" article. EALacey 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge all per the guidelines in WP:FICT into Top Cat, rather than a List of article per EALacey and Merkinsmum. Though if this is a merge proposal, it should have been done as merge proposals rather than an AfD. —Quasirandom 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep then merge and redirect Top Cat (character) - character quite possibly notable as a popular culture icon, however information would be best placed in the main article for the tv show. Delete all others as not notable (and merge information when neccessary). [[Guest9999 18:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Merge all The Top Cat article is a good model of what we should do with individual pages about episodes, characters, etc. Mandsford 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
keep Pages I vote keep pages, all they need is a little work, i was working on benny's page yesterday and planned to work on the others tonight and tomorrow, We could somehow put a link into the character pages to link to the show's Main page. And putting all of the Characters Onto a single page aslo sounds like a good idea, but all character personalities and info fitted onto The main Top Cat page may make it alittle overdone. (The Anonmyous 20:25, 15 November 2007 (CST))
Merge all as there are no reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of these characters outside of the cartoon series.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:35, 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Thwaites

Lack of notability. Has won an award, but that's not enough to write more than a very short stub. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This article was created by the same editor who created a corporate advertising article. It looks like something done to advertise rather than to improve the encyclopedia. The national award is an assertion of notability, which is the only reason I didn't speedy this. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. There are several indepednant secondary sources both reporting on him winning the award and profiling him in general [10], [11], [12]. The article may have been created as an advirtisment but there is no reason why additional sources (including the ones above) cannot be found and used to create a good encylopaedic entry. [[Guest9999 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Well then, please do. The third source is just a quote in passing, and it doesn't look like the first two have enough encyclopedic content to produce more than a stub. This article has been tagged for a long time and nobody bothered with it. I suggest those wishing to keep should put effort into fixing it. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:ONLYCREATEDFOR and WP:NOEFFORT are not good justifications for deletion. There is no deadline for editing and improving an article on Wikipedia. The fact that there is evidence that this article could become a sourced, encyclopaedic article should be enough. [[Guest9999 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Just to be clear, there isn't enough encyclopedic material available from independent sources to write more than a stub. That by itself is a valid reason for deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then there is at least enough information for a stub (and information in the form of coverage by multiple relaible, independant secondary sources) with the possibility of more information being found to add to and expand the article in the future. A well sourced stub can still be valuble - policy meeting, article. I'm also slightly confused by your last edit summary.[[Guest9999 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Have a look at WP:BIO and explain how the criteria are satisfied. The three news appearances you suggest do not offer in depth coverage. The fact that a fellow starts a business and gets one article in a local newspaper, and a couple other mentions is is not necessarily enough to justify a Wikipedia article. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the links was an in depth profile by the Financial Times, hardly a local newspaper. Also the buisness he started is now the largest British owned search engine. He is also mentioned in this article in the Telegraph [13], this Deloitte article is also mentions him [14]. Also looking at WP:BIO "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." - these could be used to 'flesh out' the article a bit. [[Guest9999 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Comment Really though what I think at this point, is that the company (Latitude) almost certainly meets the notability criteria as it seems to have been covered by several major newspapers and at least two of the big four financial services firm. This article could then be merged in if it was felt neccessary. [[Guest9999]] —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment As a possible rival in the same industry, Jehochman may not be the ideal nominator for this deletion.88.191.12.180 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - — 88.191.12.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That comment assumed bad faith. I am hardly a rival because I don't serve clients in the UK. For a long time I've been guarding the internet marketing pages against repeated spamming. If Latitude meets the notability criteria, please generate a list of references and we can discuss it. I just deleted Latitude White as spam because there was no assertion of notability per corporate notability policy. If you wish to appeal, please file a request at deletion review. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no notability asserted, not a single source cited. Probably a good candidate for CSD A7 and G11. - Crockspot 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whilst no sources are cited in the article, several have been found during the debate including sources from major notional newspapers [15], [16] as well as the big four financial services firms [17]. There is definately information out there. [[Guest9999 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Delete as a vainity page. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've gone through and added some refs I could find, seems to be over the threshold of WP:BIO, also for transparency I know nothing about this subject (I came here after seeing the noticeboard posting of Jehochman) so if someone would like to make sure those aren't totally unreliable sources for me, though they appear to be WP:RS. Dureo 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dureo, have a look at the four sources now present. Ask yourself whether that information was vetted and checked by an independent party, or whether it was just submitted by the subject and then republished. Primary sources can be used to fill out non-controversial details, but they can't be used to establish notability. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't see this as establishing encyclopaedic notability. There does seem to be a bit of a push to boost the firm, which doesn't hepl the article's case. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, as article is now sourced and WP:V VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not even CLOSE to encyclopedic worthiness, a small-time operator of minimal achievements: and that's not even touching the reliable-source problems. --Calton | Talk 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't appear to meet our notability qualifications at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable. Person has not been the subject of coverage by third-party published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- Satori Son 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply WThere are several sources from major newspapers including the Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph [18]] accuracy.[19]- these are reputable newspapers which do have a reputation for fact checking and . [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Delete. Not enough sources, subject doesn't seem notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply How many sources are neccessary for notability, several sources have been found - all WP:NN says on the subject is that "Multiple sources are generally preferred". Multiple sources have been found (and are linked above) including reports of the subject winning awards (as mentioned in WP:BIO) and profiles by major newspapers. [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Delete not even close; we don't even know when or where he was born red flags of non-notability in modern biographies. Carlossuarez46 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. A redirect would only encourage inappropriate recreation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bendheim Center Master In Finance Program

Contested prod. A Center within a University faculty is unlikely to be notable, an individual program within a center is certainly not. Doc^g 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:COPYVIO; article talks of "Our Department", hiding its creators in plain sight. Bears curious resemblance to the advertisement of the program on the university website.[20] Skomorokh ^incite 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect (not merge) to Bendheim Center for Finance. No sources are cited to indicate notability. Also, the tone is unashamedly promotional ("Graduates of our program have a solid understanding..."), and contains sections suitable for a course prospectus but not an encyclopedia article ("The Careers of Our Students", "Contact Information"). If we removed all this, there wouldn't be much left. EALacey 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Bendheim Center for Finance worthy of an article itself?--Doc^g 17:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete The Bendheim Center by itself is certainly notable as a major division of a notable university. But individual academic programs in a center or department except in the rarest of cases are not individually notable; such articles have crept in from time to times, and I'd be glad to help rooting them out. DGG (talk) 02:30, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storyline of Kevin and Kell

Contested prod. The article is entirely plot summary; per WP:PLOT, "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Since summaries should be brief, we don't need separate articles for them. Powers ^T 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not only WP:PLOT but looks to be vast tracts of WP:OR as well. Otto4711 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - pretty thoroughly violates WP:NOT#PLOT and lacks any kind of referencing. Plot sub-articles should discuss the significance of the plot, criticism, reception and development, not just summarize it. In this case, I think it can be done in the main Kevin and Kell article; this isn't exactly a work of fiction spawning great amounts of scholarly review. Leebo ^T/C 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hardly "a brief plot summary". - Eron^Talk 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. No sources for real world context, and it appears that there is no intention to include real world context if sources existed. Jay32183 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I created this article because the main article Kevin and Kell had a very long plot summary. I didn't want to delete the whole thing, nor did I want to write a brief summary. -- Madd the sane (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Question Can you see how the above mentioned policy applies though? Articles shouldn't exist solely for the purpose of summarizing a work of fiction. Such detail is never necessary. Leebo ^T/C 18:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Following up on the above, deleting the whole thing would have been quite appropriate under the above-referenced policy regarding plot summaries. - Eron^Talk 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. It is not quite clear what the problem is with this article. Any inaccurate or misplaced content about these railway companies can be remedied by editing or merging the articles, which does not require deletion.

[edit] Hong Kong Railway Corporation

inaccurate official name. The mystery has been proved by the citation in article MTR Corporation‎. Undoubtedly, The English name of the coming merger company will be MTR Corpoeration rathan than Hong Kong Railway Corporation. Sameboat - 同舟 13:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Seems some fast-acting wikipediaens created this article based on new Chinese name (香港鐵路有限公司) without more research. This Chinese name change is caused by a MTR-KCR service integration (NOT company merger), with the the Chinese name of MTR Corporation Limited being changed while the English name keep unchanged. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, unlikely link target or search term make this a poor redirect candidate. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but rename Inaccurate name is never a justification to delete. That is what Wikipedia:Requested moves is for. Chris! _ct 02:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- reply There are 2 reasons I nominate this article to deletion. 1) Article of the correct name MTR Corporation‎ already exists in Wikipedia. 2) This whole article has load of uncyclopedic, trivial and uncited contents including the CO2 emission from the MTR trains, BVE Trainsim (removed), new uniform and KCR logo removal which do not worth its own section at all. (Interestingly after this article is nominated some of these contents were moved/copied to MTR Corporation‎ and MTR.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  - There is only like 2 weeks left before the companies merge. So why delete everything just to recreate it again. Lack of citations should not be a problem at all as it is usually an easy fix. The name is wrong. I know. So that's what I am suggesting. We can keep the original MTR Corporation article at MTR Corporation and rename this new one to something like MTR Corporation (Post-merger). Chris! _ct 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Some comments:
      1. It is not a company merger. MTR Corporation (with Chinese name changed) just takes over the operation of the rail lines originally operated by Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation. (After the take over, KCRC will just own the assets, without actual operation of KCR lines.)
      2. The "new" company will have very similar business (almost identical, except the Kowloon-Canton Railway lines) with the "old" one, therefore there will be large section of content being overlapped.
    - Because of these 2 reasons, I consider redirecting Hong Kong Railway Corporation is not a good idea. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 03:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      - So what are you saying, we just put info of the new company to the old MTR Corp article. No, it is still a new company and should have its own article. I know the name is incorrect, but that is a matter of name change not deletion. Chris! _ct 01:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your suggestion of new name to preserve this article. MTRC is in fact acquiring KCRC properties in this so-called "merger". Unless someone rewrite the whole content, this article doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If it were a new company, I would also suggest to create a new article. But it is not a new company, but just an old company (MTR corporation) that acquires KCRC properties. I think you have misunderstood the situation.--Leeyc0 (Talk) 08:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Then are you saying that everything about the new MTR should stay in the original MTR article? Chris! _ct 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But if you still disagree, I have another suggestion. The original MTR Corporation should be moved to MTR Corporation (before 2008), while Hong Kong Railway Corporation should be moved to MTR Corporation instead. --00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an option. As the reasons I stated above. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we continue to add stuff to the old MTR article, then the article will eventually become too long. We should take this opportunity to split the article. It doesn't matter if it is a merger or an acquisition. Chris! _ct 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the MTRC article is unlikely to expand by much, since its railway operations are covered in MTR. So I don't see the point of a size-induced split, and is in favour of just adding post-merger information onto the existing MTRC article. Kelvinc (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onitsha aka. Church Girl

the fact that this is an obvious, meaningless content fork of a small section of Mary Mary's biography that bears no relation to its namespace was still not enough to persuade an administrator it was speediable, so here we are. tomasz. 12:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Looks like unsalvageable patent nonsense. I don't see why the Speedy Delete for WP:CSD#G1 was denied. --DAJF 13:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —tomasz. 13:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechapolitics

Basically and new unrepresented theory by two students at the University of Tehran. Bringing it here because they removed the prod. Ridernyc 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research, crystallism, and for not representing the synergistic combination of Godzilla and politics. tomasz. 14:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Under what CSD might this fall? Joe 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think as an article that doesn't indicate its subject's importance/significance. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete It could meet CSD A7 (Group) but the nominator did the right thing by bringing it to AFD, and it does fail WP:N and WP:V if more reliable sources can't be found. [21].--Sandahl 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

When I first nominated it wouldn't have fallen into any CSD category, it actually got worse as they added info to it. Ridernyc 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment This[[22]] is the edit I was refering to when I said speedy it. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:32, 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Up & Go (Breakfast Drink)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Up & Go (Breakfast Drink)

No particular assertion of notability, appears to be little more than an advertising ploy. Mayalld 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This article says that Up & Go is a "hit product" in Australia, and this article from The Age also says that it is very popular. I've added the sources to the article. Bláthnaid 12:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment You mention the same article twice and it says nothing of the sort - only that sales of Up & Go increased in the last financial year. It is an article about eating out for breakfast.Ga rr ie 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The first link should be this. I copy & pasted the wrong link, sorry about that. I did put the correct link into the article, though. Regarding the The Age article, I took popular from the first sentence of the last paragraph: "The huge rise in popularity of ready-to-go options (such as ready-made breakfast shakes and breakfast bars including Sanitarium's Up & Go, which increased sales by 37 per cent in the past year)..." [my italics]. Using the two articles as sources, I thought that that was enough to say that it was a popular product. I did not say that either article was entirely about Up & Go. After saying all that, I am withdrawing my keep after User:Peripitus' merge. Bláthnaid 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is an advertisement for a commercial product. Heathspic 12:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete if it wasnt already here I would just deleted it under WP:CSD#G11 Blatant advertising Gnan garra 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gnangarra.Ga rr ie 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does seem like an ad but there is some news interest: B&T Weekly (Aug 26, 2005) a brief article on it, Choice (Sep 1, 2004) - product review, various articles on the advertising in AdMedia, significant mention in , Dairy Industries International (Jan 1, 2003), Australasian Business Intelligence (May 30, 2003) notes that it had 80% of the relevant market, Choice again (Mar 1, 2000) discussing the products merits. Mostly though it's just another drink. Perhaps delete then recreate as a redirect to Sanitarium Health Food Company. I've merged what looks like the useful content there - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 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 keep. But due to copyright concerns (see below) I will par this down to a stub just to be on the safe side. Feel free to add content in your own words or restore stuff from past versions that you are reasonably sure isn't a copyvio. W.marsh 14:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valene Maharaj

Sending this here instead of speedy because the person has some very minor notability. is Miss Trinidad and Tobago notable? Ridernyc 11:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, being Miss Trinidad and Tobago does make her notable. Phil Bridger 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Phil Bridger. As does being a representative of her country in Miss World. seems to be a fair whack of Ghits too. tomasz. 12:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It might be worth noting that an identical version of this article at Valene maharaj was speedy deleted yesterday as a copyvio (I tagged it). The article contains large amounts from [23], [24], and if you look closely, consists mainly of direct quotes from the subject, framed with "She stated", "Maharaj has said" etc. which have most likely come from other articles. If kept, needs to be significantly rewritten. -- Kateshort forbob 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article needs a serious clean up and the original research and speculation needs to go. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've removed a lot of material that appeared to be out-and-out in violation of copyright. Probably didn't get everything that needs to be purged, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected. Kurykh 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belmont Ridge

An apparently unremarkable middle school, with no indication of notability in the article. Searching provided nothing to alter this. Brought to AFD as middle school deletions seem to have been controversial in the past. Kateshort forbob 10:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Loudoun County Public Schools. No evidence of independent notability. Google News Search turns up mostly passing mentions and events announcements; the most significant coverage I could find was this article, which is mainly about a different school. Distinctive features of particular schools can always be mentioned briefly at the school district article, as long as they're treated evenly. EALacey 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirected to Loudoun County Public Schools, as suggested and I will add anything relevant to that article. Can this AFD be closed? -- Kateshort forbob 19:18, 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 speedy Delete per WP:CSD G12--JForget 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OLCOS

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to OLCOS. Hu12 10:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence that this has been covered by the independent sources required to show notability. I note that we don't even have an article on "the European Union's eLearning Programme". This article is copied from the OLCOS About the project page, and looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a mirror. EALacey 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Copy vio as pointed out by EALacey--Hu12 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - (but not as a copy vio - the author wrote the document that the article is copied from). The author created an identical article at OLCOS Roadmap 2012 with the intention of "creating a debate". I pointed out that this wasn't appropriate and the author immediately apologised and requested it to be speedied, which it was. On the other hand I think it's rather unfair that no-one has posted an afd warning on the author's talk page, just an inappropriate spam warning. andy 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Added an AFD Notice. FYI, we do not promote products and services, using Wikipedia to do so is inappropriate. Just looked at the deleded copy, its not the same content, this is a copy-vio off the site.--Hu12 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Much of a muchness as far as copyvio is concerned - the other article was a direct lift from an OLCOS summary document and permission was self-granted by the author. But you're wrong in principle - this is 'not a "product or service" and the article doesn't seek to "promote" it. It was a misguided attempt to encourage involvement in a socially valuable activity (the EU is chock full of such libertarian ideas) - it was completely innocent and we should start from a position of assuming good faith. andy 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"The European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN), I am project manager of, is member of this consortium, and I publish this document in Wikipedia to trigger wider debate on the Roadmap's content." This is a part of the discussion on the deleted talk page, further comments by this individual reads.. "...apparently it seems that I misunderstood my coordinator's instructions." so we have an individual employed for the sole purpose of promoting this organization. conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote OLCOS. This is such a conflict and is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.--Hu12 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge→Start Something --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan

