Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 18 November 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Berwick

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

Contested PROD. The "claim to fame" for this person (that he's the current "Count of Mystki-Rzym and head of the American branch of the Mystkowski noble family" is currently unverifiable. The sources listed don't mention him by name. There has been some discussion of the matter on the article's talk page, but no verifiable evidence has yet come to light. Right now, the article is original geneology research. Joyous! | Talk 23:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete As purely original research. As the author of the page admits on the article's talk page, there are no sources for the claims made (due to sources being destroyed/lost/etc). While the author might have good intentions here, Wikipedia isn't a place for original genealogical research. Bfigura (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:AB and WP:V. --Poeticbent talk 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- Bogus info. Get a MySpace page.---Iconoclast Horizon 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Burn with fire, per my prod nomination.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alberon (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources most probably a hoax. - dwc lr (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.

[edit] FogBugz

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Advert Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote KEEP, although the article could do with a good "de-fluffing". It's generally on any list of "the top contenders" in its field. e.g http://www.software-pointers.com/en-defecttracking-tools.html and http://ims.co.nz/blog/archive/2005/02/13/374.aspx and http://ask.metafilter.com/44377/Best-ticket-tracking-packages.Snori (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Numerous Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News Archive results. It's a top bug-tracking package and even has an entire book written about setting it up. --Dhartung | Talk 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Snori. Greswik (talk) 16:32, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dolgrim

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

Not notable due to a complete lack of secondary reliable sources, a subject with solely an in universe context, solely plot information from a ficitonal source Pilotbob (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete.see above. Greswik (talk) 16:33, 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 No Concensus. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rod of Seven Parts

Rod of Seven Parts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fictional stick or wand that fails WP:FICT. Has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:FICT outside of the Greyhawk canon, and no primary sources to indicate if this artifact has any significance within it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, major artifact in the D&D game since its first appearance in the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide (well, technically it first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry, but that's splitting hairs). Has appeared in several books since then, most notably as the subject of an eponymious boxed set/adventure book in 1996, and played a key role in the Age of Worms adventure path. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure why you created this article in the first place; when you say it is the subject of an adventure book, do you mean a game guide? Is this a prop for a game, or is it the subject of literary fiction? If it is prop created for a game, how can it be notable, even within the game? Surely player in a role-playing game would not act out being a stick? Please clarify. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me guess. This is yet another article you are trying to delete without having any idea at all what it is about, correct? Given your comments, it seems I'd have to give a whole lot of exposition to explain the answers I would give to your questions, and this doesn't seem like the place for that. Would you do us all a favor and do some research before sending articles for deletion? Here's a suggestion, try an open dialogue with people on each article who know something about the subject *before* starting the AFD process, so that you can better understand the signficance of each item before proceeding, so that you can at least seem like you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry if that sounds uncivil, I intend it as a bit of harsh constructive criticism. You'll encounter less hostile opposition if you display less ignorance of the subject, I think. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not that I necessarily agree with this nomination, but the article should be the place where the notability of the topic is fully demonstrated. In its present form it does fail to do so, at least for the readers who are not knowledgeable about D&D. I don't see any content explaining its importance (for the casual reader) in a literary series. The reader should not be required to drill down to the Adventure Path link to see what that means. Nor is the meaning or importance of the Age of Worms explained. What I do see is a lot of unexplained, campaign-specific information. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My interpretation of BOZ's comments are that this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. I would recomend to him that he read this guidance note *before* he creates stubs about subjects that have no notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, as they fall outside of the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I stopped creating new D&D related articles a long time ago (this one was from Feb 2006), when I realized how many delete-happy editors there were out there who love nothing more than to get rid of stuff they find useless, confusing, or uninteresting, using the wikipedia guidelines to justify their contempt. You're not the first, you won't be the last, but you've been the most persistent so far. Why waste my time and effort, when for some people it's far easier to destroy than it is to create? Still, I'll fight for what's already here as long as there are others who want to see the material stay. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I can understand your frustration as the RPG notability guidelines which would have helped you to create an article on significant topics have only been recently been created. My advice to you going forward is to channel your energy into creating several good articles, rather hundreds of stubs which fail the guidelines. Alternatively, there are lots of other Wiki's that will welcome the content of this stub such as fancruft.net. If this stub is transwikied, then we are in a win-win situtation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks.  :) But the fact remains that I'm just not interested in creating any more D&D articles unless the notability guidelines are loosened to allow for things which have not recieved coverage in multiple independent/secondary sources. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewrite This article would be more properly about the adventure series than the artifact itself. Unfortunately, it sort of predates the internet explosion, so finding appropriate references may be hard. At the least, however, this should be redirect to a page listing the various D&D adventure modules. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article does need to be rewritten and referenced. I have stacks of old Dragons and White Dwarfs (a mag not owned by TSR/WotC) that references this. It is going to take me longer than a week to get them all. Web Warlock (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pointing out that an article is not currently sourced up to satisfaction is one thing, but making the claim that it is not possibly sourceable in light of multiple and well-known primary sources is quite another, and has been done far too frequently and reflexively of late. Established precedent has been repeatedly upheld in AfDs of this nature that marginally "independent" sources such as magazines are sufficient to provide evidence of notability when the game/fictional systems to which they belong are very notable; depth and quality come into play more than number and strict independence in cases like this because (and how about this for real-world significance) it's what actually sells those magazines and books. And note well: the purpose for "multiple secondary sources" is fact checking, an issue that is hardly critical in fictional characters and objects of which the characteristics and functions are defined by their creators and developers. While consensus can indeed change, I see no indication that it's about to from the current climate in the articles-for-discussion community. Our focus, therefore, must be on improving what we have, and if we can't do it, or don't think we should, let others do the work. At the very least, a merger should be performed into the over-arching topic in order to preserve significant information as per the arguments and most likely outcome here. In short, keep per my arguments and the outcome of multiple former AfDs such as this, this, this, this, etc. etc. ◄Zahakiel► 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have to disagree in this instance. Compare with possibly the most famous rod of all - the one owned by Moses; note that an article featuring this artifact has not yet been attempted with good reason: it would require citations from specialist journals going back a hundred years or more to support its notability. By contrast, the Rod of Seven Parts, although it is probably based the more famous biblical artifact, has no notabilty because it derived from game guide. I can't imagine any college professors ever writing a paper on such a subject, because their is no source material to draw on, as the lack of hits on Google scholar shows. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once again, you're mistaken. Please see Aaron's rod. Again, Gavin.collins is showing his unwillingness to do the tiniest bit of research before taking action, which is one of the main reasons why so many people have issues with his uninformed deletion sprees.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Better yet, Moses' rod actually does appear have its own article, as well. BOZ (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - In this instance, huh? :) Well, just as we have a WP:WAX page that indicates the importance of discussing the article in question rather than comparing it to other articles, so I have to raise an objection to your comparison with a real-life artifact with thousands of years of literary history. If your personal standard for notability is so high, no wonder you're so quick with the AfD and "Recommend deletion" buttons on your keyboard. I believe that there should be an article on Moses'/Aaron's Rod, and maybe I'll look into starting that, (and apparently there is one, as the two editors above indicate; further evidence of the haste to push for and justify deletion without considering what the reasearch would or reasonably could show - Z.) but that doesn't have anything to do with this matter, and I entirely disagree with your position in both this AfD and in general about the notability of fictional elements. I notice that in your reply to BOZ above you cite a proposed guideline that may or may not even cover this entry, and with good reason: there's nothing in Wikipedia that precludes an article like this from existing, particularly in light of the precedent that yourself and about 3 other editors appear bent on ignoring on a regular basis. Admittedly, your particular contributions have been a little more thoughtful than some of the near-mindless botting I've seen in these discussions, and I appreciate that, but I reject your statement that this item "has no notabilty because it derived from game guide." Apparently, other editors believe this entry can be sourced better than it now is, and how it stands at the moment has been quite enough to retain other articles on similar topics. We should not keep one article just because others like it exist, as I said above, but this doesn't mean that the reasons others are kept should not be applied to the latest discussion taking place. I re-iterate my opinion that this article should be kept, especially in light of the work others have committed to contributing to its improvement. I think it's in the intrest of the community to assume they're being honest about their ability to do so. It's high time we start paying attention to what the WP:N guideline actually says, the second sentence of which indicates that it "should be treated with common sense;" I haven't seen an over-abundance of that (from either side all the time, really). ◄Zahakiel► 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there is more to doing research than looking things up on Google. Web Warlock (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per BOZ, et al.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I seriously doubt that secondary reliable sources can be located. Wikipedia is not a game guide. There is no information at all regarding the real world significance of this fictional rod nor can a real world context be established. Pilotbob (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment What is the "real world significance" of Tyrfing, for instance? Can the "real world context" of the Sampo be established? Objects and characters in fiction do not have a "real world context" except possibly as an allegory. Your criteria are bunk. Freederick (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, all fictional objects and characters have real world context; there just may not be adequate sources to allow for Wikipedia articles. Articles on fictional things need to be written from the perspective of the real world. Try reading Jason Vorhees, Pilot (Smallville), or Link (The Legend of Zelda) to see what is meant by "real world context". Jay32183 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability remains a problem. May I suggest that this could be a transwiki candidate to Gaming Wiki, or something similiar? Xymmax (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • GamingWiki is for video games, mostly console games. This is an RPG item and not at all the same thing. Web Warlock (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - more references have been added. I have more to add from 3rd party publications, they require more work than a Google search. Web Warlock (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Marginal notability, and certainly not enough substantial third-party references to write a sustainable, substantial Wikipedia article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; one of the most notable artifacts in D&D, it's the title of a novel about the artifact, it's got a boxed-set written about it, it's got a thirty-year real-life history. "The Rod is notable for being one of only three magical artifacts that have appeared in in all three editions of the Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide", plus the books about it, plus the decades of references, more than make up notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Boz, Robbstrd, others. Article has been sourced by Webwarlock, who is willing to add more sources. Edward321 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This item has received extensive coverage outside of the gaming resource where it has first appeared; has had a magazine article detailing its history and a novel written about it twenty years after its first appearance; and is well sourced.
    The nominator's argument seems to be based on the notion "I've never heard of it so it must be non-notable." It is evident he didn't bother to do any research prior to the nomination, as many of his statements are erroneous. I am in total agreement with the argument by BOZ, that too many people nowadays seem to think that "editing" Wikipedia consists in arbitrtating and criticizing others work, without doing any writing themselves. The key word is "contributor" not "editor". How many contributions have you done, Mr. Collins? Looking at this list, just about the only thing you do is add Notability templates to all and sundry--there's over 500 articles that you "edited" in this manner, and precious little else. Freederick (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This stub has more references to primary sources than it has any content, which suggest the topic has been researched exhaustively, but turned up no real-world information. I have done the research too, and found nothing (except mentions in passing) that would suggest this rod is notable outside of the game. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't want to get involved in any private feuds, but I do think we can usefully reflect on just how much total and utter *****, not to mention self-promotion, hoaxes, and so forth, gets contributed, and how necessary it is that somebody pull up the weeds, even if they occasionally pull up a flower without realising it. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is clearly not self-promotion or a hoax, nor are most of the articles that come up in these feuds. It's a matter of great debate whether it's really is necessary to delete good verifiable articles, especially if you'll start pulling "flower"s with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm emotionally torn on this one. The article brings back many happy memories, and clearly it is very important in-game (and a fascinating piece of trivia in, as it were, the objective history of the development of the most notable RPG). If this were a D&D wiki it would definitely need expansion. In a general encyclopedia my head says (to my heart's dismay) that it is just out of place. And the "novel" that the item inspired is simply a TSR spin-off. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Having said which, it would be a shame to lose Webwarlock's careful sourcing in both TRS and other RPG publications; and I see that the article is part of a whole category, in which it is one of the most notable entries. Would it be possible to salvage the information as part of a lengthier single article with the title D&D magical items? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has multiple references. It might need additional cleanup, but that's no reason to delete it. Rray (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - another non-notable prop. Interested crufters should consider breaking article into Seven Parts and Trans-wikiing them to the Corners of the Seven-Pointed Realm of Wikia. --Jack Merridew (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete and salt the earth. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Miliefsky