This article has no notability and is not relevant. We really don't need a page that really, just gets in the way. It also is a stub and needs cleanup. Thundermaster367 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Start Something, the album this song is from. Bláthnaid 12:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Blathnaid. Not a bad song, really, but not notable in itself. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to the main album article. Leebo ^T/C 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge. As per above. Rehevkor 21:42, 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shikata ga nai

Delete WP:DICT WP:IINFO Emailo333 09:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as dictionary content per nomination. From the history it appears this was previously (de-)prodded after being transwikied to Wiktionary, [25] so its safe where it belongs. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Move — Is it possible to do an interwiki version of a move to add this content to Wiktionary whilst preserving the edit history (modulo interwiki username issues)? The Wiktionary article [26] is extremely brief and could be usefully expanded, but simply cut-and-pasting the content of this Wikipedia article to Wiktionary would lose the edit history, which would be a {{copyvio}} of the GFDL. - Neparis 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
keep as is-defining component of the Japanese psyche. Chris 09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is? I'd thought it was merely one common expression (another being shō ga nai) of this "component". "Gaman" is irrelevant; have an article on "Japanese stolidity"? -- Hoary 09:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment/question I'm no fan of dicdefs, and on top of that it's odd to see this Japanese phrase explained by pop sociologists (or so it seems), and garnished with mentions in what's very generously termed "literature". Also it's bizarre that shō ga nai isn't mentioned. But I was under the impression that WP allowed entries for speech act terms and phrases. But though kuwabara kuwabara has an article, Thank you doesn't. Duh. -- Hoary 09:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
keep- I think its clear that this is more than just a dictionary definition. Actually I don't see a compelling case for deletion. The content seems more at home in an encyclopedia than a dictionary. The Smilodon (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep—Clearly more than merely a dictionary definition, and supported by citations as well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, Hoax/Nonsense. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Exhaust Injection

No assertion of notability, advertisement like copy, and the only "source" is a forum. Nburden ^(T) 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Looking at the forum linked it seems to be a joke. Even if true it was only thought of a week ago, and has gained no notability whatsoever. Alberon 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - clearly a joke idea. --Sesameball^Talk 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
'Speedy Keep Should be real. 203.220.107.71 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)'

keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.44.70 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A very good hoax, so a reluctant Delete. Phil Bridger 11:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

besides the fact that there is no mention of when and where the final exhaust exits the vehicle and the fact that eventually even with intercoolers the tempatures would melt the block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.95.66 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The guy is an idiot, and nobody can figure out if he is stupid, or its a hoax. Either way, delete it to make wiki a better place. - B34M3R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.24.106 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete it yet, wait until its spread a little more. We need more people to see this crazy idea and understand its impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.43.30 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I randomly found this article via a web forum and it's just something some idiot made up. Non-noteable. --rubbrchikin(talk) 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary G Peterson Elementary School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mary G Peterson Elementary School

Articles for deletion/Mary G Peterson Elementary School (2nd nomination)

Back in 2006 this non-notable elementary school survived an AfD. Article still has no citations indicating any notability, and would probably not survive a prod tag today. "Consensus can change" applies here too. AnteaterZot 08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, nothing of value here. Nburden ^(T) 09:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Big surprise, a content-free school article with no notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete an object lesson to dispell the notion that "Every school is notable" which can be sung to the tune of Every Sperm is Sacred. To badly quote Ms. Stein: there is no here here. nn. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete another stub with nothing notable. Arthur 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to school district per established precedent. TerriersFan 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect if possible. Delete if not Victuallers 14:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. -- Eusebeus (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. User:JodyB has stated in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapleigh Memorial School that merging to district articles is inappropriate. The stub should thus be kept for proper incremental expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:44, 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. The School District U-46 website doesn't list this school among those in the district so redirect didn't seem like a good idea. Pigman☿ 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school, prod tagged a while back, deprodded shortly thereafter. No citations to tell us why this school is notable. AnteaterZot 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable Arthur 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to school district per established precedent. TerriersFan 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect if possible. Delete if not Victuallers 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. -- Eusebeus (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. User:JodyB has stated in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapleigh Memorial School that merging to district articles is inappropriate. The stub should thus be kept for proper incremental expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:43, 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space trading and combat simulation games

The article has no reliable sources to base it upon. It has not demonstrated that it is notable. The article cites no resources, and I can only assume it is original research. Even with those two considerations, the information in this article falls under existing video game genres anyway. In summary, there are three major reasons for deletion. 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization . Randomran 08:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This might be presumptuous of me. But I don't think this article is likely to survive. I would recommend migrating what little valuable information there is in this article (e.g.: the list of games, mentioning combat and trade as potential gameplay devices) to the Space simulator article. Setting up some redirects like Space game or Space flight game or Space combat game might be helpful, too. Someone might want to start doing this, before the article is deleted. But like I said, that might be presumptuous of me. Randomran 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, rename I've been convinced that there is definitely a genre around Elite clones. However, the research on the actual name is inconsistent. Some don't mention combat, some don't mention trade, and some don't mention simulations. Moreover, many of them don't mention trade, combat, and simulation all in the same breath. I think we're going to have to simplify or shorten the name, in order to find a lower common denominator. Randomran (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

delete unsourced. Fails WP:OR, and WP:N. If notability of the topic is established by citing secondary sources providing some analysis of the topic of "Space trading and combat simulation games", and those sources meet WP:RS, then I'll be happy to change my position. Pete.Hurd 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Expand This is a recognisable genre. The article's main fault is that it only considers computer games but there are plenty of notable non-computer games of this type too such as Traveller and Merchant of Venus. I'll do some work on fleshing out the article. Merging into Space simulator would not be appropriate because that is a different genre analagous to Flight simulator. 86.136.133.108 08:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This does not address the fact that this article is entirely original research, with no reliable sources. Randomran 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah The article is obviously part of a series structuring video games into recognisable genres, like FPS, RTS, etc. This genre is known, e.g. ...it is certainly true to say that Elite was a hugely influential game, serving as a model for more recent games such as EVE Online, Wing Commander: Privateer and the X series of space trading games.. So it's not original research. It just remains to find some reliable sources and incorporate details of non-computer games in this genre. That's cleanup and not a reason to delete. -- Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a notable source. Note that the article uses the term "mercenary" instead of "trade", but then goes on to mention, "With gameplay options far beyond the genre's typical trading and combat(...)". -- SharkD (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another article. "Like Flatspace II, Jack of All Trades owes a lot to Elite, the pioneering space trading-and-combat game." Here is the site's editorial policy. Not sure what to make of it. -- SharkD (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another (notable) one. "Evochron, a space combat and trading simulation built using the award-winning combat and graphics technology of the Star Wraith series." SharkD (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another article. The site is a commercial one that is trying to sell the game, so I'm not sure it qualifies. "At the heart of the game is a turn-based space combat and trade game in which players fly between star systems with cargo, fighting pirates, or helping defend the galaxy from a new alien menace known as the Dominators." SharkD (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This review is linked to in the above article. " The core of Space Rangers 2 is a turn-based space combat/trade game where players fly between planets and star systems either running cargo, engaging in combat with pirates, or joining star fleets en route to liberate entire systems from invading robots called Dominators." The site features a PayPal donation button, so it might not be notable. SharkD (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Every little bit helps, but the research you've offered is too unreliable and inconsistent to be enough. One fansite calls jack of all trades a 4x game, not a "space trading and combat simulation game". The other fansite doesn't even use the name. I'll admit they might start to suggest that Elite is an influential game. But without a source that can tie it altogether in a named genre, you'd be violating WP:OR. Maybe the clone-games would be better included in the Elite (video game) article? (In fact, it already is included.) In order to save this article, maybe you could add it to under action RPGs, or action-adventures? Another idea, maybe we need a "science fiction games" category? There would be tons of research to support a science fiction game genre, I'm sure. (Space rangers is nothing like Elite, as far as I know. It's more of a turn-based strategy game than a combat sim. It would easily fit in a new science fiction game genre, I think.) I'm trying to be helpful, even though I see this article as deletion-fodder. Randomran (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All of this sounds like Original Research. SharkD (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable. "The sequel to Egosoft's space combat/trading game series, which featured such games as X: Beyond The Frontier and X2: The Threat, the follow-up X3: Reunion reconstructs the series with a new gameplay and graphics engine to delover a more immersive, living universe." SharkD (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is one more. I believe it is a notable site. "EVE Online at its simplest is a space trading, exploration, and combat game, although calling it so really only scratches the most superficial aspect of what EVE is all about." SharkD (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is an (notable) article that puts Elite and the X series in the same genre. They may have the name wrong (they call it "space fight/trade simulation"), but they identify it as a distinct sub-genre just the same. SharkD (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Not notable, but adds to the volume of instances of the term being used. SharkD (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
GameSpy. "An English computer programmer by the name David Braben set about designing a game based on a deep space combat and trading theme, which would end up defining an entire genre of computer entertainment." "Elite was based around the premise that a player assumed the role of a deep space trader/pilot that was without reputation, wealth, or status. As the pilot, you were tasked with running tradable cargo from planet to planet, solar system to solar system, and maybe even a spot of bounty hunting." SharkD (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Stargamer.net. "X3: Reunion is the latest instalment in the X series of space trading and combat games that immediately bring to mind memories of 1984 and the heady days of Elite." "At its core, X3 is closer to being a space trading game than one of combat and action, one where the aim is to buy up materials and commodities in one station and hopefully sell them for a profit at another - hopefully somewhere close by. Cash inevitably allows you to upgrade your ship, buy new ships and generally have a good time. So far, so Elite, and although the Braben/Bell classic had a million times-fewer polygons and no textures, the basic concept hasn't been changed much here." SharkD (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
1up. "There's something to be said for Cinemaware's cherry picking of odd Russian and European releases if it gets us titles like Space Rangers 2. A representative of the once huge but now long waning outer space exploration/trading/diplomacy/little ships exploding genre, SR2 is reminiscent of games like Freelancer, Privateer, Elite and long time favorite Star Control 2." "It's always nice to see a long missed genre revisited and modernized." They get a little creative with the name, but it's clear they're speaking of the same genre. They go on to mention other games like Freelancer, Privateer and Elite. SharkD (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
GameSpy. "At its heart, Space Rangers 2 is a simplified space trading/combat simulation..." SharkD (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
IGN. "The underlying concept of the game is the space fighting/trading genre, invented with the game Elite in 1984." SharkD (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
DeafGamers. "Ever since the days Elite there has always been something appealing about space based games that allowed combat and trading. Since Elite (and its poorer sequels) there have been other great games such as the Wing Commander series and X-beyond the frontier. Freelancer is the latest title in this genre and it is a game that has been eagerly awaited since it was first announced back in 2000." SharkD (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
GamersInfo. "Back in ‘the day’, as they say, there was a little game on the Commodore 64 called Elite. It was a vector graphics funhouse of space combat and drug running from star system to star system. ... Enter Eve Online, stage left. I’ve had my eyes on this game since it first came out. Could it be the Elite replacement I always yearned for? Could it recapture my love for space games the way Privateer did?" SharkD (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
SciFi.com. "But let's get one thing straight: Fans of Elite who could do without the superfluous mental gymnastics of games like Egosoft's X series but who need more than mere stock-market tic-tac-toe should give the free (and small, at 12.5 MB) downloadable demo a look. And barring any adolescent (in gamer years) hangups about its budget graphics, chances are you'll be hooked for hours, days, weeks, even months to come." Mentions Elite, the X series and Flatspace II in the same context. SharkD (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus a bunch of other links I didn't feel worth mentioning. SharkD (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
GameSpot. "This is the closest game I found in the Elite genre of space faring ... It's a fantastic trade-combat space simulation based in a giant universe, ..." SharkD (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Eurogamer. "Elite, it could be argued, is the shining light of retro gaming - perhaps the one old game which simply has not been bettered by a modern take on the same genre..." SharkD (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Variations

CVG. "...I was absolutely slack-jawed at what I saw, and thrilled by the plans Roberts had for his all-new assault on the space-trading genre." The genre's name has undergone some sort of change, but it's speaking about the same genre. SharkD (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo! Games "Over the years, the space exploration and trading genre has become more and more simulation heavy, with games that let you slowly fly and appreciate the grandeur of space while you gaze at beautiful planets and complex space stations. Space Rangers 2: Rise of the Dominators won't be mistaken for one of those games..." Again, the name has changed slightly; but they're talking about the same genre. SharkD (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Armchair Empire. "Originating from the mind behind the uber-successful Wing Commander series, Chris Roberts, Freelancer was supposed to be a revolutionary step forward for the space exploration/combat genre." Another variation on the name, but the article states the game belongs to this unique genre. SharkD (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Armchair Empire. "First, and perhaps foremost, Space Rangers 2 is a space exploration and conquest game similar to Masters of Orion or, for the truly old school amongst you, Elite." Another variation of the terminology, but the author then goes on to describe the common features to the genre. SharkD (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
IGN. "What's more, the co-creator of seminal space-trading sim, Elite, also confirmed that Elite IV is pencilled in for release on current generation gaming hardware, following its announcement in, er, 2001." Variant terminology. Mention of Elite. SharkD (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
RPGCodex. "[Space Rangers 2 is a] Space Trader in the vein of Elite, Escape Velocity Nova, and so on. Has turn-based ground and air combat, ship and skill customization, and much more." SharkD (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
RPGDot. "Space Rangers 2: Dominators hearkens back to an older gaming era with 2D turn-based gameplay that's simple and fun with a wealth of depth. Russian developer Elemental Games has crafted an open-ended space-trading game with strong RPG elements, surprising variety, a slick interface and a sense of humour and charm - even if a little of that is lost in the translation." SharkD (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Elite Games. A fan-site dedicated to the genre. Also features a press release for a game which purports the existence of an 'Elite genre'. "Entropy is a space trading/piracy/bounty hunter/free form styled 'Elite genre' game, attempting to bring modern technology to the era." SharkD (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Abandonia. "Despite the poor graphics and sound, the playability of the game is enormous... Just consider that this game created (in 1983!) the "space exploration" genre of games. With the exception of better graphics, more enormous galaxies, and more missions and enemies, all the games of the same genre (like Frontier and Privateer, and even more modern ones) are based on Elite. Anyone who likes this type of game should play Elite, at least to see where it all began."
DeafGamers. "Space action and exploration titles don't come along that often. Elite kicked the genre off many moons ago but since then there's not been a great deal of games to attempt to follow in its footsteps. X: Beyond the Frontier and it's two sequels, the Independence War games and Freelancer are the only ones that readily spring to mind and when you consider how long ago it was that Elite first appeared that's pretty disappointing. DarkStar One from Ascaron Entertainment is the latest title to enter this sparsely populated genre. Let's see how it shapes up." SharkD (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
VideoGamer.com. "Darkstar One has all the attributes of the archetypal 'Elite Clone' and I'm sure the developers wouldn't want it any other way. ... One thing that immediately separates Darkstar One from others in the genre is the nature and importance of your starting ship. ... The ship aside, Darkstar One pans out in much the same way as other games in the genre. The story and free aspects of the game co-exist and you will need to take part in both to explore the universe." SharkD (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
ic-games. "In the beginning of space based gaming there was a game called ‘Elite’, then several years later its sequel ‘Elite II: Frontier’ between them they set the standard for trading/action space gaming and which most (if not all games) have fallen short of. Now Deepsilver and Egosoft have brought the next contender forward, X2: The Threat. Can this be the one to topple the champion… indeed can it even come close, well read on and find out. ... X2: The Threat might not be able to take the ‘Elite’ games off the Space trader/fighter throne but it certainly deserves to be sitting on it’s right hand surveying all lesser titles with contempt." SharkD (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
IGN. "Sometimes, the first games in a subgenre (space trading adventure, in this case) are so good and memorable that the followers never quite come out from under that shadow. Elite came out in 1987 and popped out two sequels. Privateer emerged in 1993, quickly followed by an expansion pack, then an adventure-oriented sequel many years later and the semi-sequel Freelancer earlier this year. Unfortunately, Privateer and Elite still stand head-and-shoulders above what came after. X2: The Threat comes closer than Freelancer in some respects, but is held back by a few fundamental issues." SharkD (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
SciFi.com. "Don't get me wrong, the particulars are deep and methodical, but Space Rangers 2 is the Cindy Lauper of space-trading sims..." SharkD (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment / Rename. I think the research you've found establishes that there IS a genre here. However, the research is VERY inconsistent on what it's called. The "Simulation" part is especially inconsistent. I think that this article is going to at least need a rename. My suggestion? Go for the lowest common denominator with "Space adventure game", even if we need a special sub-section for "Elite Clones". However, I don't think there's much research to establish the article as it is named now. "Space Trading and Combat Simulation Games". I'm open to a discussion. You seem to know the research better than anybody else. Randomran (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

15 of the 33 links mention "simulation". Some games are covered in multiple articles, not all of which call the games sims. SharkD (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 out of 33 call it a simulation. A handfull of others might mention simulation aspects deeper in the article. Like I said, you've verified that the genre exists. But the research does not confirm the title "Space Trading and Combat Simulation Game", especially on the "Simulation" aspect. Randomran (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you and people say about Trade and conflict games in space?--victor falk 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Per above. SharkD (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hugely opposed to merging with Space simulator; but, I think I've demonstrated that the topic deserves its own article. SharkD (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd go a bit further. The research that you've uncovered shows that whatever this genre is, it is not a "simulation", and is seldom mentioned (especially in games that have a top-down combat screen like Star Control 2). I would suggest merging the few true space flight simulators with other flight simulators, and merge the remainder of the space simulation genre into this article. Games like Elite and Space Rangers belong in this genre. But it needs a rename... at the very least, we need to drop the "Simulation" part, to encompass the broad set of games you've found. Like I've said, I hope you're open to discussing a rename. Randomran (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Star Control 2 a great example of the genre. It's missing many of the trading options. SharkD (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't saying that Star Control 2 was part of this genre. I was only saying that a lot of the games you mentioned have a top down view rather than a first person view. That's pretty strong evidence against this being a simulation genre. Randomran (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Elaborating further, using a better example... Space Rangers 2 is a top-down game and is frequently called an RPG. I think we have to find a lower common denominator to name this genre. Randomran (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's move the discussion of renaming to the article's discussion page. SharkD (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not established what this genre is, let alone that space rangers is included in it. You can't rely on google to prove that. (1) The article says "combat simulation" but some games include a cartoon style combat view. Hardly simulation fare. This is what a combat simulator looks like. (2) The simulation label is thrown around very casually and loosely. I just read that a fantasy text adventure is a simulation [27]. I'm not in a hurry to call Zork a simulation game, let alone a hybrid game. Simulations describe something very specific. (3) relying upon google to establish reliability and notability violate WP:google. It does not establish notability. It is not verifiable. (4) An article with the word "sim" in it is NOT the same thing as an article that says "this is a simulation game". To claim otherwise is to violate WP:SYN You're finding articles that might have the word "simulation" in them and might describe parts of the gameplay as simulation. That doesn't prove that there is a genre "space combat simulation". This is misuse of google. Changing the search parameters will change the notability wildly. My search on "space rangers cool" revealed 1.4 million results[28]. Does that mean that it is part of the "cool" genre? Just because some articles mention a word, it doesn't mean that word describes a genre. In contrast, my search on ""space rangers" ("trade and combat" OR "combat and trade" OR "trading and combat" or "combat and trading")" revealed only 3 results [29]. I found 2 million results for a google of "simcity RPG"[30]. Let's not play the google card. It's inherently sloppy.
I am willing to concede that there IS a genre around elite clones that is distinct from other space flight games. But what I take issue with is the name of the genre, which you have failed to establish with notable and verifiable research. All you have is a bunch of articles that mention some permutation of combat, trade, space, and simulation. You haven't found wide use of "space trading and combat simulation game". We should discuss a rename. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your comments in the article's Talk page. SharkD (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not a gamer, but a “simulation game "space trading and combat" -wikipedia” google search which yielded ~650 hits supports my perception that this article is becoming a reliable introduction to a notable genre of simulation video games. — Athaenara ✉ 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per the huge list above. If you need some suggestions on improvement, list it for WP:VG assessment. User:Krator (t c) 15:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep there are more than enough notable games to justify an article, as established above. The problem with the article as it stands now is that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to computer games, because of WP:BIAS. See silent protagonist for a similar example of this problem on wikipedia.--victor falk (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep for further work. There is a genre underneath there, but the exact naming and placement within the genre hierarchy needs a lot of work, as with all the genre articles. Inconsistency and lack of sourcing are rife within these articles. Hopefully after some general work is done the project will become involved in laying out a consistent way of classifying games. Someone another (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but definatly needs some work, sourcing and likely a renaming. Either Space trading and combat games or Space trading games, as that seems to be the focus and at least the shorthand many industry magazines use. Narson (talk) 13:32, 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. No sources of any sort are present in the article; no one arguing for the retention of the article has bothered to add them. Without such sources, a merge would be inappropriate. While some laxness in sourcing is permissible (the criterion is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not Wikipedia:Verified), no one has found and added reliable sources in the two years the article has existed. Xoloz (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois

Back in 2005 this non-notable elementary school survived a VfD. Mention was made during that debate that the page needed lots of work. Article still has no citations indicating notability, and would probably not survive a prod tag today. "Consensus can change" applies here. AnteaterZot 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable and has more than enough time to be cleaned up if anyone familiar with it cared to. Arthur 18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to school district per established precedent. TerriersFan 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect if possible. Delete if not Victuallers 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. -- Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. User:JodyB has stated in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapleigh Memorial School that merging to district articles is inappropriate. The stub should be kept for proper incremental expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:42, 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 --JForget 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voice arrest theory

Unverifiable, only 2 ghits, both wiki mirrors. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. MER-C 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, it is likely this material is covered under a better name elsewhere. AnteaterZot 08:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
delete totally unsourced, ugly internal links lead to nothing related to the topic, ... and ... it's pure codswallop. Pete.Hurd 08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Embarassing that its been around so long. Highly implausible content with absolutely no refs... WjBscribe 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this rubbish. Alberon 09:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete total bullshit. Kolindigo 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No references, unverifiable, no assertion of notability, no ghits, appears to be OR. I agree, it's embarrassing it survived three months, more than enough time to find references. Nothing in the Dr. Drew article. Suggest a snowball delete: WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:NOTE, WP:SNOW. — Becksguy 19:23, 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, nomination withdrawn by nominator. Please note this was a non-admin closure. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anil Mukim

Contested prod. Appears to be an anonymous Indian bureaucrat with responsibility for ... something in Gujarat, a large city of 5M. (He is not mayor.) He may even have moved up to a Delhi post but it is not clear how notable. In any case the one source does not establish notability. If there is notability in any of these positions, {{context}} applies. Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn, no need to further ill feelings. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Gujarat is a state in India with a population of 50 million, not 5 million. The ... you are talking about is the largest city in Gujarat, and the 7th largest in India, with a population of 5 million. For an analogy, take the example of Dave Cieslewicz, a mayor of Madison, Wisconsin - population of 223,389. Ahmedabad is around 25 times larger and Gujarat 250 times. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I created this article, so my voting keep does not stand for much. But there is a problem which must be addressed with this AfD. Ahmedabad is the 7th largest city of India with a population of 5 million and growing. 3 people are in charge of all administration of the city - the mayor, the municipal commissioner and the police chief. Prior AfDs have come to the conclusion that this meets the criteria for notability. But the problem arises when these people go out of power. Once notable people suddenly lose press coverage, and even the small amount of coverage that they get does not appear on the web. What should be done in such cases? Should we delete the articles? Or should we keep them in order to preserve the articles related to the civic administration history of Ahmedabad on wikipedia? I don't understand why past New York City Police Commissioners or mayors of New York can have their own articles and not Ahmedabad. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please avoid what about x? arguments. This isn't comparing Gujarat or Ahmedabad to New York. If there are prior AFDs which have discussed municipal commissioners, please list them. Our article on municipal commissioner is unsourced and only contains information about the Swedish instance. The article Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai suggests this could be an important position, but it is also completely unsourced. Vadodara Municipal Corporation is a better article by far and suggests that this is something close to the role that a professional city manager might play when that role exists in a mayor-council municipal government (a situation rare in the US). The "MC" appears to report to the council as well as to Delhi (?), so it isn't an executive position per se. I'm assuming this is some structural holdover from the Raj that would once have been filled by a British civil servant; is that correct? --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That the article does not have much information is correct. I do not know where he studied, or whom he married, etc. But the article clearly states that he was a municipal commissioner of an important city and also provides a RS for that claim. And that is enough for notability according to our criteria. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And as you are slowly finding out, the position of municipal commissioner is a very important post in city administration of India. I did not know that our articles of municipal commissioner are not well written, but then, that isn't my problem, is it? A glance at Ahmedabad article would have told you about the importance of the post. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the Ahmedabad article (sorry for confusing the state and the city, by the way) only tells me that it is a very large city. It does not tell me anything about the importance of the municipal commissioner in city governance. Notability is not inherited, and technically all city officials (of any city, anywhere) fall short of inherent notability as defined under WP:BIO. Either we must justify them using general notability standards (i.e. in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources) or there must be some consensus of the importance of the person through their role. --Dhartung | Talk 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —Aksi_great (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, there is a fundamental distinction between a known administrator of a city like New York and a city in Western India like Ahmedabad. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no fundamental difference. Both cities are major cities. Take Paul Richard for example. Or Stephanus Van Cortlandt. Only claim to fame, ex-mayors of New York. Or Christopher Seeley - his only claim to fame is being the mayor of Linesville, Pennsylvania with a population of around 1000. Or Shane Mack (mayor) - population 666. Anil Mukim on the other hand has been the municipal commissioner of a city with a population of 5,000,000+. Surely he is more notable than the hundreds of mayors and police chiefs of US on whom there are articles. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Aksi, I think the article atleast needs an expansion for notability. Maybe some of the significant events during his career in which he had to play a crucial role would be notable info in the article. Else he just remains a figure-head whose notability will be questioned... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't the fact that he became the municipal commissioner qualify as a significant event according to your definition? - Aksi_great (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not object if somebody listed those articles for deletion as well, since we establish notability on Wikipedia by providing reliable and independent sources. I would tend to agree with Amar though, if you are able to find multiple, reliable and independent sources on the subject of the article, maybe we would be able to save it. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he was the municipal commissioner of Ahmedabad is enough to serve notability criteria. This has been established previously too by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. C . Sanalkumar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. P. Gautam and other related AfDs. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

W-w-waitaminit! There are tonnes of available sources here – [31]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Those other AFDs contribute to my understanding, but please be aware that it is a form of WP:WAX or WP:ALLORNOTHING to say that because one article is kept, other similar articles should be. If mayor-type positions were automatic includes under WP:BIO, then it would be "enough", but otherwise I think we need to make sure we're sufficiently asserting notability in the article. Listing his civil-service cadre and such has no meaning outside India. --Dhartung | Talk 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This nomination and some of the arguments used (e.g. "there is a fundamental distinction between a known administrator of a city like New York and a city in Western India like Ahmedabad") look like a textbook case of systemic bias. Phil Bridger 11:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did think about it. I soon found that there is no dearth of sources that can be used for this article. But I still think that notability guidelines and WP:CSB would remain in conflict with each other for a long time to come. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note I did not use that argument in my nom, and I agree it represents systemic bias. --Dhartung | Talk 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The person has been the State Information Secretary of Gujarat, the Municipal commissioner of Ahmedabad, the District Magistrate for the Bhuj, the District Collector of Vadodra, the Managing Director of Gujarat Informatics Limited. There are plenty of news mentions including interview with The Times of India. I am sure there would be many mentions in the Gujarati newspapers too. utcursch | talk 13:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have been asking direct questions and getting no direct answers. What are any of those positions and how are they important? We don't seem to have articles explaining this. If they are important municipal functions in India, we need to provide people such as myself with some context. Honestly, why would I know that a "district collector" is not some kind of garbageman? --Dhartung | Talk 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see we do have District Collector and "District Magistrate" is buried in Magistrate#India. It's still not entirely clear what an administrative magistrate does from that, but obviously district collector is a term that has grown to encompass much more responsibility than just taxes. I admit I'm having trouble with the top-down arrangement because other than Washington, D.c. the federal government has nothing to do with municipal governance. But this is exactly what I'm getting at. There are some missing articles here and there's a need to go beyond assumption. --13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you are trying to prove here. The article had all this information before you nominated the article for AfD. The article says that he has been District Collector of 2 districts of the state of Gujarat in India. Now you may not have known what a district is, so you could have looked at Districts of India. The article clearly says that "the Deputy Commissioner or District Magistrate or District Collector, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, in charge of administration and revenue collection". We also have an article on District Collector which clearly says "District Collectors are officers of the Indian Administrative Service and are the most powerful government officials of the district.". Similarly Magistate#India would tell you about what the magistrate does in India. Of all these information, I do not find anything buried. The world does not work the way US does and that is not my problem. If you take the effort to search and read the articles you will understand the difference between a district collector and a garbageman. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Final reply I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I was just trying to find out what a municipal commissioner does and whether it was notable. Although the other posts have some information on Wikipedia, the articles were not wikilinked. I'm sorry if my use of the Socratic method ruffled feathers, but my questions were in good faith, and I just wanted answers. I will pursue those answers on user and wikiproject talk pages. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 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 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great FA Cup Games

Article is inherently WP:OR and bound to be WP:POV. The Rambling Man 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Complete POV. And no football game is great anyway... Lugnuts 08:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense. AnteaterZot 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it nonsense? ChrisTheDude 08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read it? It says "games" but talks about only one game, in a fevered lingo that made my eyes hurt to look at it. AnteaterZot 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Alberon 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, AnteaterZot. tomasz. 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What makes a "great" game? Why start with these games? Seems to be a bit of a coatrack for the Tranmere Rovers match. If there were some kind of published, definitive list that the article could talk about, that might be a different story.-- Kateshort forbob 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Davnel03 17:18, 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 Speedy deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G7 (author request) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend Of Corrent

Sourceless promotion of vanity-press book. PROD tag added, but removed by article creator, for which this constitutes his only contributions to Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 07:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Vanity page for a vanity book with no notability at all. Alberon 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robotic engineer

Delete unsourced job description but useful in telling us that geeky 11 year olds will be robotics engineers. Carlossuarez46 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, then redirect to Robotics. AnteaterZot 09:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's an article to be written here, but this isn't it. Delete with well-sourced recreation encouraged. shoy (^words _words) 13:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I tagged it for unsourced and was thinking seriously about listing it for AfD, but thought I'd wait. But this nom shows me that I'm not alone in thinking that this isn't the article we want with this title. There is an article to be had here, but this isn't it. Corvus cornix 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per shoy; unsourced and badly written. Think outside the box 12:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:34, 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 keep. Whether or not the article should be merged with 5W Public Relations is a matter of editorial consensus. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronn Torossian

Ronn Torossian lacks nobility. Torossian is no different from thousands of other PR spin doctors and SEO professionals who abuse Wikipedia for their own and their client's promotional purposes. The Torossian article totally lacks NPOV as it has been manufactured by Torossian and his staff of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Vivid i.e. - User:Judae1 Another illustration of this fact is the false listing of McDonald's as a client. Please see Businessweek article. [32] Another example is the recent repeated deletion of a New York Post article on Torossian which reflects negatively on Torossian which has been deleted by those who created the article in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet for Torossian and his news releases. Within Wikipedia, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".