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

NN security "researcher", created by a PR account for subject's company, edited extensively in contravention of WP:COI, makes unjustifiable claims ("world renowned" for invention of "clientless NAC", something Lockdown and Mirage would debate strongly --- founder of... Homeland Security? What?); only references I can find are PR-placed op-eds in trade press (anyone with a PR agent can place an op-ed). Should I tell you how I really feel? Delete. --- tqbf 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note --- disputed prod. --- tqbf 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a promotional piece, and has been created by what appears to be an SPA - WP:COI, anyone? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable puff piece. Hesperian 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. SPA promotional author posting legal threats against other editors? Salt the earth. --FOo (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although I agree wholeheartedly with Fubar's sentiments above, the page makes enough claims to notability that it can't be tagged as CSD. Of course, a complete lack of non-press release hits on Google news suggests that it will be impossible to satisfy WP:V (and thus WP:BIO), so this page is going away sooner or later.... --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. nn. —Moondyne 05:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, fubar, hesperian. --Orange Mike 05:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I researched a few pages of Google hits and couldn't find anything that wasn't self-promotion. There are suggestions of articles in Fortune, etc., but the web is very short on actual citations for them and who knows if they're part of a PR machine? I agree there seems to be some assertion of notability and possibly an hour or two of research might have found it, but what tips the balance for me is the arrogant threat of legal action (see the article's talk page history). Rather than run the risk that anyone might edit the page, we have to delete it and salt the ground. Too bad. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there are independent sources to document the notabilty of this individual, I am unable to find them. WP:BLP means we need to be even stricter with sources. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN & WP is not for self-promotion, even through a third party. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 05:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who? What's an "informal advisor"? When I read that, my mind says "nattering nabob", "random kibbitzer" and "peanut gallery". For the record, I'm a philanthropist too. See my PDF. Tomertalk 06:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - an "informal advisor" could be code for Kitchen Cabinet; but not this guy, I'm thinking. --Orange Mike 06:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - I note that you can Google "is a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security" and find many people who appear to have obtained this distinction by virtue of serving with the US Coast Guard at the time of the DHS reorg; [www.freerepublic.com/~6869tonkingulfyachtc/ here's one], referred to as a "personalized keepsake". This comment is not intended to make any assertion as to the validity of the subject's claim. --- tqbf 06:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - Note the earliest page in the Internet Archive that evinces a list of staff for the Walden Woods Project: [1]. I may be incorrect, and another, more accurate page could have preceded it, evading my notice. --- tqbf 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A lot of undefended "tops" and plain-url references tell me this is just someone fanning his tail thru a PR setup. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:14, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imprant tulsi

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

This article in Hindi has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since November 3 and no progress has been made on getting it translated into English. Yupik (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is from Pages needing translation into English:

Found this one in CAT:PNT. Some language which uses Devanagari script. -- Prince Kassad 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hindi. Survives a Google copyvio check. Does not exist on hi:Wikipedia. Cbdorsett 09:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gia đình phật tử

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gia đình phật tử
Gia đình phật tử (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page was included on Pages needing translation into English already on November 3. 14 days are up and nothing's been done about this article in Vietnamese. Yupik (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is from Pages needing translation into English:

WP:PNT dialogue 
  • I've notified WikiProject Vietnam and Blnguyen who might be interested in translating this page. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very notable organisation, which is akin to the scouts (in theory). Speaking from Australia, there are branches of the GDPT at every temple. I would estimate about 600-1000 active members in Australia, based on about 80 active in Adelaide. (former member). They exist all over the world as well and held a world conference at Bodh Gaya a few years ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that it's been translated, I have no problems with it sticking around. Preferably it gets sourced though at some point in time. Thanks for the English version! -Yupik (talk) 13:41, 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 keep. John254 00:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article essentially fails every relevant policy in the book. First off, we have WP:NOT - in this case, the article is being used as an indiscriminate list of information ("slogans"?). As far as WP:RS go - there is only one non self-published reference. On the talk page, the fact that reliable sources exist was brought up, but most of the search results are from Google's automatic check of similar words ("compulsivity") and references from studies that simply cite SCA as a group in this field. POV wise this article is in terrible shape - not only is it being used as a battleground (evident from the prose and SCA affiliates threatening editors with libel charges), it reads more like a self-help and advertising brochure than an encyclopedic article. While I do not agree the organization is notable, as was stated on the help desk by User:Fredrick day: "the current version needs to be taken out the back...". -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I said it might be notable but the current version needs (at the very least) to be stubbed and if WP:RS are not provided this article should be deleted.. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd best delete the AA article also, if you think this 12 Step fellowship does not belong on Wikipedia. I'd like to see what all those alcoholics would do to you. As for taking SCA out in the back... that sounds like a threat to me. Charming.--141.155.57.125 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though that isn't exactly applicable as Alcoholics Anonymous has 68 independent third-party references. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
SCA has been in existence for 25 years, a little patience is appreciated. There are plenty of references. This obnoxious deletion and attack seems more like plain homophobia to me, another beating with a baseball bat by people who misunderstand and feel angry at things they do not understand. It is ok, there's always something to learn from other people. --141.155.57.125 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please log back into your account. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Please review article on Homophobia when you make such references are taking someone out in the back and ... these comments are perceived as threats. And the attempt to delete this article (which actually does a good job of staying neutral) is also perceived as a threat, particularly as the other sexual recovery groups are not nominated for deletion, as this gay-friendly groups is.--Artistboynyc (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please learn to read - "person X needs to be taken out the back.." and "article X needs to be taken out the back" are entirely different statements. As for Homophobia, you seem to be making a rather large assumption about my sexuality. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While it doesn't make their threats any less dangerous, it is worth remembering that the people making most of the recent edits are newcomers. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While I've been very disappointed with the behavior of the SCA members in regard to this article, especially the threating language they used when I was trying to discuss it, this version seems to be okay to me. Yes, I know it's the version I wrote, and don't want to act like I own the article. I also realize that the results published in "The Role of Prefrontal Systems in Sexual Behavior" article that used SCA's questionnaire summarized in that version are seen as derogatory by members of the organization. But, at that stage I believe it was within wikipedia's guidelines. I would recommend using that version with some changes in the language as to clarify that it's about brain dysfunction as it relates to addiction -- not implying any kind of moralistic judgment on SCA members. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, the members of SCA are simply trying to create a Wiki entry that accurately reflects SCA. Do we have an agenda? Absolutely. We want to help as many people as possible, as we were all helped ourselves. If we go a bit too far and do not completely abide by the rules of Wikipedia, I do apologize. It's not because we're trying to bend the rules. I, for one, am new to submitting edits to Wiki, so I certainly don't know the ins and outs. If we feel we're being attacked or marginalized, we're going to get emotional - it's an emotional issue that we feel strongly about. Things get said that shouldn't be said, but please try to understand. I do understand the importance of keeping the "encylopedic" language and tone of the entry. It is Wikipedia after all and not the SCA website. We simply want the information to be accurate. I'm not sure what would be gained by deleting the entry other than another successful right-wing attack on human rights - please, let's not contribute to that sad state of affairs. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdc8155 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Wikiproject LGBT should be informed of this? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Damn those sneaky bastards, putting ads in books and in scientific journals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And had you read those results, you would have found that most of those results either mention SCA in passing along with a host of other groups, are a advertisement put in a newspaper for workshops or classes, or are put out by SCA themselves. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needing major cleanup, or being edited by people with a COI, are not reasons for deletion. The Google results referenced by Richard Arthur Norton (of excellent vintage) show that the subject is clearly notable and in need of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment SCA is notable, but it's worth mentioning that with many twelve-step groups these kinds of results can be misleading. In my experience (I've written articles on fifteen such groups) the majority of the results are not actually from articles discussing the group but rather listing it as one my many twelve-step groups, or it's simply listing contact information for it in a directory of support groups. There's enough material to write the article, but it's not as overwhelming as it might seem. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I forget what the wiki-jargon for this is, but the article steps away from being about the SCA in the middle of it and becomes an article about sexual compulsion. What's dangerous about that is that it's sexual compulsion as defined by the SCA, not a neutral sexual compulsion article. The article should be stripped of information that isn't directly related to independent sources discussing the SCA. Leebo T/C 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)*
  • Conditional Keep. Providing the article is extensively rewritten, or reverted, to make it into a neutral article rather than something that looks more like a SCA brochure, per WP:COI and WP:POV, before the AfD period is up. Also providing someone can find or provide independent reliable sources, such as mainstream newspaper or news magazine articles or academic journal articles, or independent books, to establish notability. Although I have heard of SCA for some time and strongly suspect that it is notable and deserves an article, I haven't found reliable sources that support that. Some of the past inappropriate language and uncivil comments are very troubling, otherwise I would be arguing harder to keep the article. The only reason I !voted conditional keep, is that I believe in improving articles rather than deleting them. In response to another comment, this AfD has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia, and I'm an editor who has a good record defending LGBT related articles. Nor is it a right wing attack. I reluctantly but essentially agree with most of Wooty's rationale. Bottom line: If the article is not cleaned up and RS not found, then Delete. — Becksguy (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is not a notable organization, and has a has a one-sided point of view. As others have noted, this is a WP:COATRACK article with a single source independent of the group and few possible sources readily available from an Internet search. I don't think it can be fixed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Questions. Have you looked at the Google Books and Google Scholar results referenced above? And why to you link the phrase "few possible sources readily available from an Internet search" to WP:V, when WP:V says nothing about sources having to be readily available from an Internet search? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Update I rewrote the article. I went through the Google Scholar, News Archive, and Books again and found a few things I missed last time (or didn't have access too). There is definitely not an abundance of material on the organization, but there's enough to scrape an article together. I used the outline that the SCA members made, and reworded the part about the prefrontal cortex so it hopefully won't be mistaken for a derogatory comment. All together the reading, researching, and writing took me over six hours -- consider this (and read WP:LEGAL) before threating to sue me in the future. Incidentally, I contacted the SCA international service office to see if there were plans to file against me. The person who returned my call seemed perplexed and said SCA had no intention to do anything like it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I've changed my !vote to a full Keep based on all the very hard work Craigtalbert has done. It no longer reads like a SCA brochure, and there are now sufficient third party sources. Although I'm kinda surprised that there wasn't more press coverage, since it's been around for 25 years. This is a keeper now, as I believe that the various issues raised (WP:N, WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK, WP:V) have been addressed. I wonder if it will stay this way for long, considering the reversion history, however, it's on my watchlist now. All I can say is ... Great job, Craigtalbert. — Becksguy (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the excellent work performed by Craigtalbert (who should be commended). --Fredrick day (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wasn't sure whether the sources existed for a good article on this organisation, but Craigtalbert's rewrite addresses that concern, as well as the others raised in this discussion. EALacey (talk) 19:12, 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 per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cairo Opera Company

Cairo Opera Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article in Arabic has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since November 3 and no progress has been made on getting it translated into English. Yupik (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The lack of translation is perhaps unsurprising in view of the lack of a suitable tag. Verdi's Aida was first performed in Cairo, so that my guess is that there is notable content, but I do not know what it says, so that I fear that it must be up for delete unless it is translated soon. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The article had been properly tagged before I put it up for AfD. WP:PNT has quite a few Arabic articles on any given day awaiting translation, but no one seems to have the time to do them (and I don't know enough Arabic to make a difference). Perhaps any of you who understand Arabic could have a look at the articles we have left? Some of them have been hanging around for a long time already. -Yupik (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a noticeboard over at the Arabic Wikipedia where someone might have a look at this article? Bizzarely, it may be a candidate for Transwiki, if it's not already in the arabic wiki (Which I'm unable to determine). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I left a message at the Arabic Wikipedia seeking help in translating the text. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to write an English-language article about this opera company. Note that this particular opera company apparently started in the 1960s, so they would not have produced the Aida premiere. [5] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, He talks about his visiting to an Opera party, then he asks the director of this party three questions, For sure, Wikipedia isn't for these questions!--OsamaK (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete now that it has been translated. -Yupik (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. east.718 at 09:32, November 25, 2007