The Torossian article includes blatant advertising and self promotion which is transparent to anyone who reads it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Agavtouch (talk • contribs)

— Agavtouch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clearly an advert and notability isn't really established. Alberon 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The users (including myself) who deleted the NY Post news piece had not edited the wikipedia article before, as is clear by the item's history. Agavtouch and Zonenet on the other hand have both taken a particular interest on Torossian's biography. I have no opinion on the person's notability, so I won't vote.--Atavi 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Questions and comments, mostly for the nominator. The nominator asks us to see a Businessweek article. It's devoted to this person (of whom I hadn't previously heard), and indeed makes him seem at least moderately remarkable (though not pleasantly so). I'd thought that this article and its content would be evidence of considerable notability. What more notability do you demand? (Something like intrinsic worth? But that would disqualify articles on tens of thousands of people, from [insert politician's or criminal's name here] on down.) If Torossian (the man, not the article) is veracity-challenged, well, so are many people who get articles. If promotional ("COI") editing is going on, that can be dealt with. (Meanwhile, I hadn't heard that the New York Post was something usable as a source for an encyclopedia article.) -- Hoary 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I don't understand why this was nominated, as the nominator him/herself has provided a source which establishes notability. WP:POV and WP:COI issues should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per BusinessWeek article. Epbr123 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But the BW article is not in the Wiki article, so the wiki article does not assert that notability. - Crockspot 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Clearly an advert and notability is not established. But of even greater consequence, whether Torossian appeared in the New York Times or Businessweek is irrelevant, as it is clearly documented that this article was written by Torossian and his staff which equals a complete and total lack of NPOV. This article should have gone for "Speedy Delete" as it spits in the face of every user who edits and reads Wikipedia. Agavtouch 13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
— Agavtouch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that nobody in the PR racket is notable, or are you saying that Torossian isn't notable within this racket? If the latter, what are your criteria of notability? And where is the clear documentation that this article was "written by Torossian and his staff"? Incidentally, the last time I checked my face, it was free of Mr Torossian's spittle, or indeed anyone else's. -- Hoary 13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Whether one likes or dislikes Torossian, Wikipedia clearly states that one cannot write their own bio! There must be NPOV or neutral point of view employed at Wikipedia. Just go to the history section of the Torossian article and see for yourself who created this puff piece - a paid employee of Torossian - User:Judae1. Agavtouch 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    - And indeed Judae1 does seem to have created it, and yes, Judae1 says in his user page that he's in Torossian's outfit. However, Judae1 hasn't touched the article in four months. Are you saying that other Torossian puppets have controlled it since then? And what are you saying about Torossian's notability? -- Hoary 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Stub Notable enough (in an unpleasant way). The fluff can easily be deleted, and balanced with the stuff that has been airbrushed. Mayalld 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - While the Business Week article does establish notability, its absence from the Wiki article prevents the Wiki article from asserting that notability, leaving it vanispamcruftisement. Serious COI problems with the authorship. - Crockspot 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not really care whether this article is deleted or not, but I do not agree with your delete reasoning at all. Are you asking that this article be deleted just on a technicality (i.e. you agree that there is a source that satisfies notability but you say that the source was not mentioned in the article, so the article should be deleted)? - TwoOars (Rev) 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. The BW article barely establishes notability (notoriety?). But if, as has been the case in the past, editors will constantly be purging the source from the article, it is rendered spamvertisement, and has no place on Wikipedia. In order for me to flip to keep, the article would need to be completely re-written, using the BW article as a main source for much of the article. I have no confidence in that ever happening, so it should just be deleted. - Crockspot (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Any actual encyclopedic information can be merged into the article on the public relations company itself. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A clarification The nom says "Another example is the recent repeated deletion of a New York Post article on Torossian which reflects negatively on Torossian which has been deleted by those who created the article in the first place." I did revert one edit, for reasons mentioned in the edit summary which has nothing to do with how it portrays the subject. I personally am indifferent to whether this article is kept or deleted and I had nothing to do with this article except for that one reversion. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically, I, Atavi, was unsure whether this passage should be included in the article, and asked TwoOars in IRC for their opinion, and after discussion they deleted the item.--Atavi 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge with 5W Public Relations and redirect to that, as there's little or nothing about this person that isn't about his company. -- Hoary 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep The leaders of every business are notable, and for advertisers, PR people and so on, this is to some extent a matter of notable clients. KP Botany is no longer around here--very unfortunately for the encyclopedia--to defend the article she started, but she showed here her usual good judgment. DGG (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Just because someone may not be liked or respected by some within an industry does not make him less worthy of an encyclopedic entry. The initiator of this delete request demonstrates a non NPOV with comments like “Torossian and his staff of sockpuppets and meatpuppets” and even went as far as lying in his characterization of a “false listing of McDonald's as a client” and using that as a reason, The Businessweek article refers to McDonald’s as a former client, which lends to Torossian’s ability to garner such clients. The fact that he did have such a client is big enough for a small, new firm. Let’s be objective. The article could be a tad more neutral, but it is by no means non-noteworthy. The authorship of the piece is not a strong enough reason to deny the article, as the evidence of the subject’s noteworthiness. Just because someone may appear to have a COI in an article does not make it a COI, rather it makes it open to more scrutiny to be certain it is still an NPOVRubenKlor 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but the article should focus on what he is notable for i.e. being a self-promoting spin doctor. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV and abusive self promotion. Heathspic 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
— Heathspic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Not offering an opinion one way or another, I'm sure most of these editors here already know where I stand. That said, when I posted the piece, it was done as a post of a notable person, even if I do work for him. Never once did I hide it or run from it, as my user page clearly identifies who I am. What I find most interesting here is that users such as Agavtouch and Zonenet have been on Wikipedia for a whole of two days now, existing solely to defeat this article. Wikipedia is a community of editors and admins, most of who are genuinely good people just trying to provide information to the public. I have started many articles and contributed to a lot more on things that I just know about and even enjoy, and occasionally on things I know more intimately. IMO, this person we are talking about is notable - and long before I started working at the firm. I disagree with anyone who believes that one with any level of interest may not contribute to an article. An example is the American Jewish Congress page, created way before my term there, but contained errors and missing facts as to the organization's history. I made some changes - not to sell anyone on the agency, but to correct what was wrong. I find it disingenuous for people to make these kinds of edits without revealing who they are and why, whereas me being upfront about it by the very fact of it, makes me adhere to more strict guideline and opens me to scrutiny - which is warranted, and leads to a better article in the process. I think that for someone to so obviously look to challenge Mr. Torossian’s veracity on Wikipedia, he or she would be better off appearing as a true concerned Wiki community member rather than a meatpuppet for one of Torossian’s rivals. -- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Abstain (because I'm not volunteering to work on this article or help clean it up, and I agree cleanup is needed), but seems to me like there are sources to establish notability and provide material. -- Kingdon (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with 5W Public Relations, assuming that the later is kept. I don't see one being all that notable without the other. Note: both the author of this page and the nominator for deletion have been warned for edit-warring and COI problems. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. He is mentioned in passing in any of the reliable "sources." The article is an abuse of Wikipedia. It is mainly edited by Juda, his employee (which is scummy on its own). Juda knows he has a COI yet he edits the page. This whole thing reeks of an abuse of Wikipedia. Juda and Torrosian work at a PR firm. They are doing it for publicity for their publicity firm. The irony is sickening.--Agha Nader (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Mentioned in passing? A 4 page article in the New York Times and an article in Business Week? This article has to stand on notability and verifiability issues only. Its is notable from the articles in the New York Times, and Business Week, and almost every sentence is linked to a source, this is becoming a vote on if you like the guy, that is no way to edit an encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

- "Sickening"? Mmm, the last time I checked my shirt and trousers, they were free of traces of vomit. The article is, Agha Nader says, mainly edited by Juda, his employee. "Juda"? Never heard of him. Does AN mean Judae1? He does indeed claim to be within this company, but he hasn't touched the article in four months. Is AN saying that other Torossian puppets have controlled it since then, or that Judae1 has socks, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments First of all I would like to call your attention to Heathspic's contibutions, noting dates and contents. Next, I would like to kindly indicate to Hoary that User:Judae1 is Juda S. Engelmayer. I will refrain from any other comment on the discussion.--Atavi (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to 5W Public Relations. The notability is of the company, not the individual. —Moondyne 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Do Not Merge Lacks nobility and NPOV. Article was authored by paid employee of Ronn Torossian. Do not merge into 5W Public Relations for that article was also authored by same paid employee. Wikipedia is not a dumpster for SPAM and self-serving egos. Batright (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
— Batright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. It seems a bit strange to me that both the nominator and Batright refer to nobility rather than notability. I'll leave it to the reader to draw conclusions. I don't think that the subject's lack of nobility is in much doubt here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I have never before seen a nomination that does a better job of establishing notability than this one. The article -- and the nomination -- provides ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the article subject in depth, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Bad faith nomination as pointed out by User:Alansohn, the AFD was started by an account created just for this deletion, and the company article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact This AFD could not be more solid that this article was written by Ronn Torossian for Ronn Torossian. Batright (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bewilderment: I might be interested in this "fact" if I could only parse its expression. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for the account used by User:Batright. It has less than a dozen edits. And as Phil Bridger points out has the same spelling errors as the nominator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Article establishes notability with strong sources both in the mainstream media and publications within his professional field. If the article is overly promotional, then simply edit it so it is NPOV. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If new editors have joined Wikipedia as a result of this and or other AFD's it is a compliment for Wikipedia and her growth. In their desperation to keep this SPAM, non-NPOV advertisement on Wikipedia these new and senior editors should not become the target of a professional, paid, discredit campaign against them by Ronn Torossian and his employees of 5W Public Relations. We must ask ourselves one question. Has Wikipedia become a Yellow Pages for which PR CEO's and their firms may arrogantly promote themselves in their own words and then use spin tactics to retain the article or is the Wikipedia community responsible for improving the standards of quality information based on objective and accountable fact? Batright (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Should Wikipedia bow down to aggressive anonymous trolls disrupting writing because they have an axe to grind? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC) * This user is in violation of 3RR
- Agavtouch, let's hear why a response to one of your sockpuppets violates WP:3RR. Feel free to respond, or have one of your sockpuppets handle this one for you. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: In addition to violating SPAM, 3RR and NPOV policy on this article, 5W Public Relations has been paid to author and has spammed other articles in Wikipedia including: Joe Francis and several others. Just connect many of the users on this page who have voted Keep and their history of "contributions." These "contributions" match clients listed on 5W Public Relations client page. 5W Public Relations is an established and documented spammer on Wikipedia. Agavtouch (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Stirring stuff, Agavtouch! Just connect many of the users: Thanks but no, I'm too busy/lazy. "Many" is vague, but surely means more than ten; let's halve that and call it five, and you specify which five these are and explain what their histories show. Also, show us the proof that this outfit has been paid to write articles. We're all holding our breath! -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Don't hold your breath, you might just hurt yourself. Here is just one example: 00:46, 29 October 2007 Judae1 (Talk | contribs) (19,269 bytes) (→External links - Francis is absolutely not Jewish) 5W Public Relations is a documented spammer which ignores NPOV policy on Wikipedia authoring its own and client's articles. Agavtouch (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Boring! Come on, Agavtouch: we knew about Judae1, who has been upfront about his activities both on his user page and here. You wrote many of the users on this page (my emphasis). Judae1 aside, who are they? And where's the proof that this outfit has been paid to write articles? -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Agavtouch that one needs only to match just a few of the users who voted Keep here with the client list of 5W Public Relations which is listed on Wikipedia as adverts. It is a sad sham. Also transparent spin tactics used by the employees of 5W Public Relations to attempt to divert attention and attack those who have voted delete from the many gross and documented violations of SPAM and NPOV committed by Torossian and his paid employees. Lastly, please note how Torossian & Co. continue to delete any mention on this article of the New York Post news story illustrating malice and bad faith created by Torossian against the NYC PR industry. Not very objective.[33] Heathspic (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The material that was added from NY post earlier was not fit to be in the article because of the reasons mentioned in the edit summaries no source copyvio and unencyclopedic tone again a copyvio and unencyclopedic tone by 3 uninvolved users, 2 of whom have abstained from giving an opinion and one has opined that the article be merged. Please stop making these allegations about "Torossian & Co". (And funnily enough, if you claim that the NY post article is significant enough that it should be mentioned in the article, it should mean that you accept that the article should be kept in the first place. Hence your argument that the article be deleted makes no sense.) The NY post info, in its current form appears to be ok and has not been removed from the article. Stop bunching everyone that says "keep" as an employee of this PR guy and stop these mangled attempts to try to get the article deleted based on spurious reasoning; you are only strengthening the case to keep the article by doing so. Lack of NPOV by itself should not be the sole reason to delete an article (unless the subject of the article itself is inherently biased); Instead, try to make the article more NPOV by adding/removing info that balances the POV, but in a way that follows wikipedia policies. And articles are deleted at AfD based on the strength and coherence of an argument and not on how many times something was said or how many said it. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Staying focused = Torossian wrote this article and has his employees voting Keep on it. Wikipedia is not PR Newswire. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which illustrates those who have truly earned nobility. Torossian lacks this status even with the dozens of news releases he issues about himself. Heathspic (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It ultimately doesn't really matter if the guy started an article on himself, if it can be decided that he is notable. So, staying focused = determining the notability of Torossian (and not nobility, which is a different thing altogether. Wikipedia is not Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage to insist on the nobility of the subject). - TwoOars (Rev) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Twooars, you have an excellent point. One may be notable even if they do write their own article. Not exactly NPOV. But let's examine SPAM. That is the business of Ronn Torossian and thousands of other PR CEO's! One only needs to view O'Dwyer's Guide to Public Relations Firms [34]. Does this mean that every PR and SEO pro who has optimized their name on the Net, who reaches hundreds of media outlets every day for themselves and their clients are now notable? If so, we will need to enter not hundreds but rather thousands of PR CEO's into Wikipedia from New York to Hong Kong. Remember, the job of a public relations firm is to make themselves and their clients notable. Perhaps their clients may qualify after the PR firm has created a Website, Facebook, MySpace and blogging entries. Perhaps after they have been written about on AP and Reuters on a daily if not weekly basis. But to allow PR firms to SPAM Wikipedia (and even admit that is what they are doing) in their mission to create one as notable, is defeating the mission and goals of Wikipedia to provide objective information to the world. Batright (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no one has argued that the article's subject is notable simply because of his profession or title. While you have a legitimate argument that not every PR CEO deserves an article, this particular article provides multiple reliable and verifiable articles from independent sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Even the New York Post article cited as reason for deletion is further evidence of notability. I'd strongly suggest reading the article in question and providing an explanation for why the sources provided are invalid, instead of a knee jerk rejection of notability based on a particular animus to the article's subject. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 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. Kurykh 05:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer/Network Systems Administrator

Delete a job description for a specific "Computer/Network Systems Administrator" or one career-planning organization's take on what the job entails - not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. We already have Network administrator and System administrator, and this doesn't add anything. This isn't the first job description-type article I've seen recently... -- Kateshort forbob 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've just noticed that the AFD template was removed from this article by the creator on 16/11/07. Have re-added it. -- Kateshort forbob 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the existing articles are a better basis for further improvements than this. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Rugby League State of Origin series

Delete seems like pure OR & WP:CRYSTAL about a who may be eligible to play in a tournament next year. Carlossuarez46 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep If you read Rugby League State of Origin and the article itself, this series is always contested by the same two teams. It is not unreasonable, or original, to note that. Its a two-team series, played every year. It will be played next year by these two teams. This is not crystalballery, only noting a fact. Not all articles on future events are crystalballery. Many are, but this will be a real event, contested by the two teams noted in the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I assume that Carlossuarez46 was referring to the players shown in the eligibility list, which other than the dates is the only content. It may not be OR but it isn't particularly useful at this stage. Why no list for the Cockroaches? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that this is WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL, but I think it is a bit premature to start the article this early. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the best thing to do with this article is userfy it until more than the mere dates are known. The topic is clearly notable but there isn't enough known at this stage to create a useful article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It isn't OR though mostly what is currently on the page probably will not be there by the time Origin has finished it is semi useful, I had a look over it and noticed some teams that I thought would have more eligible players don't but anyway guys can be chosen so last minute to play in the teams there is always going to be that crystal bally feel. Firelement85 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. We need sources to document the dates, but that's a minor thing. We also need information on the eligible lists (for both teams) - how would one become eligible? There's no inclusion criteria listed, and that needs to be there for context on those lists. This could be considered cleanup, I suppose, which is why I reserve my delete !vote - but, lists without inclusion criteria are deleted every day. I could Keep per WP:HEY with some work, which I might put in later if no one else does. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you look at the page Rugby League State of Origin under the selection section Under State of Origin rules players are selected for the state in which they first played senior (or registered) rugby league. Hence the 'State of Origin' meaning for the game, this is obvious to me but do people feel it needs to be repeated on the page itself? It is why players who first played in other states are ineligible to play. Firelement85 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and strip Article is clearly notable. Just strip it down to the bare bones. Twenty Years 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but I'm commenting out all the boilerplate.Ga rr ie 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's going to happen next year. However, while I think whether you qualify for a given state isn't going to change, there's no way of knowing who's going to be on the teams so stripping that bit out would probably be good.Red Fiona 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep in the bare-bones fashion that it is now. That it's going to happen is an incontrovertible fact, although it's only going to look like this until the early months of next year. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, already Yes it was premature of me to create the article six months out. Now it is stripped back to the now-known facts and the tables for future use are all hidden. So are we done now ? -Sticks66 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article doesn't seem to crystal bally in its current state. Lankiveil (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was speedy delete cos the sole author said so. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's the Freckles

Delete nn EP by nn band - nominated below- with a production run of 50 (yes FIFTY) albums - and unsourced, unreviewed, no other indicia of notability per WP:MUSIC - with only 50 copies they wouldn't want to waste any on promo probably Carlossuarez46 06:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this band has only released very few copies of their EP, they are renowned as a garage band and have played at several battle of the bands. Simply because the circulation is numbered doesn't mean it needs deleted. Hakeem 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not much more to say, really. Maxa megalon 2000 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not Delete. It is not to say they are not releasing more copies. Big deal if you can't get your hands on one. Hakeem 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If albums were eligible for speedy, this would have been gone immediately. --Calton | Talk 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. You guys are totally right. I fucking suck. Nice try, though, huh? (Personal attack removed) !!!! Hakeem 07:28, 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 and rename. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics & International Affairs Journal

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ethics & International Affairs Journal

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to this and its parent organization. Maintained by an IP associated with the organization. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable journal. Long established title, held in hundreds of libraries according to WorldCat. Published for the council by the major scholarly publisher Blackwell. Indexed in all the standard indexes--I added them. (I had first to remove the link to their website, which is on the blacklist. I'll follow that up separately--totally inappropriate) -over-reaction by the nom to a round of what was seen as spamming--and some of it probably was. But this is a notable organization by any standards. . We don't delete for such COI--we just examine critically and rewrite as necessary. --incidentally, per MOS, title should be Ethics and International Affairs (journal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 15 November 2007
Comment Even if the COI is ignored, that article is devoid of any references. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

needless to say, that is not a reason for deletion, any more than COI is. Worldcat holdings are 3rd party testimony to notability, and the indexing can be sourced from Ulrichs'. DGG (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I offered a comment rather than say it should be deleted. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in news searches [35] or books [36]--Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep (and rename to "Ethics and International Affairs") per http://scholar.google.com/scholar?tab=ns&q=%22Ethics%20and%20International%20Affairs%22 - note how often the various articles in that search are cited. Clearly a notable academic journal. JavaTenor (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Note how often "© 2005 Carnegie Council" appears in those results. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject--Hu12 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

the way to read the GS list, is that it gives the articles published; in their journals--and then indicates how many other items cite them. The relevant factor for notability is not that they publish articles, but that tens of other people cite each of their articles. Of course the articles they publish have their own copyright, but they aren't the ones relevant for notability. It is the citing articles that are the independent evidence. (If in fact only their own journal cited their own journal, then indeed it would not be notable--to check this, look for some representative items and see what sources cite them, and you will see this is not remotely the case.) This is different from looking for articles about a subject. DGG (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep as per above. A lack or references is not a reason to delete an article, adding a references tag or adding the references yourself is always prefered.Travb (talk) 18:24, 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/redirect. W.marsh 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgenthau Lectures

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to this and its parent organization. Maintained by an IP associated with the organization. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Carnegie Council. There isn't enough here for a full article, but it seems reasonable to merge it over, since it does seem to get quite a few Google hits. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable series by one of the most important such organisations. Long enough to justify a separate article. .Over-reaction by the nom to a round of what was seen as spamming--and some of it probably was. But this is a notable organization by any standards, an so are their lectures. Just look at the list of speakers!! DGG (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to vote Keep until I noticed that the full text of some of these talks is available on the cceia.org web site, for instance http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/morgenthau/5283.html. These talks don't appear to be any more substantial than after-dinner speeches, and are unlikely to be cited as contributions in their own right. (If it turns out that some of these talks were commented on in the press, that might change my opinion). Though we have articles on many of the speakers, a quick scan through some of their articles did not pick up any mention of them giving these talks. These are not like the Reith Lectures or the Charles Eliot Norton Lectures. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good reason for adding the links. to them in those articles, not deleting this one. DGG (talk) 05:34, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Innovations

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to this and its parent organization. Maintained by an IP associated with the organization. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 06:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Carnegie Council. It seems to have some notability, based on a quick Google search, but doesn't seem to get a lot of press outside of similar small publications, either. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge. I think I proposed this for deletion before, but a merge is better. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable online publication. ("Policy innovations" Carnegie) gives 393 GS hits for their various articles -over-reaction by the nom to a round of what was seen as spamming--and some of it probably was. But this is a notable organization by any standards, as is this publication. . We don't delete articles about there major projects for such COI--we just examine critically and rewrite as necessary. -- DGG (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep with strong suggestion that sources identified below are added to the article. Davewild (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Fedeli

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Victor Fedeli

Articles for deletion/Victor Fedeli (2nd nomination)

Procedural nom. The situation is that there was originally a real article at this title. More recently, an anonymous IP overwrote that article with a cut-and-paste copyvio from the city's website, and an AFD — in which only one person weighed in besides the nominator — was conducted on that version of the article, without really considering the edit history. I've restored the original, non-copyvio version of the article, but would like to do a second notability check on it without the copyvio issue clouding things. No vote from me. Bearcat 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete mayor of town of 50,000 people, no real notability elsewhere - no more notice than what one would assume from any local celebrity be he the town's mayor, dog-catcher, pediatrician, postmaster, homecoming queen, or the like. Carlossuarez46 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep All mayors are notable, especially for cities with 50,000 people. We have articles on MLAs in Nunavut that represent a few hundred people. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aplies, not mention that MLAs are provincial-level politicians, not local. --Calton | Talk 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No indication he passes WP:BIO, and his city is below the size of 100,000 that I advocate for inherent notability of mayors. Kudos to whomever caught this mistaken AFD but without attribution to reliable sources there isn't much here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep mayor of North Bay, Ontario. May be a small city in terms of comparative population but important city in Ontario. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Mayor of one of the five largest municipalities in Northern Ontario, member of Major Cities Northern Development Council, Google News "Vic Fedeli", Google News "Victor Fedeli" DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Pssst...slap a few of those references on the actual article, maybe? Bearcat 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Local politcian, with no sign that he's known outside the city's borders. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per sources provided by User:DoubleBlue (although they need to be added to the article). Sarcasticidealist 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep In my opinion, the mayor of a city of over 50,000 is notable. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. My view is that Fedeli should be considered as notable, even if Wikipedia policy doesn't explicitly define him as such. CJCurrie (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Most Mayors are listed, including smaller Otnario communities such as Timmins. NipissingU 19:13, 18 November 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed as moot. The current text is entirely unlike the nominated article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Hoods grave

Delete possible hoax? Was Robin Hood a Yorkshireman as postulated here? Do we know? Is there real-world RSes that cover this inter-county dispute? Carlossuarez46 06:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as regardless of the dispute there is no indication that this is particularly notable. In fac the article seems to argue that the site is overlooked. This is somewhere between WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although yes, there is a widespread theory that Robin was from Yorkshire not Nottingham (there's a Robin Hood's Bay on the North Yorkshire coast).... I have no idea what that article is on about. Non-notable. MorganaFiolett 09:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Keep It does look better now, and has references to boot. I had no idea what it was about before... MorganaFiolett 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and clean up (plus move to Robin Hood's Grave). Dreadful article but the subject of this page does in fact exist (though you wouldn't know it from reading this page). Robin Hood's alleged grave is in Kirklees Park, Yorkshire according to Westwood and Simpson's guide to English folklore, The Lore of the Land (Penguin, 2005) page 830. References to it go back to the early 17th century. See this BBC News page too [37]. And yes, some people have claimed that Robin Hood was a Yorkshireman. --Folantin 11:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Update I've completely rewritten this article using a reliable source (and moved it to the improved title). Would those who voted delete above please have another look? Cheers. --Folantin 11:53, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Veteran Anti-War Propaganda

Prod contested. More of an essay than an article. A handful of facts mentioned have references (including two WP self-refs), but most of the text doesn't (and is mostly interpretations, hence WP:OR), and reads more like an op/ed piece, reminiscence, or school paper than an encyclopedic article. Title, beyond being mis-capitalized, also seems to have WP:POV problems. Ravenna1961 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Seems a clean-up problem rather than a deletion problem. The topic seems eminently notable, though the article is a nightmarish mess, this seems like it could become a well referenced, neutral article some day. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is an uploaded essay and despite the title is essentially an article about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, with (unintentional, but probably unfixable) WP:POVFORK-ish overtones. No redirect, it's an unlikely search phrase. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete As Dhartung stated, it's essentially a POV fork. If someone were to try to make the subject into a worthwhile article, it would probably have to be rewritten from scratch and titled differently anyway, so I see no reason to keep this. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Were it not for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War article, I would agree with Jay that there would be a need. This looks like term-paper-cruft, history rewritten, probably by someone born in the 1980s Mandsford 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above.Biophys 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Mandsford. Changed vote from above. Good catch. No need for duplicate articles... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not worth much. Not worth anything, really. 12.118.190.10 (talk) 03:06, 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 floor in double quick time. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 07:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Flooring

Delete article about a band sourced to YouTube and myspace, no indication of meeting WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 05:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7: article does not even make any statements to indicate that this band is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I agree with Jayron32. (I may be a biased source, however, as I'm affiliated with the high school cited on this page.) Comrade^4·2 06:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete. The opinions or uncited sources have been removed and/or replaced. There is no need for deletion. The popularity of the band may be small and uncitable but that does/should not immediately place it in speedy deletion. It is simply a band that hasn't got much attention, and Youtube and MySpace should not be a negative thing. It should even up the likeliness for keeping this article. I'm not exactly sure what Carlossuarez46 means about meeting, but I can update or adjust this page in whatever way needs fit for it to stay. Hakeem 07:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. WP:CSD A7 applies here. --Calton | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Delete???. i personally like this band a lot, ya, i know the people who actually VIEW these websites don't matter, but there is no reason for this wiki page to be deleted. give the guy a break, he has talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.235.235 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, stranger, but it does need deleted. I would probably list someone elses band up for speedy deletion as well if I was as jealous as you guys were. Hakeem 07:29, 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 Delete — Caknuck (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Chin's Gourmet Paradise

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mr. Chin's Gourmet Paradise

Non-notable game Kwsn (Ni!) 05:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya think? "Because this game had little to no marketing it wasn't very popular, nor does it have much of a cult following." I'd say the article has cast its own vote for deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Oh boy. It isn't notable, at all, and has no sources to verify the non-existent notability. - Rjd0060 05:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: While the article brings the lolz, it is not notable or sourceable from secondary reliable sources. Bbwlover (talk) 03:25, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malleable Man

Very minor character, with only one appearance. Does not meet notability standards. Konczewski 05:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not meet notability standards. Rjd0060 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete for lack of a good target to redirect to (didn't find him or the Elastic Four at the linked articles). JJL 05:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment How "fantastic"... I've heard of Plastic Man, Elongated Man and even the stretchy Jimmy Olsen. This character seems to have been created solely so that DC Comics could have a group called the "...astic Four". I guess Reed Richards and Stretch Armstrong were otherwise engaged. Perhaps the author could rework this as an article about the comic book "Elastic Four", which seems interesting on several levels. Mandsford 02:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur to delete although I agree that there could be potential somewhere, and would consider a merge if someone can find the right target. Hiding Talk 11:13, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of important events in Pinoy Big Brother (season 2)

Original research fork from Pinoy Big Brother (season 2), unsourced, and probably mostly unverifiable. Deciding which events are "important" enough to be listed requires original reseach based on the opinion of the creator and lone editor of this article. An {{Original research}} tag was added by another editor a few days ago, but the creator removed it within five minutes without making any changes to the article. Masaruemoto 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. To put it another way, this is taking OR that wouldn't be allowed in the main article and splitting it off. CitiCat ^♫ 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete: Too much info not to have any sources. I am sure it is true, as all of the Big Brother shows have this type of article, however they still need sources. - Rjd0060 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, come on now, do we really need this? --Howard the Duck 08:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: The entire article was copied verbatim back to Pinoy Big Brother (season 2). --Howard the Duck 09:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I've already removed the copied contents from Pinoy Big Brother (season 2). I've moved the text of the article to my sandbox for the meantime. Don't worry, while this discussion is going on, I'll try to find sources for the contents. And if this article gets removed (which seems to be the case), I assure you this exact article won't be recreated. The official website of the show is a good source for the text, but selecting which text is encyclopedic and which is not will require your help. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete fancruft. Doc Strange 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Singer

Was tagged speedy, but there's a hint of acclaim to notability there, but may still fail WP:BIO, unsourced blp as typical and having notable siblings doesn't make one notable. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per BIO. - Rjd0060 05:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, citing WP:BIO. I corrected the lead and headings, but there are no sources to establish notability. The article reads like copy from an ad, and I couldn't clean it up without removing everything but the name at the top of the article. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Only a slight hint of notability. Dreamy ^§ 20:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Good nom summary. Sorry Greg Victuallers (talk) 19:13, 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. Hut 8.5 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micron (Batman Beyond)

Character appeared for less than 5 minutes in one episode of Batman Beyond, and has not appeared in any other media. Falls test for notability Konczewski 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Can add a word or two from this article to Justice League Unlimited#Connection with Batman Beyond if necessary. CitiCat ^♫ 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Not really notable. Merge if somebody wants to, per above comment. - Rjd0060 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 23:36, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Cinema

Vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing your original research. Ghits seem irrelevant. MER-C 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. (G-Hits seem unrelated, and VSCA). - Rjd0060 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete:I think everything said above sums it up. Tiptoety 05:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tealy

Contested Prod. Original article said Tealy is somebody's old car. Current version says Tealy is somebody's old dog that rides in said car. Neither is notable nor verifiable. Ravenna1961 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: No explanation needed. - Rjd0060 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless independent sources can be found which establish notability. The assertion is there (implied based on distance traveled), so a speedy is right out. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, and yes, possible speedy. How is a estimate of how far a dog has travelled an assertion of notability, particularly without reference to how far any other dogs have travelled? - -- fchd (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know whether Tealy is a car (as the article originally said) or a dog (as an anonymous user edited the article to say). But I do know that there is no hope of being able to verify anything in this article as it currently stands. The article doesn't even give the full name of the subject's owner. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 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 redirect. W.marsh 22:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renegade Squadron

Deletion nomination Lacks any real-world context per WP:FICT and WP:WAF guidelines. Transwiki to wookiepedia and delete this from Wikipedia as it does not meet guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Or merge to Star Wars Battlefront: Renegade Squadron per the nom's comment. - Rjd0060 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. If Wookiepedia wants it, perform a transwiki first. The history is short; any admin there can do a complete import. Jay32183 23:38, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stew eaters

Prod removed[38], so here we are. At best, dic def neologism--zero relevant hits[39]. Ravenna1961 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable (and either a Dictionary Def. or a Neo. - Rjd0060 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No sources to back up entry, never heard this term used in anywhere. Konczewski 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. You'll not find nadeau, neadeau, Ari D. Goldmann, or Polar Bear Publishers either. Mandsford 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete dumb. JuJube 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam O'Donnell

Article has been tagged September 2007 for unestablished notability, with no reliable sources provided to verify the information. Article is a possible hoax, as Simon Smith has been listed as eBay Australia's Managing Director since at least April 2005[40], and the article creator's only other contributions have been vandalism. Dancter 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to be a hoax. Even if it weren't, I don't think he would be notable for his job title alone. - Rjd0060 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as probable hoax. JavaTenor (talk) 14:40, 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. W.marsh 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong inference plus

Prod removed, so here we are. Argument was made for notability due to being published in The Scientist magazine. However, it was NOT published as 'peer-reviewed research' or the like, just as an opinion piece/essay, making it strictly original research. All 11 Google hits trace back to the (2-year old) paper, suggesting it hasn't gained currency beyond the creator, a WP:SPA that created the Wikipedia version. Ravenna1961 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to be original research, and I can't find didly on the web. - Rjd0060 04:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
delete unlike Rjd0060, I do find some action on the web, it is being talked about on bioinformatics blogs... However, the ISI WOS lists the publication, and it has received zero citations thusfar. Notability may come for this topic, but I see no evidence of it yet from any reliable source. I'm mildly tempted to suggest merging with Strong inference, but know too little about the topics, and can't really endorse merging an article failing WP:N into anything else. Pete.Hurd 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

comment note also that some material in the article, e.g. the consecutive sentences