[edit] Futureperfect organization

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

no assertion of notability, non notable book and author. Contested speedy delete. No sources outside in-universe bio of author. Created by SPA account. Need I go on? Keeper | 76 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. I actually tagged the page for lack of notability, but this is actually cleaner - and warranted. Xymmax (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Non-notable business model that is probably covered already under another name in another existing Wikipedia article. Probably a copyvio as well: two articles with that exact same name were deleted as copyvios earlier today. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added more sources to this article. It was recreated more than once as I am new and was unfamiliar with the debate process. User:Elyriakat
  • This page was created to give a definition for a business paradigm term that was otherwise not listed under another wikipedia article. The uses of the term have been cited, which is why I created the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyriakat (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • thank you for adding more sources and for contributing to Wikipedia. However, the sources you added do not help assert the notability of the organization that you've written about. The Manila Times article has nothing to do with Futureperfect organization, never even mentions it, unless I missed something. The second is "subscriber only", which, in general, is not acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. This process (discussion) is called AfD, or Articles for Deletion. What that means is that other editors like you and I will come to this page to decide whether the article is worthy of staying here in the English Wikipedia. Generally, the discussion is kept open for 5 days, so keep working on the article! If it grows to Wikipedia standards through independent, verifiable sources that assert the notability of the subject, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination or support a keep decision. Thanks for your contributions, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Keeper | 76 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Every reference is written by William A. Guillory except this one which actually has nothing at all to do with the subject of this article. IrishGuy talk 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • He is the author of the book, and creator of the term, which is why he is referenced. this one talks about this paradigm in the article if you read it all the way through, it is also used by ASTD and the Business journal listed. The Manila Times article does reference it. you can do a pagesearch for "FuturePerfect" and find it. Thank you for your help Keeper, it's appreciated.
        • William Guillory articles aren't valid independent references about William Guillory. IrishGuy talk 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Irishguy here. I'm sorry to say, I read the Manila Times article. It has nothing to do with Futureperfect as the subject of an article. For an organization to be notable, it has to be the subject of an article/story/whatever from an outside reliable source. Right now, I still believe the (Wikipedia) article has too many problems to keep it. Please don't construe this as personal. There are lots of things that I personally think are important that will not get Wikipedia articles. My mother, for example. My son too. Very important, and unless one of them does something incredible to get themselves written about extensively in outside, reliable sources, they won't be here either. But that does not mean they're not important. Keep up the good editing, hope you stay! Cheers, Keeper | 76 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per notability issues as expressed above. Rocket000 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio from [6]. Sniffing trails of deleted contributions does pay off, most of the time... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 環宇財務顧問

環宇財務顧問 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since October 30 and no progress has been made on getting it translated into English. Yupik (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion copied from Pages needing translation into English:

WP:PNT dialogue 
  • Delete then. It will still be there in Chinese Wikipedia when someone comes to his senses and decides it's time to do the translation. How does one type that title with a Western keyboard anyway? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, company is only mentioned in the course of Lehman Bros' merger and acquisition activities. Does not include any other claim to notability. Article's worded like an advertisement, too. E.g. last sentence of first para: "建立了一群知識與經驗豐富的專業人員隊伍，為境內外企業及政府部門提供多樣化的專業諮詢與資本市場服務業務" roughly translates to "established a group of knowledgeable and skilled professionals to provide a wide range of consulting and financial management services". Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carers Alliance

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

Very new political party with no claim to notability as yet. Mayalld (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:ORG, lack of notability. Borderline speedy as nn-group. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per notability and verifiability guidelines, unless reliable third party sources appear. Keeper | 76 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete(as nominator) - single 3rd party source is a list of candidates in an election, which proves existence, but not notability per WP:ORG Mayalld (talk) 11:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Jordan (singer)

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

No assertion of notability. No sources in article. No reliable sources found. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I hunted for media mentions of this young gentleman, thinking it would be relatively easy to track something down about him, what with the article giving him such a nice buildup. Unfortunately, they seem to be few and far between. This one is about all I could track down. With one EP and more to come, I think we're verging on crystal ball territory here; he's not quite over the bar on WP:MUSIC. Delete, with no prejudice to recreation once he has an album, more touring and more press under his belt. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nominators rationale. BigFrank 11/19/07 —Preceding comment was added at 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Normally a minimum of two albums on a major label is required to keep an article about a musician. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:NMG also says that you can have a single song that hits a national music chart regardless of your album(s) success(es) or who signed him. Not evident here either. Keeper | 76 —Preceding comment was added at 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete future notability possible, but at the moment fails WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails WP:Music at the moment. No prejudice against recreation if he achieves notability in the future. A1octopus (talk) 17:49, 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. east.718 at 09:35, November 25, 2007

[edit] Queensland University of Technology Queer Collective

Queensland University of Technology Queer Collective (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group. All references are to internal publications Mayalld (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note - this AfD has not been properly listed. (1) There is not AfD notcie on the article, and (2) There has been no cross-listing at the WP:LGBT project page.
  • Delete non-notable. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations at a single university are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I fixed up some of the formatting. This college group appears to be notable due to its involvement in gay rights in Australia. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, reasonably large organisation (at least when I was at QUT), but there doesn't appear to be any reliable secondary sources. Lankiveil (talk) 02:27, 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. east.718 at 09:35, November 25, 2007

[edit] Bush Island

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

Delete This island isn't in the USGS names database - so it is either non-existant or quite un-noteworthy, and there is no claim that it is notable - islands are not inherently notable - so fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Bush Island seems to be an alternate name for Woodbury Island at the mouth of Woodbury Creek, which was the location of a Revolutionary War battery. There are no references to action there, though. Bush Island is an island in New York State in the St. Lawrence River, I guess one of the Thousand Islands, and is the location of Sunken Rock Light, which seems to make it notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

U

  • Delete per Carlossuarez, or merge if a useful place can be found to which to merge. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only Bush Island I can find in Google maps is a very small island in Delaware Seashore State Park, which itself is a stub and does not mention Bush Island. Possible hoax, reference to Dubya? (or to non-Americans, George W. Bush) Hmm. Keeper | 76 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. Read a map, folks. Ask a friend from NYC. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:06, 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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

[edit] The Holy Kiss

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

Band article with one reliable source, thus surviving CSD A7. Still, fails WP:BAND. Delete. Xoloz (talk) 20:20, 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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

[edit] Claudia A. Saad

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Claudia A. Saad (2nd nomination)
Claudia A. Saad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person works as an advisor to a project. There is no notability established beyond this single role, and no reliable sourcs beyond the Sesame street page. (Here is the other discussion which was no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Anderson .Obina (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (categories)

  • Delete unless other attribution of notability to independent sources surfaces. Being on an advisory board is not notability by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even the slightest assertion of notability is made. Qworty (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Given the age of it- even if it's really hard to evaluate an article saying so little. It looks like a nocontent article. Greswik (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nearly a speedy based on lack of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:50, 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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

[edit] Debatepedia

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Debatepedia. Was speedied once under WP:CSD#A7 . see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwiki.idebate.org. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7, non-notable site. I can't find any sources, just blogs that mention Debatepedia in passing. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7, and very close to a G11 as well, judging by the content of the article and by the overall behavior of its main contributor, who spammed many articles around Wikipedia with links to his site. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I agree with the speedy nomination but it has been declined by another admin. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete where are the sources? how is notability established? Article does not meet our inclusion criteria (and is poorly written).-Andrew c [talk] 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, conflict of interest, non-notable --Dawn bard (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the sponsors indicate the notability. I take a neutral view of which debate organizations are important, and which contributors spammers. DGG (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it was not an administrator who removed the speedy tag, it was me, since the article was already listed at AfD at the time and I did not consider this a speedy candidate. The website is supported by several well-known debating organisations and is covered on many websites of these organisations (e.g. [7]). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to International Debate Education Association. Currently a fairly new site that has yet to gain a reputation outside the organizations promoting it. If it becomes notable in its own right and there is significant information to write about it may be worth an article in the future. Until that time, this is simply advertising.-- SiobhanHansa 13:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that a speedy tag was originally placed on what must have been clear would be a controversial nomination is an indication that there is some possibly questionable motivation involved.DGG (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, per SiobhanHansa. Snigbrook (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is spam. Ρх₥α 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would've supported a speedy on this one; no sources demonstrating notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:50, 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 Redirect to Parapsychology. Consensus has been reached in favour of the fact that "Psiology" is an alternative term for "Parapsychology"; a mirror article would be a waste of time and resources. Anthøny 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psiology

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

WP:Neologism (and a failed one at that) Verdatum (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • comment It's not unlikely that someone may search for this term expecting to be taken to parapsychology material (I suppose if this article were deleted they would hit upon Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science) which is an article in a pretty poor state). It is a neologism, Googling turns up references to the book title more than anything else. The article has the flavour of a WP:COATRACK for a biography of Carroll Blue Nash. I'm not going to !vote delete because "Psi" is widely used to refer to parapsychology*, and so Psiology isn't an unreasonable search term, and this article doesn't seem to misrepresent the terms actual status and is arguably of greater encyclopedic value than a straight redirect to Parapsychology. *Note sources such as The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology entry for "Psi" reads in part "When spelled out in English, it refers to the parapsychologists psi-process". Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    Reasonable points, but then should not the article be moved to a subsection of Parapsychology? I fail to see how it is worthy of it's own article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. A redirect isn't the perfect solution (as I argue above), and moving this to a section within Parapsychology does kind of imply turning this into a redirect... Now that I think about it a bit, I think the best thing would be to 1) move this article into a section of Parapsychology, say [[Parapsychology#Psiology]], then 2) turn this into a redirect to that section #REDIRECT[[Parapsychology#Psiology]]. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. merge/redirect reasoning above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree (and figured this out shortly after replying). Though I'm not sure how this is tipically taken care of (switching to a proposal for merge/redirect). Verdatum (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    I can't find the policy that I'm looking for, but I seem to recall that you can withdraw the nomination to delete, (the AfD will then close as a keep, not sure if you are allowed to do the close yourself, or if an admin is required, that's what I can't find). The merge and redirect can be done in normal any old user manner. It would just be bad form to do it with the AfD open. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Redirect to Parapsychology, don't merge. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Parapsychology or, better, make it part of a bio of Carroll Blue Nash, assuming he is sufficiently notable. It now almost reads like a dictionary entry for a failed neologism, which is worse than a dictionary entry for a successful one. Tim Ross·talk 20:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zavvi store locations

Zavvi store locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory, see Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Straightforward breach of Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. I am the Afd proposer. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • My apologies, it's my first Afd and I wasn't sure.... Thanks ! -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:09, 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. John254 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antiquorum Auctioneers

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

Not quite a speedy-deletable ad, but it's sure addish. No real claims of notability. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep This is one of the the principal watch auction houses. Sources are all over the shop. Article does read like an add, needs work, like most. scope_creep (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to have decent sources and claims to notability (first to auction watches over the Internet, for one). Tagged for cleanup and references. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It has reliable sources and a small claim to notability. Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This Where's the problem. It's notable and factual. It might not be very "good" as an article but that's not a problem - it could be improved. M♠ssing Ace 23:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can this be serious- front page story in Wall Street Journal doesn't establish notability? 95 other stories[8], etc. Wikidemo (talk) 21:03, 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) 10:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highland Capital Partners