"3. Reject hypotheses by experimental observations until a single hypothesis remains that has survived an experimental test by which it could have been rejected. The remaining hypothesis is the “currently held view” of the “cause” of the observation. To the laity, the remaining hypothesis is "truth,” but the scientist knows that this currently-held view can change if new hypotheses arise from new knowledge."

in the WP article are lifted verbatim from the The Scientist article. Pete.Hurd 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It may not satisfy strict application of notability/WP:OR, but I still don't agree with deletion. I used a very similar methodology in my own research (although it predates the article under review). If someone has seen the method under a different name I'd be interested to hear. Ironically, none of the articles on scientific method here on Wikipedia actually describe a generalised method, they focus on subproblems like the hypothetico-deductive method or exploratory data analysis. Strong inference plus is different in this respect as it captures more of the scientific process. Pgr94 05:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "Strong inference plus" may well be a useful technique, per Pgr94, but it's not notable yet. The apparent plagiarism mentioned by Pete.Hurd needs to be taken care of, in any case. Tim Ross·^talk 20:39, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen A. Conrad

Non-notable professor, no calims of notability, but my speedy tag was removed for no good reason. Corvus cornix 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Google doesn't come up with much about people with this name. Being a professor doesn't make a person notable. - Rjd0060 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: article fails to make even the slightest claim of notability.--Prosfilaes 15:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

~~weak~~ delete a stub without claim of notability. I've looked at his publications list on his website, a fair proportion are contributions to biographical dictionaries, and specialist encyclopediae, but there do seem to be the solid, yet typical, academic publications. Absent some claim of notability for the impact of one or more of these, I'm in favor of deletion. Pete.Hurd 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Youth

A not notable band from South Africa that existed from 1978 to 1980 and not to be confused when googling with any other band or the Generation X song Wild Youth after which the band is named (yes, I've read it all). Malcolmxl5 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Doesn't assert any notability, and does not meet WP:BAND. No sources and a lot of self references throughout the article (like "I", "us", "we") which suggest a possible COI or copyvio. - Rjd0060 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep: delete the history/diatribe section, and references are needed if they are really the "first punk band"Cander0000 (talk) 07:03, 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. - hahnch e n 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 128

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Super Mario 128

Articles for deletion/Super Mario 128 (2nd nomination)

Don't know how this got through again. Non-notable tech demo showed at a trade show; the rest of the information claiming this is somehow Super Mario Galaxy is purely original research via synthesis. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:SYN. Chardish 02:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Super Mario Galaxy: Per the previous consensus, as there are very little actual contextual changes since the last AfD. - Rjd0060 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, do not redirect. The connection between this and SMG is far too small to warrant such a confusing redirect. However, I do not agree with the claim that this is not notable. The tech demo itself (or whatever it was) received quite a lot of press, far more than even most games receive. It definitely appears to meet our notability requirements. --- RockMFR 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whether it's notable or not (and I believe that it's not) doesn't change the fact that the article is pure original research via synthesis. From the article: During the GDC 2007, Miyamoto mentioned that Super Mario 128 was merely a demonstration to illustrate the power of the GameCube. That's it. Not a game. Assembling bits of interviews that insinuate that this was a game and that it's somehow more important than other tech demos flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. - Chardish 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  - The article doesn't refer to it as a videogame, merely mentions it's original as a possible sequel to Super Mario 64. The article goes on to include information about it's further development. Furthermore, footage of the demo itself is easily available on streaming websites. It's not more important than other tech demos, it's of equal importance. - Sheeeeeeep 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Mario 128 is a very well known series of technological demos and experiments that eventually made it into the Metroid, Zelda, Mario, and Pikmin series and has been referred to on and off by several Nintendo developers, however there has been changing emphasis on it's importance and exact nature. In the end, this is as equally important an article as similar ones for id Tech 5 or the Quake Engine, on this ground it is notable and thus shouldn't be deleted. It is verifiable because it comes straight from the source, Shigeru Miyamoto and Nintendo. It is not WP:SYN because it is not a comparison of different data or citations. It could use some cleaning up though. - Sheeeeeeep 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm not sure where the original research in question is; it appears that the project is mentioned by name in each instance given. I would wager that this is the most discussed tech demo of all time; proving so, it seems to me, would indeed involve "assembling bits of interviews," but isn't that how we're supposed to write articles? If the nomination boils down to the assumption that a tech demo must evolve into a game to be notable, I strongly disagree. Maxamegalon2000 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Assembling bits of interviews" is absoutely not how we are supposed to write articles: please read what "no original research" means and why Wikipedia prohibits original research - Chardish 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  - It is not original research. It is information taken from interviews from the creator of the project (and thus can be deemed unbiased fact) published in appropriate credible online websites and news sources such as IGN, Wired, GameSpy and CNN. - Sheeeeeeep 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read it, and I just read it again, and I'm not sure how "assembling bits of interviews" is different from "research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources," which "is 'source-based research'" "fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Maybe we're not talking about the same concept? --Maxa megalon 2000 07:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep How interesting. WP:V and WP:N seem well satisfied by the references in the article; in particular, it certainly is discussed in multiple reliable, independent sources. Whether it's a game or just a tech demo doesn't matter for Wikipedia:Notability. WP:OR and WP:SYN seem to be claimed in a completely mistaken interpretation of that policy; as has been pointed out above, quoting interviews falls under "collecting and organizing material from existing sources". Perhaps the article could use some cleanup, but I see nothing (besides a poorly-advertised previous AfD) that gives reason for removal of the article. Anomie 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Galaxy per Rjd - the target is because this an early speculation for the Mario Wii name . Appears to just be a series of snippets from interviews and not an article. The article doesn't even appear to claim notability - just stating that this was a demo of things that eventually turned up in games doesn't make the demo itself in any way notable. MLA 13:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Super Mario Galaxy is NOT Super Mario 128. Miyamoto has said so in interveiws. It's vaporware if anything. Doc Strange 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Redirecting to SMG would be a mistake (and an original research statement if you cannot provide a source that states that SM128 became only SMG.) This tech demo stayed around for almost a decade, and it apparently became the core of multiple games. Each of these game articles would logically link to SM128 as part of their development. This article, under proper guidance, could become an interesting source of information concerning the development of multiple games, as well as multiple consoles. The references are there, the article just needs some work.Youkai no unmei 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep well-known and distinct enough to warrant an article. — brighterorange (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep bad faith nom. Do not redirect, as it is not the same thing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is this a bad faith nom? - Chardish 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge somewhere - The information about Mario 128 should go somewhere, do we have an article on the history/development of Mario games? That would be ideal, make one stronger article and get ride of this weaker one. Judgesurreal777 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I recall a lot of press on this at the time it came out. The very definition of notable (it seems). Also its in no way OR, in any definition of the term. The nom needs to re-read OR in its entirety. The article does not claim that this is somehow SMG like the nom states either. Viperix 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - Mario 128 has received more press than many games that have actually been published. A "merge" would dilute the material. Ichormosquito (talk) 16:19, 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 Speedy delete by Doc glasgow. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Pivot Animators

Borderline speedy, but technically not because the "famous" claim could be an assertion of importance (even though it's untrue). Created by a SPA, entirely original research, and that subjective "famous" criterion again. Masaruemoto 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: "Made themselves famous"?? I don't think so. Non notable. - Rjd0060 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete A bunch of A7s lumped into one article that doesn't even explain what it's about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New England Institute of Technology

Unsourced article, majority of it consists of external links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a regionally accredited college that grants bachelor's degrees. As such, it's pretty much inherently notable enough to have an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Per above comment. Would like to see it expanded (including adding some additional sources) if possible but it is notable. - Rjd0060 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Inherently notable or not, it still requires sources to establish notability. I see none. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep As we have clear consensus that such degree-granting institutions are inherently notable, there is no need to establish notability. It is notable because it is a non-profit degree-granting institution. Alansohn 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep How about these sources? That's 500+ references to the institution right there. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all the above comments. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 17:03, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries with organic agriculture regulation

Unsourced linkfarm. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article is neither unsourced nor a linkfarm and is entirely encyclopedic; declared sources are stated in the footer of each table, and a link to an official government website is provided whenever possible. The article was originally created by 217.91.43.223 (talk · contribs) and added to Organic food, but due to its length, was split out, and now resides as a link below Organic_food#Legal_definition. Does the article need some cleanup, including the conversion of cited sources and external links to inline refs? Sure. Certainly not a reason to delete. —Viriditas | Talk 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
keep it's a list, so we can excuse the lack of encyclopedic sysnthes of the topic, but the sourcing that is present demonstrates that it is a verifyable topic. This data seems likely to be used to provide RS data for existing articles on the implementation of standards for organic farming (a topic meeting WP:N), which makes it encyclopedic IMHO. Pete.Hurd 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Per above comments. Completely disagree with both reasons for nomination. It isn't trying to present itself as an article, hence the title "List of...". - Rjd0060 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup. Looked as though it should be a deletable article but content seems notable for a list. Should be cleaned up with much more context and possibly could be too long. MLA 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Delete Not that organic farming isn't worthy of mention, but this is a beautifully wrapped package of nothing. The information in this voluminous, impressive looking table could be summed up in a single paragraph in organic farming. I learned that there are some countries where the regulations are "fully implemented". There are some countries where the regulations are "not fully implemented". That's all. Mandsford 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't take this the wrong way, but there was a time on Wikipedia, years before you arrived, when editors would actually contribute to and expand articles, not delete them. I know it sounds strange, but I was there. —Viriditas | Talk 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  - How noble of you. There are times when I try to "improve" an article to keep it from being deleted. In this case, my version of a rewrite would be more of an insult to the author than would a deletion, if that's how this comes out. If I were to "be bold" and to implement my idea (which is to scrap the table and turn it into a narrative of the fully and not-fully nations), I would be destroying the author's mode of presentation. And if I were the author, I'd me angrier at one person doing a rewrite than I would at a deletion by a group. I suppose that you could "expand" the article by looking up stats for 110 nations. Knock yourself out. Mandsford 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    - All kidding aside, you will notice that I didn't vote keep or delete. The only reason this article exists is because I saved the work of an anonymous contributor who took the time to try to add information to the encyclopedia, only to have his/her work deleted by other editors. I took the approach of preserving the data and placing it in a new article. I think the article has potential for expansion, and I find it interesting to compare the standards around the world. The narrative approach works for a small set of data (best for summary style) and this is actually achieved in part, in Organic_certification#Certification_around_the_world. But certification is only one aspect of the regulatory data, and the presentation of additional information in list format allows one to quickly compare related sets, such as the breakdown of the percentage of organic ingredients that certification entails, and other facts and statistics. Ironically, this would have the benefit of merging facts and statistics from the organic food, farming, and certification articles, into a more cohesive presentation; at the moment, this data appears all over the place, and cannot be easily viewed on one screen. The list allows one to do this, and to place the data in their associated categories which can be sorted in the table. —Viriditas | Talk 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable subject, well presented. Definitely not a linkfarm, and definitely not unsourced. --Gene_poole 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Links are the verification. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

~~The result was Keep, page has been rewritten, cleaned up and sourced, WP:SNOW also applies. Non-admin closure.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep, page has been rewritten, cleaned up and sourced, WP:SNOW also applies. Reclosed by admin (to make sure it sticks). -- Jreferee t/c 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theaters Against War

~~Unsourced linkfarm. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)~~ (edit conflict with closure) Withdrawn. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment : I'm taking a shot tonight at sourcing it and removing the linkfarm, so in a few hours take a look at the article and see what y'all think. Might be deleted anyway, but at least it won't be an unsourced linkfarm. -- ArglebargleIV 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- By all means, anyone is more than welcome to clean it up. I personally thought it was beyond repair myself. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep: Appears to be notable, with at least one good source that isn't in the article. Hopefully ArglebargleIV does the work on it. - Rjd0060 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per WP:HEY. ArglebargleIV came through in fine style. I started to add a stub tag, and decided against it as the material that's now in the article is well-referenced and neutral. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep : I've completed a first pass on it (diff). Sources are there -- I had found the Times article mentioned above, and a few others. I think my prose could use some cleanup and extension. The linkfarm is gone, replaced by a reference to the primary source page it was taken from. My main concern would be is significance, but I think it's just significant enough. -- ArglebargleIV 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Skomorokh ^incite 10:44, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margareta Svensson

Promotional autobiography created by Margareta Svensson. Regardless of warnings, she has continually removed COI tags, notability tags, etc. Some of the information is just blatantly false like the claim her part in a commercial for the Finnish newspaper Ilta Sanomat was chosen in 2002 by British BBC to be included in the television show "Commercial Breakdown" which...isn't what happened. The commercial itself was shown on the television show, she herself was not singled out. While the article claims that she appeared in the CourtTV episode "North Mission Road", IMDB has absolutely nothing on her. The entire article is filled with claims...and nothing at all to corroborate any of them. IrishGuy ^talk 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete A jobbing entertainer who has done nothing of note. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Malcolmxl5 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I don't know what the reference links contain, as I can only read English, but reading the article itself, the person doesn't appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 04:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I see nothing but fluff. Pigman^what?/trail 06:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. The Swedish links demonstrate some marginal notability (at least name recognition in Sweden). The COI is a tipping factor here for me. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per nom. --NAHID 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zinkplaat

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zinkplaat

Articles for deletion/Zinkplaat (2nd nomination)

A recreated article about a not notable band from South Africa. It has been up for AfD before when it was speedy deleted but this, I guess, has different content as it has a bit more than the "riding a truck through South Africa" mentioned in the first AfD so no speedy for recreation of deleted content. Still not notable though. --Malcolmxl5 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable, but there aren't even any sources. The one reference that is there, is not English, so I can't read it, however it is titled as a "blog", which isn't reliable. - Rjd0060 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable. Agree with Rjd0060. Lara❤Love 18:50, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of musicians and composers who have died accidentally at the hands of others

Far too narrow in scope, such a specific criterion means this has little encyclopedic value. Not quite as specific as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died in the bathroom, or even List of people who died with tortoises on their heads, but nearly. Masaruemoto 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete - 2 of the 3 people listed didn't even "accidentally" die, according to the article itself. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. It will be next to impossible to add meaningful content to this list. Only reference from a "fansite", which isn't reliable anyways. - Rjd0060 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a random intersection of topics, and thus not a reasonable basis for a list. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. JJL 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of above. Most of this seems to be copied from the website The Dead Rock Stars Club Doc Strange 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as described above. Might be useful in a game of TriBond. Mandsford 02:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The crying machine

A song on a Steve Vai album. No content to the article. Looks like no assertion of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Pointless article. No content, other than the song exists, and that point is already made here. - Rjd0060 04:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I haven't found any evidence that the song has stand-alone notability in spite of doing a search for separate sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:59, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Pope

This very short article provides so little in the way of useful information it almost worthless. It seems to be an attempt at a dab page for a search term that is unlikely to be used by anyone. Any necessary information on this very controversial, and highly contested, topic is available in the articles to which this article refers, i.e., on the two respective Popes, as well as the two book titles listed in the See Also section. Without references, an article with such a title, if referring only to the current Pope Benedict XVI, would violate BLP. Simply put, the term is inflammatory, and it is highly unlikely anyone would search Wikipedia for an article with such a title. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

redirect to Pope Pius XII. ^Law/_Disorder 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Such a redirect would imply that "Nazi Pope" is a legitimate term of reference for Pope Pius XII. That would be not only wholly inappropriate but offensive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't imply anything other then that it's something people use. i've heard of him referred to as such. ^Law/_Disorder 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And that matters because? JuJube 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms" - WP:REDIRECT. Are you done being incivil to me? ^Law/_Disorder 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless there is strong evidence that the term is widely used. I removed Pope Benedict XVI from that page to satisfy the rules on biographies of living persons. - Chardish 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Chardish. Redirect would be inappropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per Chardish. Also agree, a redirect would be absolutely inappropriate. - Rjd0060 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Do not redirect Unfixably POV. --Folantin 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No deposit, no redirect per above. I'm aware that there are people who have heard of the person who was Pope during World War II, and wouldn't know that it was Pius XII. However, "I've heard this term" doesn't excuse namecalling. Would you type in "Polack Pope" to find John Paul II? Mandsford 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not namecalling... why assume that i'm trying to push some agenda? the redirect would be usefull and thats alwase a good reason to makea redirect.^Law/_Disorder 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd hate to know which adjectives might be useful for a redirect to a page on Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. We're the ones trying to push an agenda, not you. Some of us are of the opinion that terms like "Nazi Pope" are offensive and shouldn't be tolerated. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If he was commonly referred to "happy happy joy joy pope" we would redirect from that too. Do you dislike "nazi pope" because it makes you uncomfortable? ^Law/_Disorder 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Annul per nom. JuJube 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Exorcise per nom. Noroton (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not an article we need or want Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 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 Delete since the lack of reliable sources has not been addressed. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VikingBall