Highland Capital Partners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP notability criteria; reads like spam. Was deleted before after an expired PROD and has not experienced a significant fix. —ScouterSig 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. To see the 'before' and 'after' pages, admin User:MastCell userfied the orignial article for me so that I could see what was going on. It is in my subpage User:Scoutersig/Highland Capital Partners draft. He also suggested I bring the article to AfD, rather than just PROD. —ScouterSig 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment they get 56 google news hits [9] RMHED (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete They do exist, but don't assert notability. Very similar to many other hedge fund companies, but cannot find any sources, which makes then notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable venture capital fund. Most of the articles are either press releases or blubs about a company that they invest in doing something. While a lot of HCP's portfolio investments may very well be notable, that doesn't necessarily confer notability onto them. These folks are mainly passive investors who put the odd representative onto a firm's board. But they are not an active manager of firms as is Kohlberg Kravis Roberts or Cerberus Capital Management. Montco (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above argument. RMHED (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Lady of the Earth and Sky

Our Lady of the Earth and Sky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable organization, cited sources are either not reliable or provide only trivial or incidental coverage of the subject. GlassFET 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Yes, its a church, and don't know how many people attend the sermon, or equiv. Sources and notability are slim, but if its used by hundreds of folk a week, it should be kept. scope_creep (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is the source for "used by hundreds of folks a week"? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This was speedied as nn, and the recreated version is not much better. Most of the "sources" added didn't even mention the group. We've been waiting on explanation of how these sources support notability - since June - and no explanation, assertion of notability, or expansion has been forthcoming. The sources note that the group exists, but not why we should have an article on it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim of notability and no reliable sources with more than incidental coverage. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This "church" is not notable and has never done anything notable and nobody who belongs to it has ever done anything notable. Qworty (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete as non notable. Making claims like "nobody who belongs to it has ever done anything notable" is a bit uncivil, and since you have no real way of knowing who belongs to the church, notable or not, it will only blow hot air on cinders, which will of course make flames. Simply unnecessary commentary, IMO. Cheers, Keeper | 76 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain - breaking my promise to vote "keep" if this ever came up for AfD. —Ashley Y 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete as non-notable. It's not a statement about the significance of the group itself since it clearly is significant to those who are members of the church, it's about whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on it. I have yet to see why they need a Wiki article. Scarletwoman93 (talk) 02:21, 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. Kurykh 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prema Sai Baba

(2nd Nomination for Deletion)

Prema Sai Baba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete-I personally don't have an opinion about the Prema Sai Baba Issue, I just didn't know wiki cited predictions of people as biographically mertiable. I understand that I didn't get the procedure right for deletion, then apparently didn't get it right again before someone swiftly deleted the tag. Instead, I think I am just going to write a biography article entitled Jesus the 2nd, since I can quote thousands of people that say he is to be born and cite lot's of references to the same effect. But I am sure that would get a speedy deletion tag in about 30 seconds. Prema Sai Baba is an idea stated by one man, that someone will be born someday. The article is tagged as a WPBio but contains no details of any actions of a person alive or deceased or even fictional. It is also tagged in the scope of Hindu Mythology but this is comparable to saying the future child of Tammy Faye Baker is to be a part of the Holy Trinity because Pat Roberston said so and that quailfies it as Christian Mythology. This article is the espousal of one man's doctrine, at best, and in that sense is originally flawed as an encyclopedic article. You might as well post an article on every person that holds a streetcorner sign that reads "The End is Near, Jesus is coming". --Iconoclast Horizon 18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge-This topic does not merit its own entry; the refs and cites used are too circumlocutive and the topic of a prediction of a person is not notable as biographical. --Iconoclast Horizon 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA

I must concur: This 'person' is NOT generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record", as mentioned in the guidelines. Has NOT been written about by historians or scholars. Does NOT have an independent biography. The relationship to a known living person does NOT validate it as notable and DOES more or less, appear to be a religious prediction. DOES appear to be a 'promotion' of a current cause or religious movement.
I see no reason this article is a stand alone article except as a promotion of a religious cause. --Humanharmony2222 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are far more notable people actually currently walking around on the Earth. Qworty (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we can all agree that this article is not about a person who has lived or is living. That means that that notability needs to be establish for the subject as a religious belief, not as a person, so WP:BIO is not relevant. And btw there is an article about Jesus the 2nd, it's called Second coming. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment-The article Second Coming is addressed as a concept, the Prema Sai Baba is tagged WP:Bio on the discussion page and is treated as such in the language; the photo of Sathya Sai Baba presumed to be born as the next incarnation has been removed and the Infobox was deleted. This article is masking as a biography of someone yet to be born.---Iconoclast Horizon 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Kkrystian (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment-To primary contributor to Sai Baba articles (above), please do not remove tags until this is decided.---Iconoclast Horizon 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment- I see that you removed the Confilct of Interest tag anyway. Since you are a primary contributor to this and to other Sai Baba articles, I feel you have a conflict of interest about how this article is presented so I posted the tag to that effect.---Iconoclast Horizon 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article subject appears to be a real religious belief held by a significant number of people. Similar beliefs held by different religious groups would be, Mahdi, Messiah, Maitreya, etc. Edward321 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment- No one said the Sai Baba Faction didn't believe what their leader is telling them. The Messiah, Maitreya, etc are not presented as bios of future incarnations of current living incarnations. The living 14th Dalai Lama doesn't have an article for his possible future incarnation of the 15th Dalai Lama for a reason. This article is simply espousing the doctrine of one man and his followers. But I suppose that is why it is WikiPedia and not the Encyclopedia because it just a matter of what people believe not necessarily what it true.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best, this deserves a mention in the article on Sathya Sai Baba. Unlike Second Coming or Kalki, this is enough to deserve an article. Wikipedia is not a platform to popularize fringe theories from every single religious leader. utcursch | talk 11:29, 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 speedily deleted under A7. Natalie (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Attitude Records

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

Org that fails to establish notability. Claims to be a spin-off of some other org, which itself doesn't have an article on here. Zero incoming links and reads like an advert. Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete as a badly written content fork of 2005-2006 Thai political crisis. Sandstein (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thaksin Get Out

Thaksin Get Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted/merged with Thailand political crisis of 2005-2006. There are many problems with this article, and no need to rehash essentially the same information in an article titled after a slogan. AvruchTalk 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm surprised it survived a speedy delete as an attack article. Alan.ca (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article itself is not an attack article. It discusses one side of a campaign and factually reports on certain attacks.Zontrax (talk) 23:58, 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 ICFP Programming Contest. - @pple complain 09:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ant Wars

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

Originally speedily deleted under criteria A7 (browser-based game as "online content"); no assertion of importance. Restored and taken to AfD by request. Since I think notability may also be an issue, merging to ICFP Programming Contest may be a possibility. Marasmusine (talk) 17:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Otto Grimminger

Andreas Otto Grimminger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, most content is an unencyclopedic list of productions, only referrence is some spam page. Creator keeps removing non-notability tags. Contains little real importance. Candleof Hope 15:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or at most redirect to K&K Verlagsanstalt, which itself looks pretty borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy redirect to album page (by me), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Girl Like That

Girl Like That (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does this need an article on its own ? Merge to Matchbox 20's article ? Hammer1980·talk 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be merged the the album's page Yourself or Someone Like YouHammer1980·talk 12:01, 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 speedy delete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe McDermott (website designer)

Joe McDermott (website designer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - This is the most pointless article i have ever seen it is a about an ordinary person (not a celebrity) who has created a website. In23065 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The linked web site is not the official one. His website may be notable; it doesn't look like he is per WP:BIO. --Alksub (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable webmaster, and the website which is supposedly his crowning achievement wouldn't be notable enough for an article either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. RMHED (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Completely non-notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 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. Clearly, we are all in agreement that happy meals and happy meal toys are notable subjects. Arguments about this article, the list, weigh strongly in favor of deletion. Mangojuicetalk 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Happy Meal toys

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Happy Meal toys Articles for deletion/List of Happy Meal toys (2nd nomination)
List of Happy Meal toys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list seems to have no use other than to collectors, making it fancruft/Listcruft. It is uncited. It is probably impossible to complete. It appears that little or nothing has improved since its previous AFD 6 months ago where even the people who had "week keep", and even "keep" suggested the page should start including actual article content on the toys, which hasn't happened, and looks unlikely to happen. The only existing sources are an unreliable Geocities page which has no references itself, and a collector's personal site which also has no references. TheHYPO (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - this article has multiple redundancies (multiple entries for variations of the same toy line) as well as duplicates some of the information in the McDonald's advertising article. A simple list of McD's promotional partners on the ads page is more than enough for Wikipedia. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Crap - sorry, my bad - I missed that step in all the confusion learning how to 2nd-nom TheHYPO (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a source that discusses toy production in sweatshops. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: As mentioned in the first AFD, I think that the sources show that Happy Meal toys would be notable as the topic of an article (it's a subsection of Happy Meal right now), but I personally think that a book about happy meal toys does not make a list of releases notable - particularly since so few of the elements in the list (if any) will be, themselves, notable to anyone other than collectors. It's like having and article on XUniversity - there may be a section on student life or the student body or even articles/books about that - but a list of students at XU would not be notable. And so fan, in 6 months, noone has taken any steps to actually create an article with any encyclopedic content TheHYPO (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - there has been no valid deletion rationale offered in the nomination. Nominator cites two non-binding essays, the use of which in AFDs is controversial. Other concerns raised by the nominator call for editing and research, not deletion.Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a call for editing and research 6 months ago and none has occured (after 2 years of the article's existance as well). I thought wikipedia policy was not only to keep bad articles around if there was hope for improvement. Noone seems interested in researching and adding any actual article content to this to make it a notable topic. Right now, the suggestion is that a list of toys released is not notable information; even if the overall concept of a "Happy Meal toy" is notable, a listing of them is frivolous. As for official policy and guidelines, I didn't link to them, but the nomination clearly implies the guidelines. WP:Lists notes that there are 3 purposes of lists. This list is clearly not intended for navigation or development, so it could only fall under "information", which cites "The list may be a valuable information source." It is the proposition of the nomination that a list of happy meal toys is not "valuable information" (which I interpret as relating to wp:notability. I also don't have policy on this, but if there is a published happy meal toy catalogue out there, it seems to me that someone either has to get it, copy out the entire guide (for completeness) and cite the guide, or else just link to the book as a citation or external reading on an actual article Happy Meal or Happy Meal toys, which is an article, and not a list. Finally, I would suggest that 6 months not improving suggestions from the last AFD and 2 years of article history should also suggest that noone will ever source the article to get it up to wp:verifiability standards. Combined with the relatively useless trivial of the information to anyone but collectors, and the fact that right now almost anyone could add toys and dates and they would be very difficult to challenge, and the fact that the list is 90% 2000-present, and considering the toys have almost 20 years (I believe? There is no information to tell me in the articles) of history, and the article's 2 year existance suggests that the list will likely never cover even half of the actual existing items that should be in the list. TheHYPO (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not have due dates and the fact that reliable sources exist shows that there is hope for improvement. Nor is there any requirement that a list be complete for it to exist. An incomplete list, also known as a dynamic list, is acceptable Wikipedia content even if the list is likely never to be complete. Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Crazy as it may sound, the "Happy Meal" (and most other "kids meals")is notable. Notwithstanding all the social consequences that came with the concept of giving a toy to a child as a part of eating lunch, the toys are also representative of what's been popular in the last 25 years. Sometimes, the toys are as a reflection of what kids liked, and sometimes a reflection of what the restaurant chain attempted to make kids like. I can't agree with the idea that this is merely a "checklist for collectors". Mandsford (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The subject of the article is not "Happy Meal". It is not "Happy Meal Toys". It is "List of Happy Meal toys". I would not oppose an article explaining what happy meal toys are, and their significance, influence and history. I do oppose a list of every minor release of them in the past 30 years. None of the specific toys themselves are notable, and a list of them is unimportant trivia. Star Wars may be a notable franchise, but "List of theaters that played Star Wars" is trivial, even though it relates to the topic. As to your comment that the list reflects what has been popular in the last 25 years, your other comment negates it - The toys are usually tied to a promotion of an upcoming film or release, which means they are an attempt to improve the populatity of a franchise, and don't necessarily reflect what is already popular. So this is a list of "things McDonald's wanted kids to like"? There are lots of Happy Meal toys for films that turned out to be duds, for example. The list is also alphabetical, making an analysis of what was popular in the past very difficult - if this were the intention, the list should be chronological. The alphabetical nature seems to imply checklistedness. TheHYPO (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be an agreement (or at least, no signficant argument that the subject of Happy Meals merits an article). Fine. Logically, it seems to me that folks would want to know what toys have been released as part of the Happy Meals. I would certainly include such in the main article, except, well, it would be rather long. Thus this sub-artile. If you wish to make this list better by making it Chronological, that is a reasonable course of action. I would support doing so. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mandsford and Otto4711 and because the article already passed an AfD this year. Plus, the toys are what make Happy Meals notable. Considering the incredible influence of McDonald's around the world, such a recognizable aspect of McDonald's is surely encyclopedic enough for us. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin. Consensus can change, so articles can be nominated more than once. This user knows this already (yet still uses it any chance he can in 2nd nominations). RobJ1981 (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
and I think every admin at WP knows this too, without needing to remind them. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Would people support the compromised solution that the article be moved to Happy Meal toys, and the {{not list}} template be included on the top to encourage actual information on the notability and importance of Happy Meal toys? I know the premise is that articles should not have massive lists in them, but as of right now there is no Happy Meal toys article; so if there was a one or two paragraph explaination preceding this list, I don't think the list would be getting in the way as if the article were several sections long. Once the article (if ever) is built to a respectable length, the list could be spun off back to its own article. But I think that if people claim this topic is notable, we should encourage creation of some actual actual article content which explains why the notability of the topic of this list. TheHYPO (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would be perfectly fine with this and in fact this is pretty much what I've been suggesting, using this list as the basis for an article on the topic. Or in the alternative start a separate article at Happy Meal toys and keep this as a sub-article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It doesn't matter if the article survived a AFD before, this is a unmaintainable list. We can't just list every toy that every burger stand makes. The toys can be part of section on the subjects of what the toys were made of, this is seriously uneeded. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs)
  • Delete listcruft. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's understandable why people want to delete this, but you can't deny its notability. I think it's just the subject matter that makes people tend to think less of it. Oh well. Rocket000 (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow/Invalid Nomination ("Look, I don't care if the genres are kept or not, I do realize Metalcore is a real genre") - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metalcore

I have nominated this article for deletion as well as its subgenres. This article (along with its subgenres) have no citations and Metalcore, along with two of its subgenres, have only one reference to a questionable site that does not look like it can be used as a reference or citation.
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they have no citations and besides Deathcore they only have one reference which is the same one from the Metalcore page]:

Mathcore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Deathcore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Moshcore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Navnløs (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - I'm sorry Nav but the genre sure is a "real genre" because many official reviewers and magazines and other official publishers use the term. Though people may be disgusted by using those terms the media creates, Wikipedia will publish it regardless, just like so many others have said, simple as that. Although sources must be found on where the style has came from and what defines the style. The reference tag should suffice for now. I really don't see why metalcore and the others should be deleted. --CircafuciX (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd agree that the article could use cleaning up/some citations, but there are other stub-class articles which are far less informative yet not nominated for deletion. Daedae (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep-This article has useful info and should not be deleted. Thundermaster367 (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Oh, please. These article have relatively no useful information at all. I do in fact realize that metalcore is a real genre, however, the article as well as its subgenres have NO citations at all and have one reference to a site that is not referenceable. If someone wants to fix up these article they need to do a lot of work. Navnløs (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Metalcore is a more than notable subgenre. Articles don't get deleted just because they have no refs, Navlos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funeral (talk • contribs)
  • Actually they do funeral. Articles with no sources, citations or references get deleted. Navnløs (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. Just because something's not sourced doesn't mean it doesn't belong -- that could just mean it needs sources. Many Wikipedia articles on notable topics are horribly devoid of references; that's why we have tags like {{unreferenced}} and {{refimprove}}. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, but if they remain unsourced for long enough they will get deleted. For example, Horde (Warcraft) was deleted because of this and Alliance (Warcraft) is about to be deleted for this. People who edit Metalcore and its related subjects have shown that they have NO intention of ever putting sources for these pages. Navnløs (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as well-used and known subgenres; references are sure to exist - anything with 4.9 million Google hits is sure to have a good reference out there someplace. Magazines, music marketing pages, etc., use these as legitimate genres, so I'd say they're notable enough to be kept. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a real genre. Recommend closing per WP:SNOW. ScarianTalk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Funeral and Scarian. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if the genres are kept or not, I do realize Metalcore is a real genre, though some of the others are a bit more questionable, but someone needs to put some sources and crap in the articles. I mean not all of the article of Metalcore is even right, it needs some serious rewriting. Navnløs (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Kavli Foundation

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

Previously speedied as copyvio, it was restored after we received a permission for text. However, it's still of dubious notability, and is far from our standards, so I brought it here for community to decide if it's worth inclusion. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jcohenkavli Until now, the only concern was copyright permission; this is the first mention of any other issue ("dubious notability" "far from our standards"). If I correctly understand the nature of these remarks, I do wish to assure you the material is accurate and the characterization of the foundation's work correct. One way to confirm this is by reviewing the many independent profiles of The Kavli Foundation, prizes and Mr. Kavli. Here are three in-depth profiles published by well-known independent news sources -- Time Magazine, The New York Times, and The Associated Press Jcohenkavli 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't write these links here, add them to the article. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jcohenkavli Thanks for the suggestion. Links have been added. Jcohenkavli 00:29, 15 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 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs sources properly integrated, though juicy sources are listed at bottom. Quatloo (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and start over. With these sources I'm sure a reasonable article could be written, but an encyclopedia article should not be based on the organization's self-description on their website. Mangojuicetalk 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but it certainly wouldn't hurt to reduce it to a stub and let someone rewrite it from the sources. Seems like this guy is handing out a lot of cash, and spreading it around - I would say it is notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources definitely establish notability, and most of the information in the article seems to be factual and uncontroversial, so we shouldn't just throw it away. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as Modified , but as said above it needed drastic editing, and I have done some. The problem with copies from organisation's websites is more than copyvio--they are also almost always not really right for an encyclopedia. there was no need, for example, to explain at length that the Institute of Nanoscale science would sponsor nanoscale science, and go on to describe what the general subject entails--that's PR talk, not encyclopedic content. And the NYT article in the references --with the others listed -- is certainly enough to shown notability. DGG (talk) 19:05, 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. east.718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

[edit] Wings of Time

Wings of Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is currently no information about this game in any of the reliable sites such has gamespot, ign. 1up and there is 0 results on google and aswell the company name is nowhere to be found on any reliable sites. Therefore it fails various wikipedia policy such has WP:NOT#CRYSTAL,WP:NOTABLE. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Release dates in 2009 take it deep into WP:NOT#CRYSTAL territory. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Computer and video games are usually covered heavily in online media sources, but a targeted web search returns absolutely no results (besides this article). Even a search for the company's name returns nothing (again, besides Wikipedia). As such, the article is completely unverifiable and cannot stand. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) per consensus. RMHED (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham

William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article does not establish the significance of the person. Titles alone do not establish significance. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Asserts notability by his peerage, which means specifically he provided a service to the King of England at the time, to get the peerage. Also the 3rd and 5th Barons of the peerage are in Wikipedia. Clearly the article should be kept, cleaned, wikied, the usual. scope_creep (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. His status as Baron would have made him notable at the time, and since notability is not temporary (on Wikipedia), that should be sufficient. According to this he was also a member of parliament and a peer.--Michig (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep first to hold this title, so notable for that if nothing else. RMHED (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a member of parliament as per the above link makes this an easy keep per WP:BIO, this should be added to article or tagged for expansion. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep per above, article just needs some TLC. Easily a keep per the fact that he was a member of parliament, baron, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the title was created for him and his father was not a peer he must have done something to earn it. Peerages were not just handed out in Tudor times.Moheroy (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment A quick google lookup found this [10] which seems to imply some notability. I don't have time right now but this information could easily be used to improve the article. Moheroy (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep First Barons are notable by definition. Find one who wasn't (eg the sons of Charles II) and they are notable because they were given titles for no real reason. The title Baron Willoughby of Parham was created for him in 1547. Victuallers (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Obvious keep and a time wasting nomination. Nick mallory (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but tag as a stub - Some one thought him notable at the time or he would not have been created a baron. The problem is that the article is a stub, which no one has thought to expand. The solution is to tag it now, in the hope that some one will expand it. It should certainly not be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 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. east.718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

[edit] Bias B

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

Non-notable Aussie rapper. Expired prod was removed without action due to "claims of notability". If there are any claims of notability, I don't see 'em. He has 2 records on an indie label of dubious notability (only one act on the label appears to sell well). Precious Roy (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete Bias B page, it was really usefully to me when I was in need for any info about this artist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.12.92 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

[edit] The Graveyard of Death

The Graveyard of Death (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This film doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria, because I cannot find evidence that it received any significant critical attention or was reviewed in any significant sources. Those sources I was able to find basically just verify the existence of the film; can anyone else find sources that verify its importance? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Fairly obscure pic, but has an entry in IMDB. Lots of other Indie films are detailed in Wikipedia, why not this. scope_creep (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it doesn't have an IMDB entry...at least none that I could find. IrishGuy talk 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE. As the article was written by Evelcat and the film has a cat named "evel" (not to mention a sequel was made called Evel Cat) this is obviously personal promotion. IrishGuy talk 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable film, no imdb entry, only 37 Ghits for this phrase, and not all of them are for this movie. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep its listed on the british film council website dont they only list films funded by them, i seen more obscure movies than this listed here. 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)— Kkk777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • No, the British film council website doesn't only list films funded by them...which I assume you know as your only edit was to come here and vote keep. IrishGuy talk 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No it's not a personal promotion and the page was clearly not external link spam IrishGuy.EvelCat(talk) 15:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC
  • Reply EvelCat, as you're new here, it might be helpful for you to review the notability criteria. That's the set of rules we are using to decide whether or not this article should be deleted; we're looking for evidence that this film meets that criteria. Take a look at those rules so you can tell us which specific part of the criteria the film meets, and offer two or three independent sources (like newspapers, magazines, and significant movie review sites) to verify it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence presented that this meets the guidelines for notablity for films: Non-notable director, non-notable production house, non-notable cast and (more importantly) no non-trivial secondary sources. And I agree with the above, the article is an obvious self-promotional. A1octopus (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence that this is a notable film. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 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 --JForget 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OMAR SAMUELS

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

No assertion of notability. IMDb brings exactly one reference to Mr. Samuels, that of an extra in a 2002 movie called Narc. Article appears to have WP:AUTOBIO issues as well, written by a single purpose account that seems to know information that only the subject would probably know (For example, under personal life, it says Omar is currently focused on his career). Sources given do not verify the information. Keeper | 76 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:NN actor, etc. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --lk (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Completely fails to assert notability. scope_creep (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. If kept, rename so as not to include capitals. Rudget.talk 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. What he's done so far in his life is hardly notable. Qworty (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BIO at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- Not notable.---Iconoclast Horizon 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:24, 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 and redirect. Daniel 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thats So Productions