Non-notable local variant of street hockey. No independent sources of information about the sport to verify the subject. This article is just one notch up from something made up after school one day, in my opinion. (Note to closing admin: a redirect to this article exists at Vikingball.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Although it is a little more than something made up, it doesn't appear to be really notable. A google search brings up a bunch of hits, but all unrelated. - Rjd0060 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original prodder (there must be a better word). Prod reason was: "A sport invented in 2006. The 43 Google hits are almost exclusively brief mentions in forums, blogs etc. The best source appears to be here: [41]. According to the official website, at the moment it is played by only 2 teams." Unnotable. -- Kateshort forbob 10:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: It's gaining notoriety, a Youtube video introduction is on the way up. There is some interest from Canadian hockey players. A fairly dedicated group of people regularly play. There are considerably less notable things on Wikipedia, this could be of interest to many looking for a chance to try a new but familiar sport similar to street hockey. We are attempting to attract more people, and if a free online encyclopedia that is geared toward universal access won't allow something to take up this minimal amount of bandwidth, what good is a site like this? The article does no harm, only good, in that it may help our program to become "more notable" and perhaps then fit for the lofty standards it apparently requires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.187 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation stricken as courtesy to other participants. As a matter of practice, !votes from IP addresses are discounted because they cannot be linked to specific users. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to advertise your sport, there are many other sites that are good for promoting it. Once it has gotten coverage in independent reliable sources, then the issue of whether it is an encylopedic subject can be revisited. (I mean, if TSN or ESPN do a story on it, then the sources hurdle is cleared easily.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is some interest from a local paper (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) to do a story on it. Is that acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.187 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction. The standard calls for multiple independent sources. I mentioned TSN or ESPN specifically because of their international scope, which would provide clear evidence of notability. Coverage in a single local-paper article would not suffice. Coverage in multiple articles would. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lance A. Perry

Self-created vanity article. Two links show the person with one $36,000 finish in a significant tournament. Plus limited text is "formidable player" promo/advert stuff. 2005 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable person. - Rjd0060 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom and WP:CSD#A7. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lance who? Alberon 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom - not notable -Pumpmeup 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 08:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm With Cupid (band)

A band from Brooklyn. Article created by single-purpose account, which happens to be named after a band member. Tagged for notability since April 2007. No sources. Fails WP:N. Fails WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Shouldn't this qualify for db-band? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - I've never had any luck with dbs and prods when it comes to bands. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Prob. speedy. No assertion. - Rjd0060 04:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Chung Lee

Contested PROD; it's not usual to have an article about a graduate student who has not finished their doctoral degree. There would have to be exceptional evidence of notability as per WP:PROF, and it's just not demonstrated here, even after the edits by the editor who removed the PROD tag. Delete. SparsityProblem 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
delete I see no notable achievements here. If there are reliable secondary sources providing extensive coverage of Johnny Chung Lee (so as to satisfy WP:N with WP:RS) then I'd be glad to change my position. Pete.Hurd 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No sources to verify any notability (if there is any). - Rjd0060 04:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can see no possible way he's notable as a scientist. if his inexpensive steadycam is more than a clever device, and truly important in the industry, that might be another matter, but the references dont really show that. I doubt they show him notable as an artist either. I think many people here may find one of those references fascinating [42] , but it isnt about him--I do not see that he is even mentioned. DGG (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The $14 Steady-Cam made quite a blog splash in pre-Digg days and I thought it may just satisfy general notability, but it appears to have garnered few reliable sources. That's his best claim, alas. Cool guy, not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --Crusio 09:54, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Called to Arms

Seems to be a local band from North Carolina. Author made only 1 other edit. Their albums are available through their myspace page. Fails WP:N. No reliable third-party sources.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable band, and no 3rd party reliable sources. - Rjd0060 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life art but bread and butter

The article covers a poem that is completely non-notable and yields no results on a Google search. Also, the article is completely unreferenced, so there is no evidence supporting it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Tiptoety 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is laying on the edge of an ignore all rules speedy. I don't see any reputable sources demonstrating the importance of this. If the author can give sources shortly as to why this is important, I won't delete, but otherwise... this is awfully close. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: It isn't notable. - Rjd0060 04:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete It's not WP:IAR, it's WP:CSD#A7 if not WP:CSD#G1. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Made up in school one afternoon, no doubt. --Folantin 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio (CSD G12). WjBscribe 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProLine Message Center Editor

An unsourced article about a seemingly unnotable program. I didn't see any evidence of notability when I googled it. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 11:42, 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, WjBscribe 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. I can source it. In fact, I can source this exact text, cut'n'pasted off the URL listed there. Tagged speedy for copyvio. DMacks 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as bio that does not assert notability (CSD A7) - I should really have looked at the article before relisting. WjBscribe 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Hussey

Non-notable DJ, Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 04:09, 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, WjBscribe 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete - no content, no assertion of notability (being a DJ alone is not an assertion of notability). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no content, fails WP:BIO. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. GlassCobra 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B.F.L

Proposed deletion tag was removed. Appears to be someone's (non-notable) fantasy football league. Snigbrook 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A fictional league that is not actually featured in fiction isn't notable. It would appear that a fictional article is also in order. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. (it isn't notable). - Rjd0060 05:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. This shouldn't have even made it this far. The article makes no claims of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. I prodded this article last night. Based on the user's subsequent message on my talk page, I'm not sure they completely 'get' WP yet. I've replied on their talk to try and clear it up. -- Kateshort forbob 10:06, 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. Pigman☿ 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelly Furtado extended discography

This article is chart-cruft, list-cruft, fancruft. There is already an article on this artist and a discography page for her. This is excessive, not needed and sets a very bad precedent for "extended" discography pages for countless other artists. There are formatting problems (such as boldfaced chart positions, which go against WP:NPOV) and all these are minor music markets at best, which go against WP:CHARTS, and the album and song descriptions are redundant and already explained in other articles. From what I can recall from past pop-music-related discussions, isn't there also a POV problem with the separation of various countries into different tables too? Worst of all, I see no reliable sources anywhere. (Note I've copied most of this text from my response within the article's Talk Page.) - eo 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Much of markets in that article make up less than 1% of the music industry. WP:UNDUE says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." So there's no need whatsoever to give as much weight to those minor countries as say the U.S. or the UK. Besides, Nelly Furtado discography is close a featured list. This will set a very bad precedence for other pop musician discographies. Spellcast 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article looks more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article. And while there is nothing wrong with supporting and reveling in an actress' success, this article doesn't have an neutral tone. And as eo said, references are missing from this article. I really don't see an encyclopedia article here.--Mumia-w-18 02:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Nelly Furtado discography.
- I reread the content of the article and could find no "revelry". On the contrary, I found it difficult to identify the bias that is claimed to be there. Could the previous commentors cite the lines that show bias?
- A fan site is characterized by "excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links" (see Template:fansite), but I couldn't find any of that on this page. Bear in mind that Wikipedia guidelines differentiate charts from lists.
- I haven't been able to find a guideline on "chart-cruft" anywhere. Could you cite the link?
- WP:UNDUE is misapplied here because this article does not "compare views." As previously noted, the article seems to be pretty objective. The charts may cover "minor" music markets, but a typical Western bias is represented when it is claimed that the only charts that matter are the US and Europe, especially considering this artist's relationship to South America. That kind of discrimination is forbidden by WP:BIAS, which states that articles must "represent a worldwide view of the subject." (Even if WP:UNDUE applied, it's been proposed to give no coverage at all to the rest of the world. Can most of Asia and all of Africa and South America really be considered a "tiny-minority" view?)
- The article is not properly cited (like most articles on Wikipedia), but no attempt was made to tag the article first. WP:GD states "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." No attempt was made to do so. I don't edit this article, but if you look at the history, one person routinely does. Was any attempt made to alert that user that the article needed improvement?
- Don't get me wrong, I believe extended discographies are unnecessary. There is no reason why two pages need exist. But isn't the more readily employed solution to merge the two? Bsherr 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there is nothing to merge - the main discography page is comprehensive enough. Putting long album descriptions in a discog page is redundant - all of that text is already within the albums pages, which are wikilinked. In fact, I reverted the "merge" you went ahead and performed anyway, which consisted of taking almost ALL of the text in the "extended" discography and placing it into the main discography. - eo 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I presented that as an illustration. The deletion guide permits a merge during an AfD to demonstrate effect. I meant to note it in my comment. As you would have seen, it doesn't substantially depart from the content and balance of the existing discography. Perhaps the content describing the albums is redundant with the album pages. Isn't the solution then to merge it with the album pages? Why are we so quick to delete without considering alternatives? Also, are you able to cite that chart-cruft guideline? I want to read it to make sure I'm not saying something wrong. Bsherr 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Keep The article provides a rarely documented on WP look on society's popular opinion on that artist. Charts don't say everything.Patcat88 —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Most (if not all) of the info is already included in Nelly Furtado discography. - Rjd0060 05:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is not the venue to "say everything". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Which of the five items in that list, or among the other sections of WP:ISNOT, does this article fall into? Bsherr 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Nelly Furtado discography. No other artist - not even The Beatles or Pink Floyd - have an "extended discography". So why should Nelly Furtado. Doc Strange 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Nelly Furtado discography includes the necessary information. Lara❤Love 18:45, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Logic users

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people who use the same software, WP:SPAM, subjective inclusion criterion ("famous"), and the single source is the company's own website. Masaruemoto 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Mentioning highlights at Logic Pro#Notable users may be appropriate, but this page simply parrots an advertisement. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Torc2 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per above (Ad and directory-like). - Rjd0060 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Majoreditor 22:03, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salma Shah

The Salma Shah in the article does not appear in the first two Google pages of a search on her name. Therefore, the article's subject isn't sufficiently notable, and the article should be deleted. Additionally, no information can be found though Google to help verify the claims made about her in the article.--Mumia-w-18 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, perhaps speedily Nearly all the material on this page originates with the same cluster of IP addresses, who have also added some clear nonsense. Most of the latter has been deleted, including some by myself just now. Some of what remains may also be nonsense/hoax. WP:V and WP:N. WP:BLP might make this a speedy. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Notability and sourcing issues. - Rjd0060 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no imdb entry at all, and no lissting on any Bollywood sites I checked.Moheroy 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unable to find any evidence of claimed notability - maybe hoax. Snigbrook 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete speedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.162.203 (talk) 22:52, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commissioner v. Boylston Market Association

lawsuit... i did a google search and I was only able to get 5 g-hits. [43] maybe some sources to show that this is a notable case, it could be kept... ^Law/_Disorder 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability. Did the case generate significant media coverage? Has it been widely cited in other rulings? Absent anything like that, it's not notable. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
delete per BlueMoonlet, without some synthesis, putting the case's impact into a context, there can be no claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No sources, and no notability that I can find. - Rjd0060 05:09, 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 due to nominator withdrawing and the rewrite done by Skmorokh after most delete opinions had been made. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hutch (Sound Engineer)

An article on the guy who does sound for Queens of the Stone Age. ~~OMGzorz, this fails WP:N like it's going out of style.~~ AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Fails WP:BIO, says that he is not even a part of the band but just an extra member they use, i would have tagged this one for CSDA7. Tiptoety 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable. If anybody feels he actually is, then merge to Queens of the Stone Age. Didn't think so. - Rjd0060 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Or merge as Rjd0060 says. Alberon 09:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per WP:HEY - Subject is a member of a notable band, Queens of the Stone Age, as established by multiple, independent reliable sources not limited to Kerrang!, Metal Hammer, Yahoo Music and Drowned in Sound; see Hutch (sound engineer)#References for verification. If these sources establish subject as a member of Queens of the Stone Age, the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion, and the content is sufficiently comprehensive to merit a separate article from the main band article. Skomorokh ^incite 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge then delete to Queens of the Stone Age. There really isn't a need for a separate article -Pumpmeup 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Queens of the Stone Age article? It contains very little in the way of biographical information about the contributors. The vast majority of content of the Hutch (sound engineer) article is reliably sourced biographical information that would be out of place in the already too long Queens of the Stone Age article. Could you please explain your rationale? Skomorokh ^incite 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - some things came to mind when I read this post.

(1) Hutch isn't even listed in the main article as a "band member", except in the infobox. Outside of there, he's mentioned twice.

(2) You refer to WP:SIZE, but according to that essay, this QOTSA article isn't even remotely too long. For example, Russia is a much huger article, with justified breakouts by category. The QOTSA article could be quite a bit longer - and if the added content was as thoroughly and professionally sourced as the main article, I think it'd make the main article even more impressive.

(3) WP:SIZE also asserts that "a relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself". Maybe some people feel that a typical band's sound engineer is too trivial a topic for a separate article? I guess that's up for debate - drawing an analogy with Hawkwind, there's an (unsourced) article on their dancer Stacia, but none on Del Dettmar who actually made noises that got recorded. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

withdraw by nom - I just went back to look at Hutch (sound engineer), and the recent upgrades and sourcing by Skomorokh have tremendously improved the article. It's now better-sourced than 90% of our music articles, and I think the NME source in particular establishes more notability than what we usually get. Admin please withdraw this AfD (unless someone else feels it should continue). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:50, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Christian Schools

Complete absence of encyclopedic information. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Hús ö nd 01:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete:Per nom. Tiptoety 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable, and no assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 05:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment ~~Keep~~ There are quite a number of articles on schools with no particular assertion of notability other than being a school in the United States (e.g., see Category:High schools in the United States). Unless someone can point to a policy delineating why some schools are notable while others aren't, I don't see how this one is different. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you can point a policy delineating why are those schools notable in the first place, then your argument regarding this one is sound. Hús ö nd 06:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit mystified as to why there are so many school articles, but this seems like an issue that should be dealt with in a general way, rather than with piecemeal AfD's. I've taken a couple steps to get some people with experience with schools to comment. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at another AfD from this same day, several people comment that "high schools are notable" in general, and someone pointed to a statement to that effect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus's essay, posted below, gives me the answer I was looking for. I understand now that the issue of whether schools are inherently notable is one on which consensus has long been attempted in vain, thus the lack of a policy. I actually rather agree with the view that they are not. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Also see WP:WAX. - Rjd0060 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Also delete the school articles BlueMoonlet is thinking about. ;) Seriously, though, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. -- Eusebeus (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Eusebeus. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is another NN school and does not assert notability. --Stormbay (talk) 22:08, 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 as a complete hoax. — Caknuck (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian K. Lassen II

this one looked legitiment at first glance... i made some improvements... but i can't find anything to back up the claims in the article besides some vague references that show there is a person by this name who practices law. ^Law/_Disorder 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources cited to verify assertions of notability, which are pretty weak to begin with. Created by single-purpose account. Likely vanity page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per above. Does not appear to be notable, no sources. - Rjd0060 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ RaptoriaL

Let's see. A 16-year-old Bulgarian "DJ" has sold over a million records in Bulgaria alone, says this completely unsourced article created by a single-purpose account. Given that he's so popular in Bulgaria, even an English-language search should pick up more than 6 ghits, no? Possible WP:HOAX. Bulgarians please weigh in. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Unless sources can be found to verify the claim of notability. - Rjd0060 05:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not Bulgarian, but am familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet so I tried Googling several possible Cyrillic transliterations of "Raptorial" (Рапториял, Рапторияљ, Рапторял, Рапторяљ) and nothing came up. Phil Bridger 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Phil Bridger. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 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 delete as blatant hoax. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Charlton