Thats So Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

one tv show production credit only non notable company Heard131 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect into Raven-Symoné. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete Again, waste of a page for obscure company details. Merge relevant content into parent article and delete child page. scope_creep (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Seems to be the best course based on the limited nature of their productions, and relative notability. • Lawrence Cohen 22:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete, following on from consensus and showing a conclusive 'delete' vote here, too. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Season article for a club that doesn't play professionally, following on from consensus here. Simon KHFC (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed unnecessary duplication of signature. Simon KHFC (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. According to the Tamworth F.C. article, the club is professional - a lot of conference clubs now are. This doesn't seem any worse than all those excessively detailed articles about single seasons of American college (american) football teams.--Michig (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That seems unlikely to me, it could do with being verified by an independent source. Tamworth were certainly semi-professional as of 2004, since Adie Smith left Kidderminster Harriers F.C. to join Tamworth because he no longer felt he could play professionally. Things may have changed in the past three years but given Tamworth's fan base, level of finance and the league they currently play in (Level 6) I don't see how they could sustain professional football. However, if anyone can verify that they are professional then I'll probably strike my nomination. Simon KHFC (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-if or remove. If the data is correct and all of it can be verified then I am inclined to keep it for recorded history of a club. I am one of those people that like to keep every record if we can. :) Govvy (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - these articles should be accepted solely for clubs with at least nationwide notability. And I doubt Tamworth have such a massive impact in English football. --Angelo (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angelo. – PeeJay 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if the players are not notable the individual seasons sure aren't either. Punkmorten (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly not a notable topic much beyond the boundaries of Tamworth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, or at the least smerge somewhere. Normally the Conference North would be too low to bother with season pages for, but Tamworth were in the Conference premiership until last season, and also made the final 64 of the FA Cup that year, so they're just bobbling on the edge of the required notability for season articles to make sense. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Surely if someone is willing to keep the page up to date, (and there has been regular updates to the article), then this alone proves it's notablity to be included in wikipedia. I though that to be a notable article the criteria included the fact that it had to be regularly updated and/or visited by users on a regular basis, therefore this article is notable enough to remain on wikipedia. If this page is deleted then it calls into question the viability of all season 2007-08 pages currently on wikipedia does it not? Please respond to my usertalk page, thanks Dreamweaverjack (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to your reasoning, even Very Amateur F.C. season 2007-08 would be notable in case someone keeps it updated. I don't really agree with this. --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor do I. We recently saw at AfD that someone was prepared to maintain a season page for Torrington F.C., who play in the extremely lowly North Devon Football League, but just because someone was prepared to do that donkey work doesn't get the article a "free pass" onto Wikipedia. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Non-professional teams should not have season-by-season articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Punkmorten. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this and all "season 2007-08" articles - clear case of extreme recentism. - fchd (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the many reasons listed above. Ref (chew)(do) 12:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it amazes me on here, some people really have nothing better to do with their time then delete off other peoples hard work, Tamworth are a professional football outfit and this is a regularly updated page with very useful information hurting nobody, but we have people wishing to delete it, I really don't know why I bother. Stew jones (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, if you didn't want your "hard work" to be deleted or modified, you shouldn't have submitted it to Wikipedia. That is one of the things you agree to when you submit an edit to a page, so it's not even your hard work any more — it's Wikipedia's hard work now. – PeeJay 21:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Some people need to take there heads out of there arses. Leave this page alone! Go and do something worth while and delete Steve McClaren's page! Jonesy702 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Stay civil please. Also, confine yourself to reasoned argument, as abuse will not change any consensus decided here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If a team is notable enough for an article I see no reason why there should not be sub-articles where, as here, the material would overbalance the main article. This also happens to be way better sourced than many football articles, as a BTW. The page should be revisited at the end of the season and, if it hasn't been kept up-to-date, it can then be deleted. But for now I see no reason for it not to be kept. BlueValour (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - see пﮟოьεԻ 57 and Angelo re: not keeping pages just to update them. Ref (chew)(do) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - besides that, we need to set a notability cut-off point for clubs' individual seasons. Personally, with regard to English teams, I think that only Football League and Premier League teams should have them. – PeeJay 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - why do "we need to set a notability cut-off point for clubs' individual seasons"? We are not short of server space. Provided WP policies are not contravened (it is verifiable, not original research etc) then the content of articles, and any sub-articles, is a matter for the editors of the articles with the talk page being the final arbiter in any dispute. If it is considered that the season articles are considered too unimportant then it calls into question the notability threshold for clubs. The answer is not to delete perfectly respectable pages but to rethink the cut-off for notability for the parent organisation. BlueValour (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Tamworth are deemed a notable club, so therefore season articles on the club should be allowed in my opinion, providing all the information is verifiable (judging by the 21 references this shouldn't be a problem). Dave101→talk  16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep There are some really weak arguments expressed in this debate WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT but fundamentally the article is verifiable and meets the general Notability guideline with coverage in reliable national (BBC) sources. Unless and until a notability guideline is agreed upon this area this article should be kept. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Striking my previous, not so convinced after thinking again, changed to Neutral. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • There are three references from the BBC, and two of those stories only exist because they also involve other clubs playing in national leagues, that doesn't make it notable enough as far as I'm concerned. Simon KHFC (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it matters what you think really, most people agree that Tamworth are a noted club, shame you don't take as much pride in your team as I do in mine, do you get your kicks off trying to delete other peoples hard work off? Stew jones (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody has claimed that Tamworth are not a notable club, but is an article about their current season really notable? I think not. To repeat what Peejay said earlier, if you didn't want your work modified you shouldn't have submitted it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, if you want to keep a record of Tamworth's results and players it seems to me that you would be better off starting your own website. Simon KHFC (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I'm not familiar with intricate natures of soccer futball clubs (I can barely even wrap my head around the NCAA structure, even after 40 years), but aren't all teams in a professional league basically notable, if the league or conference itself is? • Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - Yes, but not all connected articles (such as this seasonal performance one) are deemed notable or appropriate by all interested editors. Allowing an article on Tamworth F.C. is not being questioned, that already exists without challenge - allowing a Tamworth F.C. off-shoot of this nature, though, is what is at stake here. Ref (chew)(do) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And Tamworth aren't in a professional league anyway. Their own article claims that they are fully professional, but if this is true then they must surely be one of only two or three fully pro teams in the Conference North..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 nobody has shown article has any reliable sources, will recreate as a redirect to Jamba!#Jamba! characters. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweety the Chick

Sweety the Chick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to have any reliable, non-trivial sources that are not self-published. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete 24,000 Yahoo hits--but not a reliable source among them. Blueboy96 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd think that it is notable as a Jamba! character, but has no independent notability. A redirect might be the answer.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article needs work, but this was really well know advert in the UK, one of the first of its type to advertise ringtones. I think personally, it established a cultural event, mostly because everybody complained about the incessant repeats. Clean the article. scope_creep (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - file down to short stub, or redirect to here. Rudget.talk 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-No reliable sources, outside of self-promotions.---Iconoclast Horizon 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Delete lacking sources and is a non-notable character in an advertising campaign - not even the most notable character in the campaign which featured Crazy Frog. MLA (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Used to be played on many, many, many television channels and is very well-known. Esteffect (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:N states that 'notability' is not synonymous with, among other things, fame or popularity.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:28, 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 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Zemelsky Musky Heist

Robert Zemelsky Musky Heist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be about an event of local but not encyclopedic notability, although may be a hoax as the references do not check out (at least not by searching www.spooneronline.com for "Robert Zemelsky Musky"). Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - has some reference points, but by the looks of it, they won't be available by literary or internet sources. Rudget.talk 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There is some sources which make could make the article factual, and not a potential hoax, but I don't think that would make it notable. Man caught fish, local government and police collude to censor the fact, unprovable by competing town. Is that notable, don't think so. scope_creep (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above rationale seems contrary to the bolded text. :S Rudget.talk 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An alleged fish story of purely local interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, this is an attack page. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete of local interest only. No assertions of broader notability. Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- This site is not a newspaper nor is it Guinness Book.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (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 keep without consensus, to what appears to be a content or naming dispute (a common problem in linguistics), rather than notability or other reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mappila Malayalam

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

I come from this region. The exact region that is quoted in the article to be speaking Mapilla Malayalam. I have never heard of such a thing in my entire life, until I read this article. I can tell you this is absurd because there exists no such thing that is spoken in these areas. Let me again tell you that it's slang. Similar to the various slangs used in Bangalore and Northern Karnataka where you will hear "Hengri Hegri etc" A similar style of speaking. This is not restricted to a particular part of Kerala. If you go to the Eranakulam side they have their own style, but it is still Malayalam. Visit Trishur area similar thing. I am astonished to find that this is such a propaganda in the name of religion. It's like saying Mapilla Kannada is spoken by Muslims of Karnataka. Absurd.

I would like you to go to these areas and ask the people which language they speak. Just like that. They will say Malayalam. Ask them they had ever heard of Mapilla Malayalam, I can assure you that they will be very much astonished to hear it from you. Also let me remind you that the people of this area (Irrespective of religion) speak the same slang.

There are three links in the article. One is from some NVTC site. It says "The Arabic script is also used occasionally by Muslims in Kerala." Why should muslims in Kerala use Arabic script to write Malayalam. Why not write Arabic itself. The flaw in this statement is that it never claims that the Muslims of Kerala writes Malayalam in Arabic script. First of all the Muslims of Kerala are not well versed with Arabic. Even in mosques during Ramadan time and all the speech is given to the faithful in Malayalam but a translator, that's the Maulvi.

The second link is by a website run by a Jewish person. Don't know how credible it is. The researcher must have got confused with the way he looks at Kerala. Since the said area is a an area with higher percentage of Muslims than rest of Kerala he must have thought that it's a different language. One or two Arabic word and voila you have got a new language. It's idotic thing. I had to admit that certain limited words are loaned from Arabic into Malayalam just like how words like Lorry, Bus are loaned from English. These things never existed when Malayalam was born and no revolutionary writers tried to find alternatives for it. So it struck. That will not make it English Malayalam. Now I think you are convinced that there is only one Malayalam and yes, ofcourse with certain slangs in different parts but nothing religious as such until now. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Though your concerns are not without merit, this article is notable and verifiable. Claiming that the content of a certain subject is heresy or idiocy will not get the article deleted; this is censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel the article is incorrect, your best interests would be to edit the article and find sources with which to countermand its facts, or perhaps create another article addressing the fallacies within this. However, outright deletion is not the answer.--WaltCip (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WaltClip. The article seems reasonably well sourced, has a variety of external links which relate to the subject, and is therefore verifiable. Another reason is the notability of the subject. Although I wouldn't base any keep on search engine hits, the article receives 30,900 hits. Rudget.talk 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm afraid your google search was malformed. Your search returned all instances of "Mappila" or "Malayalam". To verify the existence of this particular topic, you needed to put the phrase in quotes. A properly formatted google search returns only 74 non-duplicative hits. (And the first on the list is the Wikipedia article. That's not usually a good sign though some of the other hits do appear possibly relevant.) Rossami (talk)
      • Update: A google search with the terms reversed returns 271 non-duplicative hits. Most are foreign language hits so I can't personally determine their relevance to this discussion. But even the two together don't come close to the 31k in the unbounded search. Rossami (talk)
        • Most of those links are about mappila pattu (pattu = song) which already have an article at Mappila Songs Tintin 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article is well formatted, written and appears to have many valid sources, which clearly make it notable. I agree with WaltCip, <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">if the article can't simply be deleted per se, you can change it to support your point, but that will be eventually checked as well. scope_creep (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT-A pretty article with lot's of links still doesn't make the article true---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT-Agree with Iconoclast.Horizon. People have even made up entire wikipedias on language that doesn't exist (Siberian - ru-sib). So having a well organized article is not any sufficient reason to keep the article. --Jacob.jose (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether the article is accurate or not, but this is not a content fork, any more than American English is a fork of English language. --Alivemajor (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment-Well, accuracy is kinda of an important factor in this case. With the two Articles you have listed above, you are dealing a national lexicon not with undocumented local tonal variations.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? English isn't tonal, but American English does differ in more than just "national lexicon", and if it was "undocumented variation" we wouldn't very well be able to document in Wikipedia, would we? --Alivemajor (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- I should have expanded that comment for clarity. I wasn't referring to English or tonal languages. The general language of English and its variant form, American English, includes a vastly different lexicon than say, British English. This is quite distinct. So I don't think that is a valid comparison. Malayalam, Arabi(Arabic)-Malayalam have very subtle dialectal differences regarding pronuciation and tonal value. The addition of other Arabic words does not qualify it as a language or even a new regional dialect. I don't think the subtitles of the actual variation is what is important here.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, the article on mappila malayalam was deleted from the malayalam wikipedia, which though has an article on arabic malayalam Tintin 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that this is the primary distinction with this discussion. The word Mappila generally (but not completely), refers to or is interchangeable as "Muslim" in this region. 'Arabic' is more definitive as it deals with ethnic origin versus Mappila which is primarily a religious distinction, this is also apparent in the infobox which is dedicated to Islam. A comparison would be something like calling Saudi Arabia, Saudi Islam. All Arab ethnic groups are not Muslims. Granted, before anyone chimes in about this yes, I am aware that there are mentions of other religions that are vaguely connected to 'Mappila' but the consensus is that it is primarily a religious divide. After reviewing the history of other Malayalam related articles there have been attempts to divide the language along various religions in this area. I defer primary weight of this discussion to the native speakers in the area that say this is not the correct distinction of this dialect.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-Article appears to be untrue after further investigation. I researched this dialect and found nothing of substance to corroborate it. Most of the links are misleading and deal with Islam or a connected word in the article's title not with a possible Indian dialect. Also, several individuals from this region of India have chimed in on the Afd page and on the article's discussion page and said this is not a dialect. I know people in this region of Kerela who also said this dialect does not exist. There does appear to be an Islamic (Arabic) connection in the region but it does not claim to have its own dialect. There is a connection between the Arabic (Mappila) community in Kerela, and the actual language of the people Malayalee but I feel the primary contributer is a bit confused on this being an actual Indian-Arabic dialect, using original undocumented information and not substantiating the article. He is choosing to list multiple links to the Islamic faith unrelated to the article. The article looks good in format but is basically not true. --- Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)*

*Merge to Malayalam language. I am a native speaker of the language, but I have never heard of this name before. I am aware that Muslim speakers have their own "dialect" of Malayalam. For example, they use "Umma" and "Baapa" for "Amma" and "Achan" (Mother and Father). --vi5in[talk] 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete After going through the article again, I think it should probably be deleted. The only salvageable content seems to be the difference in vocabulary between Standard Malayalam and Muslim dialects. This information could be added to the dialects section in Malayalam language. --vi5in[talk] 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Malayalam Wikipedia deleted this article should say something to its accuracy.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAPPILA MAYALAM AS A RECOGNIZED DIALECT!! You can not merge this because it is not a valid term for all of you academicians here. The article called Arabic Malayalam deals with this and it is not divided by religion but by ethnic and cultural background! There is confusion here with the religious verses cultural context.----Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - What I meant by Merge, is that you can at least merge the vocabulary part of this article. Muslims in Kerala do have a different form of Malayalam. You could mention that. --vi5in[talk] 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Archive - Could use the table in some other article: I am a Malayalee. Based on second hand information from the discussions in the talk page for Arabi Malayalam in Malayalam wiki, especially talking into consideration the comment of one muslim who belongs to this region, and based on my own research from some sources, my understanding is this:
    1. Arabi Malayalam is entirely different from Mappila Malayalam. Arabi Malayalam is a style of writing Arabic text using Malayalam alphabet to facilitate learning of Islamic texts in Arabic. Source - ml:അറബി മലയാളം
    2. Mapplima Malayalam as named doesn't exist. Muslims in Malabar are called Mappilas; at many places Christians are also called by that name. Muslims in Malabar use a dialect of Malayalam that has a few words borrowed from Arabic. There are a number of dialects of Malayalam colloquially called Thrissur Malayalam, Kottayam Malayalam (Achadi malayalam), Kozhikkodan malayalam, Theronthoram malayalam, Vadakkan malayalam, Thekkan malayalam and so on, but as I understand, none of these dialects, especially Mappila Malayalam, have been formally recognized by that name in notable texts, but are slangs. So my assessment is that this article has a serious WP:OR problem. --Jacob.jose (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article is mostly original research. Salvage any useful (and verifiable) content to the Malayalam article under Malayalam#Dialects_and_external_influences.--thunderboltz(TALK) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the issue here, at least for me, is the original research in an area that requires an outside expert should not be maintained here as 'first hand publishing' and the title implies the religion versus cultural difference and is not founded.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not relevant that this language might not be know by Wikipedians or even that it might be a desire by the reilable sources to promote it as a language. There are two references cited in that article: (1) Chaitanya's Book Kerala:India, the land and the people. and (2) Dravidian encyclopaedia. It is not Wikipedia original research to cite to those references. In other words, the cited references can be original research; the article cannot. Unless there is consensus that these references do not support the article, I do not yet see a policy reason to delete the article. In other words, please stop giving your personal opinions and start discussing the reliable source material. Thank you. -- Jreferee t/c 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    References have to be reliable. Who is Chaitanya? Who wrote Dravidian encyclopedia? --Jacob.jose (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Krishna Chaitanya was a journalist/writer, his real name was Krishna something else but used Chaitanya as a pseudonym. He was a Malayali but operated out of somewhere in North India. This book about Kerala was republished in Malayalam, I read this translation many years ago but can't remember anything. Died sometime in the mid/late ninties Tintin 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- I would expect those comments from a User but not a seasoned Admin, asking someone to stop giving their opinion. Consensus is about opinion, Jreferee. Here 80% of the Articles are a matter of unscholarly opinion. Did you actually go to the links that you referenced above? Did you research this before you made the above comments? The problem is that are no reliably cited text in these sources. My opinion is based on outside research and contacting people that actually live in Kerela, India where I have been. Granted, I have studied languages of this area of central Asia, I am not claiming to be an expert in this field but this article is made up and I am not the only one to point that out. Wikipedia Malayalam deleted it for that reason. No wonder Wikipedia is so unreliable overall. Your Welcome---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your post on my talk page. I'm not sure why you think my 18:30, 22 November 2007 post above was directed specifically at you. It wasn't. Wikipedia is nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information. Wikipedia prohibits original research and relies on the reliable source material for reliability. Your claim that Wikipedia is so unreliable overall is like claiming that the phone company is unreliable overall because of what people say into their phones. In the same way the phone company has no control over what people say into their phones, Wikipedia has no control over what the reliable sources print. If the reliable sources say it, we put it in, if they don't, we don't. Personal opinions about a topic are important to determine whether the article is conveying information properly, but do not address whether the topic and article meet Wikipledia's article standards. Chaitanya's Book and the Dravidian encyclopaedia convey information about Mappila Malayalam. Does the article accurately reflect what these two sources say about Mappila Malayalam? Are these two sources Wikipedia reliable sources for the information conveyed? Is the article written in a way that puts the topic of Mappila Malayalam in proper context with respect to the Malayalam language? If the information as presented conveys untrue facts, wouldn't it be better to rewrite the article to accurately convey the information to educate others rather then delete the article to prevent their education? -- Jreferee t/c 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment- I am afraid your comparison to the phone company and what people say into the phone holds no bearing to what is happening with this article. I think Wikipedia is a fun source for a lot of interesting opinions but consistent and reliable it is not and that is very truly reflected in the academic world. If I were to tell anyone of the noted scholars that I deal with, 'I read it on Wikipedia', they would just look at me funny. I know there are many contributors that have a lot of academic credential that are very balanced in their writing but then someone interjects something they think they know about or that 'must be' put in, then the whole concept of accurate information is lost. That is one of it's strengths, in many ways in several areas but also its major flaw when in depth research is needed. The problem here is not something that can be fixed with a rewrite. The dialect, as it is titled does not exist. There is a correlation between to two words but it is being confused with a distinct dialect. The information it contains should be deleted, as it is original research. The sources do not reflect Mappila Malayalam as a dialect itself, this has been inferred by the contributor and expounded upon to create this article. I could create an article called Christian English Tennessee Twang and make it fit the facts but that still wouldn't make it a recognized dialect or make it true. I really question the logic of putting original articles like this in Wikipedia until we prove it to be untrue. I think the reverse should be the case. I am glad our justice system doesn't work in that way. Your statement "Wikipedia is nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information.", is how we would like to think of it, but unfortunately is not true. It is opinionated and too many times not verifiable. I believe this to be the case with this article and so did Wikipedia Malayalam. I did spend way too much time researching this one but I wanted to make sure as many bases were covered as possible and still I came back that the article is original research on an academic topic that is essentially false. Sorry to be the stick in the mud about it all but keep it if you like, just makes US Wiki look silly when their own native speakers wouldn't list it.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


I wrote the article.Every language has its own dialects.Mappila Malayalam is not a different language, but is a muslim dialect of Malayalam.I have done tons of research and has wasted enough of my valuable time in writing this articles. I have given many reliable reference to this article.If every wikipedians are against this article, then i have no more word to say.I strongly recomend to KEEP this article. ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Arunkumar- I see you put a lot of work into the article and it looks great. I know that the Mappila are associated with Malayalam but are you the first to write about it as a distinct dialect? Thanks!---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No comment on the validity of all this relative to what the local users posted above, but the sources if nothing else assert and show that the subject is notable. Sounds like anything else is a content dispute. • Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as notable, but rename to St. Vincent de Paul Church. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Active Baltimore Catholic Parish

Oldest Active Baltimore Catholic Parish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence that the church is notable, and in any case, this is Wikipedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. If the church is notable, then the page should be about the church, with the fact that it is the oldest being part of that article. Mayalld (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The church does some really good works for the community, but truthfully it's not notable in Baltimore, let alone for Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename. The appropriate name would be St. Vincent de Paul (church in Baltimore). --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 15:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If kept, the article should indeed move to a new title, such as Church of St. Vincent de Paul (Baltimore). The church may well be notable, but right now I have no opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Rename Its an foolish title, but some of the content in the article could be used to identify the church, location etc. The article would need substantial work. scope_creep (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and keep. I cleaned it up some. If it is really as important as it says, some categories should allow other editors to find it and add constructively. —ScouterSig 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename - suggest St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, Baltimore. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-Write and Rename- This is not Guinness Book. The history of the church is notable, the fact they deliver hot meals is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems to be advertising for the parish. Needs a re-write but contains information that may still be validSpiorad (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely notable per this. I'm going to be bold and just rename it, keep or delete as there is consensus for that. • Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 09:45, November 25, 2007

[edit] List of sporting scandals

List of sporting scandals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Utterly unreferenced, unmaintainable list, made redundant by Category:Sports scandals Docg 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Category doesn't hold red links (there are a couple in the article). It's unreferenced, but it links to each and every article, which should be referenced. How is this unmaintainable? Are there dozens and dozens of notable sporting scandals every day? Lugnuts (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Its clearly notable, parent article (A category?) of scandals, providing valuable crosslinking of related Wikipedia articles. I also can't see How its unmaintainable. There is perhaps half a dozen of these types of scandals a year at major sporting events, easy to add to the list. scope_creep (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- The Scandals hold merit, a Top 25 List (as shown at the bottom) of these scandals does not and is purely subjective.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep It is a notable topic, and the article does make an effort to keep a global and historical viewpoint. Moreover, it is concise, summarizing a scandal in a sentence or two. However, it could use some major rewrite to take out the subjective and POV stuff. The Top 25 list doesn't detract from the article one iota-- it's simply a link that someone may click onto. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete poorly sourced, several doesn't seem like "scandals", the most notable of the sports scandals already got articles, two of the three redlinks in the article seems unneeded. This is a Secret account 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If this is kept, every unreferenced mention of a living person will be removed. That won't leave much.--Docg 01:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Well (novel)

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

Delete No notability established in the article. Strothra (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - speedy worthy? Rudget.talk 17:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Also wrong spelling of the author. scope_creep (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No indication of notability for this novella; delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I wasn't sure if someone else knew something about this book, so I originally Prod'd it, but it was removed without comment. Anyways, this article fails to establish notability per WP:BK (and Google's got nothing), so it need to go. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 13:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flora Sheldon

Flora Sheldon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Strothra (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Hail to the Speedy. Entering direct, indirect and extended family members of famous names, already in Wikipedia is self defeating and serves no purpose. Only if the family member is notable in their own right. scope_creep (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- As per guidelines :" ...the relationship to someone notable does not, in itself, make that person notable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a non-notable remotely distant relative of the current president, she was neither famous nor infamous herself. There is no assertion that she was remotely influential on the incumbent. She has, as far as can be seen, never even in the news. No reliable, independent sources are cited that she even existed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:17, 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 per WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Bush Ellis

Nancy Bush Ellis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only notability by association is asserted. And if we tolerate that, the Six degrees of separation concept means every single person on Earth is notable by association. But I digress. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. --Angelo (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- As per guidelines :" ...the relationship to someone notable does not, in itself, make that person notable." Go to a geneaology site for that.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with George H. W. Bush, if there is anything to merge, otherwise Delete. Tim Ross·talk 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is the sister of the former President--immediate family, one degree of separation. I'd stop at one degree, but unlike the others this is within it DGG (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but NOT as a sister of a past president. She is possibly notable in her own right as a philanthropist. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Bush, Jr.