Article on a player for the Portland Trail Blazers who retired in 2001 - age 16. And now he lives in Western Australia? I know no basketball, but couldn't find a ghit for "Mark Charlton" "Portland Trail Blazers" other than Wikipedia. Suspected WP:HOAX. In any case, seems to fail WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete not verifiable, Laudak 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete:No Secondary sources, WP:V. Tiptoety 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Definite hoax. Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not listed on basketball-reference.com. Agree likely hoax. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a hoax. No one younger than 18 has ever played in the league. The youngest player ever was Andrew Bynum. Zagalejo^^^ 04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Hoax. - Rjd0060 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete A total brick, erm, hoax... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Zardo

Stub article on a guy who does Italodisco mixes. No outside sources, no assertion of notability. I hate counting ghits, but this one only comes up with 99, with very little of any value. Fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete. No verifiable glory. Laudak 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Call me crazy, but I can't find the assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
speedy delete. No assertion of notability.P4k (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everybody. I agree with Rjd0060and P4k regarding the absence of assertion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 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, replace by redirect. The article is nothing but exposition of the originator of the neologism. No evidence of 3rd party active usage of the term presented. `'Míkka>t 08:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment after close - P.S. For historical record: It was previously deleted twice: * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Spime, *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spime (theory). -- Laudak 08:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The first (in November 2004) was deleted as a copyvio , the second (in 2006) was apparently a different article (possibly a content fork) about someone else's theory - see this comment, also the Spime article just deleted now was first created in December 2004 and was not deleted in 2006. Snigbrook (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spime

A sci-fi neologism of a sci fi writer Bruce Sterling. No evidence of any serious usage beyond Sterling's writings and some blogs. -- Laudak 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Selective merge and redirect to Bruce Sterling. No in-depth coverage, but wide enough coverage per Google news search that it's sensible someone would be searching for the term on here. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What exactly you mean by "google news coverage". In my google 4 news: one hit for Sterling's and 3 hits for a "Spime, Inc." of dubious notability. -- Laudak 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the search I ran. ~Eliz81^(C) 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you care to look thru this short list terminated in 2006? It was a blip, sizzled. Laudak (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it looks like there's enough coverage on Google News and other sources to establish notability. Snigbrook 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per NEO, and notability (4 hits ain't going to cut it). - Rjd0060 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per Rjd0060. Tiptoety 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep widespread coverage, particularly in the academic/design theory sphere[44] Artw 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't check this list: 50% are the typo for "spline", both in biology and maths :-) 30% are foreign language word with different meanings. Laudak (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Artw; concept is widely utilized in the academic literature. Skomorokh ^incite 10:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Can non members vote? There's no question this term has gained acceptance beyond Sterling's writing in the theory of digital objects and physical computing. -- 89.150.74.120 (talk • contribs • logs) 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Artw. -- PAW (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- Darrik2 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Worth noting that Sterling didn't coin the term in his capacity as a sci-fi author, but for a design class he was teaching. It's since spread well beyond him, as others have noted above. Poisonink (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Per Laudak's comments, I, too, can find little usage beyond that connected with Sterling. It may be notable that there is a company by the name Spime Inc. which has "Spime" as a registered trademark, accounting for quite a few search-engine hits. Tim Ross•^talk 20:26, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinnamon challenge

non-notable internet meme. ^Law/_Disorder 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete non-notabe and hardly "meme". Laudak 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: What a joke. Non notable. - Rjd0060 05:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete dumb. JuJube 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Cox

Unsourced article on Canadian radio DJ and show programmer. The only possible claim to notability in this article is that he was on MTV with the Backstreet Boys as they went to visit the Great Wall. Article seems to have been created and shepherded by a single-purpose account, suspect violation of WP:AUTO. Doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:RS, and since it's unsourced it's probably a violation of WP:BIO. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete unverifiable. google for "cory cox" + china gives nothing useful. Looks like a hoax. Laudak 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:RS Snigbrook 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Unless somebody can dig up some reliable sources to verify the notability. - Rjd0060 05:22, 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 Withdrawn/Keep. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edison High School (Fresno, California)

Contested PROD 1 day before expiry. ~~This high school doesn't assert any notability~~. Rjd0060 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Based on the work of User:Alansohn. Rjd0060 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. Hús ö nd 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Article may be a stub but there are references that establish some notability. See Fresno Bee article, Scout article, Fresno Bee article from 1939 --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Article does not assert notability. Tiptoety 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Hdt83. ^Law/_Disorder 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep: Per Hdt83, it has received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Though it does need expansion. Tiptoety 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Received 3rd party coverage and high schools are notable. --Oakshade 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep High Schools are notable, sure it can be improved but let it be a stub. A lot of excellent High School pages have been created that started out this way.Moheroy 07:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Above and beyond the general consensus summarized at WP:OUTCOMES that high schools are notable, this article provides details on its programs and alumni, accompanied with reliable and verifiable sources, to establish notability. Alansohn 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Your comment above makes the entire AfD reason that I provided look misleading, so I feel it appropriate to point out that you greatly added to the article since the AfD began. Good Work!! - Rjd0060 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While I am of the opinion that almost all high schools have the sources to be expanded as this one has, the article as it existed when the AfD was initiated was no more than a stub. There is no reason to believe that the nomination was misleading or anything other than good faith. Thanks for being sufficiently open-minded to change your opinion based on the recent edits. Alansohn 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - more great work by Alansohn has clearly established notability. TerriersFan 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article appears notable. I presume it's been expanded since nomination, good for it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - nice work. Arthur 18:50, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck fresh

nn biography. couldn't find any reliable secondary sources and all g'hits seem either inconsiquential or self-promotional. ^Law/_Disorder 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

delete not enough glory. Laudak 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete incidental coverage, no reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of extensive, independent sources in existence. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Plus, the lowecase last name should be a dead giveaway.... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Fails N, BIO. - Rjd0060 05:23, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadband Internet access in the United Kingdom

I'm not completely sure about this one. It certainly isn't written in an enclopedic style, and I don't believe it is possible to change it into an encyclopedic article, since it reads more like an overview written by British Telecom about their great DSL technology, thereby lacking coverage of other technologies such as cable internet. It seems that the content was moved from Telecommunications in the United Kingdom without much discussion. (diff) Han-Kwang (t) 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

keep. Valid topic. Bad style not reason for deletion. What's wrong naving an article about great DSL from British Telecom. It is not about "great myDSL" from "Tyne Dock Warez" Laudak 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
delete - even if well-written it would be duplicate of Telecommunications in the United Kingdom. ^Law/_Disorder 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lets see how the article progress and later could take key points and merge it with Telecommunications in the United Kingdom. Jayson 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep needs improvement and expansion, as is it is written with a rather techy emphasis. I can see how this can become more then a fork of the Telecommunications in the United Kingdom article, by inclusion of material on the social consequences of widespread broadband access, for example it has been linked to the very large take up of social networking in the UK.KTo288 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep details market moves of various companies. It is DSL centric, but not for one particular company.Patcat88 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep seems a valid fork per WP:SUMMARY. This is a more detailed topic split off from a larger one, and seems quite a valid way to handle it. Article needs major clean up, but this is not a deletion issue. Poorly written articles need cleanup not deletion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: A few more sources (other than the reliable BBC News) wouldn't hurt. Definitely a valid topic, as mentioned above. - Rjd0060 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I realized later that it is part of Category:Broadband Internet access by country, that has some articles that have a better style, but most of them IMO don't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT#DIR: "Wikipedia articles are not sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. [...] lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, [...]". Most articles in this category are basically market directories with prices. But I guess I won't find support for proposing a category-wide deletion... Han-Kwang (t) 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a valdi topic and it can be well written. I don't think its a directory as that would just be a list. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per practically everyone else here. AfD's shouldn't be made if the nominator isn't "sure" about their own opinion about deletion. Rray 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - valid subject. Think outside the box 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Valid topic, and should be kept, even if bad style. :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:41, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viessmann

No secondary sources found, wp:de article appears to have the same issue with sourcing. Appears to fail WP:CORP in the English realm spryde | talk 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 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, Daniel 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable, no assertion of notability, speedy candidate. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ace Yilma

Non-notable person. No sourcing found through usual methods. Other than WP, google shows nothing about him. spryde | talk 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 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, Daniel 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N guidelines quite easily. Seems non-notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:16, 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. Due to lack of independant sources. CitiCat ^♫ 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Upton

Could very well be wrong, but can't find any serious evidence of notability. Seems to be your typical New Age fringe thinker, with works published by publishing houses specially devoted to the purpose of publication of New Age oddness. Part of a major walled garden that's built up around Category:Traditionalism, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for more details. Moreschi ^Talk 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

weak keep -- seems to be reasonably notable, even if strictly within the field of New Age oddness. The problem in establishing notability appears to be that there are lots of unrelated people called Charles Upton. His bestselling books seem to range in the 600,000s in terms of amazon.com sales rank -- which doesn't make him an encyclopedic must-have, but still may establish sufficient notability for authors. If at all possible, merge him into some list or larger New Age topic. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to traditionalism? Beat generation? I suspect he may be more notable as poet than thinker. Moreschi ^Talk 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
weak keep - seems his collection of papers is at UConn, according to that first link. Sure, alarm bells should go off when we discover a walled garden around a new-age publishing house, but it doesn't always mean every brick is fake - just most of them. Then again, to me, Amazon rank of 600,000 denotes little to no notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge - just not enough evidence that he's notable in his own right, or thatt the information is accurate enough to keep. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:38, 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, Daniel 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I see no evidence of independent sources. We have lists of his works (trivial), self-published sources, and sources published by his own publishing house (which lack independence). Without independent sources, notability cannot be established. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Isn't 'new age thinker' a contradiction in terms? Nick mallory 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Jayron32 - no evidence of discussion of author or works in secondary sources, no awards, etc. Hal peridol 23:27, 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 keep. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suryamukhi

Fails future film guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep per citations in article, and this AP article. It sounds like it might meet the criteria for future films currently in production, in that the casting decisions received coverage, and a former Indian movie star (Madhuri Dixit) is making (or was to make) her comeback in it. I'll add the news article to the links section. ~Eliz81^(C) 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 04:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep There seems to be enough here to be beyond the WP:CBALL test, this appears to be a real, wide-release movie in production, and I am inclined to believe based on that it is notable enough to keep. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The refs cited are enough to give this notability already. Phil Bridger 13:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Renaming/rewriting is an editorial task, it doesn't seem like anyone actually wants to delete the article at his point, so I'll close the AFD. W.marsh 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeAgostini Hellas

Only 5 non-wiki ghits in English, none of which show notability. No sources offered in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename to De Agostini Editore [45] or perhaps even Gruppo De Agostini, which appears to be the parent company [46]; neither currently appear to have an article. From what I can tell without reading Italian De Agostini Editore appears to be a major multinational publishing company, of which the Greek company is just one branch. "De Agostini Editore" has 47,400 Google hits [47], and "De Agostini" publishing gives 218,000 [48]. Espresso Addict 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't know what he have to do really. DeAgostini Hellas is a famous company in Greece because it makes many commercials. On the other hand, if it is an international company there is no need to have a special article for the Greek branch since theres is not much valuable information. I would say merge with DeAgostini Editore but article doesn't exist! -- Magioladitis 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- After reading Espresso Addict's comment, this is also how I feel. Anyone want to volunteer to write it? :) --Fabrictramp 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There's this and then there's also this, the later being - acording to the italian article-, a joint venture between the first and es:Grupo Planeta. And they all seem notable. :) Cattus ^talk 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 04:18, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilva Liepiņa

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ilva Liepiņa

Articles for deletion/Ilva Liepiņa (2nd nomination)

Non-notable news anchor in a small country fails inclusion criteria per WP:BIO. No coverage in independent reliable sources means no verifiability. No new information in the year since the last AfD. Valrith 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Only source listed is the station where she works at; this is a primary source and citing it should be avoided by the encyclopedia. Agree with nominator's argument. A Train^talk 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per WP:BIAS, and also per all the "keep" arguments in the previous AfD. Yes, Latvia is a small country. Yes, you won't find much about her on the English-speaking internet (can you speak Latvian?) None of that is a reason for delete. She's a news anchor on a national TV. How would people start reacting if articles on news anchors or other TV personalities from the US, UK etc. are deleted? Please always remember WP:BIAS. -- Ekjon Lok 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All googled texts in English are based on this article (or a former version of it). I also googled and yandexed on the Cyrillic version of her name, and found nada (seems she is unknown among Russian speakers in Latvia). If we had at least one English source which may explain how well she is known in her own country (er, that way we obey WP:BIAS) ... No mention of any awards... I'll go with the Latvian sysop who did not know her either. --Paul Pieniezny 14:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 04:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete no evidence that reliable sources exist to expand this article past "Person X holds job Y". Holding a job, even one like "news anchor", does not make one notable. Reliable sources with extensive coverage do. I see no evidence of that yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. The Latvian Wikipedia does not have an article on this person either, so there isn't even the opportunity to expand this by translating information from that source. I respect WP:BIAS but it doesn't trump notability. - Eron^Talk 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam 20:42, 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grasscutters FC

Non-notable club sport team, violates WP:ORG, no mention of club outside this Wikipedia page, Wiki page is being used as a home page Korranus 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete hoax: they claim that Diego Maradona is on this team, which is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a very obvious hoax article. --Malcolmxl5 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is a team named Grasscutters FC, but only one; it's English and a football team as opposed to a futsal team. Hoax. Jack 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Diego Maradona the hand of god, totally FAKE. 01:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkk777 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warped (band)

Does not appear to be notable, possible advertisement. Googling the band name and ep name produces this page only. No sources, independent or otherwise. No coverage. In other words totally fails notability according to WP:MUSIC. Delete. Rehevkor 21:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Obviously not notable, even official site link is dead. Jack 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with others. A non-notable band. Captain panda 03:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cassini (drink)

This is a drink that has no evidence of being notable. The article has no sources, no references and no evidence of it belonging on Wikipedia — Save_Us_229 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly merge and redirect to Lambrini, as it's just a cheaper version made by the same company.RMHED 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this and Lambrini, then Merge both into Halewood International, the maker of both drinks. --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:27, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Igor Terekhov

[edit] London Broncos players

[edit] Dark ranger

[edit] TourneyCentral

[edit] War profiteering by Halliburton

[edit] Lake of the woods district hospital foundation

[edit] Mike Drucker

[edit] Ian Jordan

[edit] Chris gilders

[edit] Pit Lord

[edit] Web Search Engine Statistics

[edit] Gryphons (Warcraft)

[edit] JOUD Appliances

[edit] Chris Albano

[edit] Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit

[edit] Rajmohan Pillai

[edit] Grand Inquisitor Isillien

[edit] Tirion Fordring

[edit] Karandra Fordring

[edit] Taelan Fordring

[edit] Caer Darrow

[edit] Tarren Mill

[edit] Shadow Hunter (Warcraft)

[edit] High Elf (Warcraft)

[edit] Aputheatre

[edit] John Roman Baker

[edit] Banshee (Warcraft)

[edit] Nathan Delfouneso

[edit] The Origin Series

[edit] Holy Light

[edit] Bel Air Mall

[edit] Boris Johnson For Number 1 in the Charts

[edit] Eluveitie

[edit] The Bible Boat

[edit] Genna Rose Sheedy-Feldman

[edit] Ben Spring

[edit] BRD

[edit] QuarterBall

[edit] Nan Hua Primary School

[edit] Rose power

[edit] Nawa pind shonkia da

[edit] Wiley W. Hilburn

[edit] Rock Star Premature Deaths

[edit] Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead

[edit] Mordecai Tendler

[edit] Animal Protein Factor

[edit] Argus (Warcraft)

[edit] Ash Riot

[edit] Horror of Horrors

[edit] King County Journal

[edit] Mack Zulkifli

[edit] Order of the Red Lion

[edit] Rapier

[edit] Barthilas

[edit] Aegis (Dartmouth College Yearbook)

[edit] An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

[edit] Scavenger, Inc.

[edit] Bricks In The Wall

[edit] OneTwoThreeFour

[edit] List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

[edit] Arnold Buzdygan

[edit] The Wungabongas

[edit] The Kid Nobody Could Handle

[edit] Open Road Love Affair

[edit] Lilarcor

[edit] Grammar Nazi

[edit] Snow phenomenon

[edit] David Barnes (athlete)

[edit] Torrington F.C. season 2007-08

[edit] List of vaporware

[edit] Dalaran

[edit] Sunshine Mall

[edit] The shitts

[edit] Wildhammer Clan

[edit] Silver Hand

[edit] Scourge (Warcraft)

[edit] Michael J. Formica