Timothy Bush, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra (talk) 13:17, 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. east.718 at 09:48, November 25, 2007

[edit] Levi Addison Gardner

Levi Addison Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only claim of notability for this person is that he had a daughter, who later had a son, who later became US President. The article doesn't even say what he did all his life, and more space is given to the daughter (Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford) than to the subject. Delete as non-notable person. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Strothra (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Nom. scope_creep (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- As per guidelines :" ...the relationship to someone notable does not, in itself, make that person notable.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete per nom, but it asserts notability and has a source. Needs a LOT of work. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The argument that wikipedia is not a geneological list is good. However, there should be a different criteria for heads of state. Biographies of heads of state always report the ancestors. I created the article when Ford died to explain why he wound up in Grand Rapids as opposed to some place else. Americasroof (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - if this is the only reason, then why not just explain this in the Gerald Ford article? Yes, biographies (not just of heads of state) usually mention ancestors, but that doesn't mean they get their own biography. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - there is no rationale whatsoever in this article to keep it. There is not even a point to make a redirect. Greswik (talk) 17:35, 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. east.718 at 09:48, November 25, 2007

[edit] Dan DAVID

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

Contested PROD. Autobiography of a musician who may be notable, but whose sources consist almost exclusively of myspace and other sites owned by the author. Delete Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, for lack of independent sources. If the subject is indeed notable, then there are sources somewhere that prove it - but I cannot find any in my (brief) search. I'll continue to dig a little and see what I can come up with. No objection to creating a new article once independent sources are available. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article uses a lot of words to say that he's got a couple of independent CDs out; it suggests he hasn't signed with a notable label, and I can't track any sources that indicate he's reached teh bar of WP:MUSIC at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- 'nough said.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

*below comment refactored - was placed within an above comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear friends, if you can see the revised article as done by a most reputable producer on myself, you'll see lots of links not owned by myself as artist, but links of Publishers, Major music companies, publications, where my work or music or books are featured, including interviews, and more. God bless. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandavidmusic (talk • contribs)
    • Huh? None of these links come even close to establishing enough notability to warrant a Wikipedia article on you. Sorry. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I see your point of view. I actually strongly support Wikipdia qualifications for an article on a musician, a local musician should not be on the wikipedia, a local artist neither. But this article on myself, as initiated be people helping my music who simply looked over some facts, was initiated as some of the facts qualified the WP MUSIC standards.

I'm only checking to ensure others' input is correct, this page is for others to input and add. But take notice, while some links where removed, others are added. Being an author as well, on a major publishing label, with my books selling worldwide and being the no. 1 violin method from Canada, is a qualification. I also play for major films and movies, one was added in music facts. I actually played in over 3 major tv productions, none were added yet. I also played for Global's Are you smarter than a Canadian 5th Grader? on openning day. Achievements can go on and on. Also am currently looking over recording offers from major publishers to be signed, so more will be added to the article. I strongly believe this article should stay and be accepted as it will only grow with more achievements, facts and verifiable correct information that will both be proven and checked for accuracy by myself. We support the Wikipedia and this page is for the purpose if information, not self interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandavidmusic (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but none of your comments here are backed up by reliable sources. Articles have to, by policy, be verifiable. I can find no verification, for example, that your statement about "Violin Made Easy" (which as a phrase gets under 300 Google results) being the number-one method from Canada. Your mention of playing on the animated short "The Story of Lydia" is also questionable as notability, as that film seems to have very little coverage as well. If the article is to be kept, the folks working on it must provide specific links to notable, non-trivial secondary sources to confirm the claims made therein. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Tony. My web design team who have all the facts have been enable to reply these days. As for asking about Violin Made Easy being no. 1 method from Canada, these are facts only the publisher has. For violin methods, many are American. This is the Canadian method that has just entered the market in 2006, and is the best selling of all Canadian violin methods. It was just recently sub published by Music Exchange, one of the largest distributors in England. The search shows them selling it.

As for the film, The story of Lydia, it is coming out soon. The company releasing it on film mentioned on their website of this film to be coming soon. I did also play for ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A CANADIAN 5TH GRADER? which is now known as the no. 1 debut for a Canadian Television show ever as mentioned on their website and on news releases for this show which you can search online. This info is still not mentioned in my article of myself being the only band to play on that show, which I hope others will add in time. If you notice, I also have influenced and worked with other "notable" people in music who are on the Wikipedia. As a little example, the violinist Dr. Draw (Eugene) has been influenced by my music in his earlier years. In fact, he himself joined a facebook group that was created on my music by a fan from Stoofville Ontario. Sincerely, Dandavidmusic (talk) 18:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greta Barrymore

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

Unsourced article about a fictional character. Has been speedy deleted (A7) and recreated. I turned into a redirect to the main article Monster Allergy but an anonymous friend has disagreed. Article is completely in-universe, unsourced and unsourceable. Does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirements. Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 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. Dougie WII (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Aloysius College, Adelaide

St Aloysius College, Adelaide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted other than it's a school. Very little to no context. Dougie WII (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: For better or worse, consensus seems to be that most high schools are notable. shoy (words words) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep WP:OUTCOMES seems to show the light here. The article passes part of WP:ORG, in that it has been around since 1880. Really all this article is looking for is somebody who actually cares about it. Twenty Years 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Consensus is that high schools are notable. With almost a thousand students, someone someday will improve the article. --lk (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep These places are used by shed loads of folk. That is cultural notability. scope_creep (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete content-free, non-notable school. A7-able. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very long-running high school; high schools are almost always considered notable per WP:OUTCOMES. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seriously old school for Adelaide, notable students like Dame Roma Mitchell and others. It has a book on it from Wakefield press Making Space: Women and Education at St. Aloysius College 1880-2000, appears well covered in Three Women of Faith: Gertrude Abbott, Elizabeth Anstice Baker and Mary Tenison Woods (wakefield press 2000), some coverage may be in Colonial Australia, 1875-1900 (Francis Keble Crowley 1980). Clearly appears a notable school and well written enough about for a good article. Peripitus (Talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Agree that, consensus seems to be that most high schools are notable. Lets stop debating and leave time for someone to care about an article like this. Peripitus could/would you add these refs to this article? Add 1500 characters and I'll nominate it for the front page. Victuallers (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Added a bit and a few references - more will have to wait until someone gets to the SA State Library - Peripitus (Talk) 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- Not terribly valuable info but it does meet notability and is a recognized institution.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets WP:N. Noroton (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like the consensus is that all such schools are considered inheritantly notable, so I withdraw the nomination. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Throw In

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

Unreleased fan-made game; no evidence of notability or verifiability; WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; possible self-promotional article. ~Matticus UC 11:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. JJL (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:Crystal Ball scope_creep (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the article: "The final version will probably be released in 2008". And even when released it doesn't sound like it'll be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- Promotional.---Iconoclast Horizon 01:02, 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. Daniel 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shipititez

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

Seemingly non-notable artist. only source is a defunct magazine. google is quiet. creator removed prod. tomasz. 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The musician has only 2 records out, hardly notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Having two records out would meet the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, but this guy only has 67 Ghits, none of them a reliable source. His record company, Krooked Records, seems to use angelfire as their official website, so even the company isn't all that notable. Add his records to this AfD: Corvus cornix (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac 707
Sonar album —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, having two records on a notable label starts to meet WP:MUSIC; Krooked doesn't seem notable. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mars Volta tours

The Mars Volta tours (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Badly formatted list of concerts by a band that is barely notable. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Being badly formatted is no reason whatsoever for deletion, and the band is clearly notable. Are there any more convincing arguments for deletion?--Michig (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thus, we're working on formattation.--User:Walkabout86 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.68.95 (talk)
    • Much better. Next time, I'll use {{copyedit}} instead. Thank you. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:02, 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 not a single keep argument is grounded in policy. east.718 at 09:47, November 25, 2007

[edit] San Andreas Multiplayer

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer (3rd nomination)
San Andreas Multiplayer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously kept on the basis of no consensus. In nine months there have been no reliable, independent sources added; no articles, reviews, interviews, etc. Unsourced importance assertion regarding a petition. The article reads like a game guide in places. Drat (Talk) 08:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep And change Wikipedia policy. I read the article. It's well written, informative, and would be useful to a reader curious about the game. Nobody is saying it is inaccurate, or promoting a point of view, or a commercial product. While it and a vast number of Wikipedia articles are not notable enough to make the cut for a paper publication, the notability cutoff is much lower on disk. The article lacks independent sources but has links directly to the primary source if anyone wants to verify anything or try playing the game. The entire reason it is up for deletion is Wikipedia policies. The policy about not depending on primary sources is a Wikipedia artifact that should be reconsidered. Academics and paper encyclopedia authors always rate primary sources as better than secondary ones.

Grue [11], is likely to be deleted for the same reason. I think it is a better encyclopedia article than Final_Fantasy_VII in spite of the latter having 122 citations. [12]

I am not a player. I don't even know anyone who plays this game. Keith Henson (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Your comment is more of a reason to delete than to keep. There is no lower "notability cutoff", just a lower inclusion threshhold for things that are notable. Paper encyclopedias do not "rate" primary sources higher than secondary ones (journalists do, but this isn't journalism). The reason primary sources aren't reliable is because they haven't been verified. I could say anything, and it can be used as a primary source. The primary shows it exists, now show it's important. And for the record, people can make well-written, informative articles that are blatantly false. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I accept "a lower inclusion threshhold for things that are notable" as the way I should have worded it.
Re primary sources, bias can be inserted at any level, and you have to use sense in dealing with primary as well as secondary sources. But I have a hard time imagining encyclopedic historians valuing a secondary report of a battle over the first hand reports, especially if they have reports from both sides of the battle. And in the case of something like a game on the net it's right there to verify on any point but usage, and maybe even that. Re secondary sources about non-commercial games, there isn't the push to get hard copy articles written because it isn't making money to pay a PR department. So even if a lot of people were playing a game, it would not get much (or even any) press and that needs to be factored in.
As for "well-written, informative articles that are blatantly false," you got that right! Unfortunately an article may be blatantly false to someone who understands the topic but not to readers/editors when the topic is well outside their field. Sadi Carnot got away with that for two years before he was banned. [13] Keith Henson (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The idea is that, if it's significant enough, someone will write something about it. That's the threshold of notability for everything here, and if you want to change it, it's an uphill battle. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The reason I am saying keep, is that these fan designed levels and game add-ons are fairly rare. We should have a record of some of them anyway, as they are completely new concept (In computer-ese anyway). Now that I think about it, its like customising your car with after market products, but I still it achieves some notability. scope_creep (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are absolutely no references or cites to show this mod is notable. Change that, and I'll change my mind. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not hard to see with a few keywords (game and game developer names) that this game variation has a substantial presence on the web. Wonder what is going to happen to WP:RS when most publications move to the web? Of course even peer reviewed paper articles won't always be acceptable to some. Keith Henson (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • With a few days and some well-worded phrases, I can have a substantial presence on the web as well. The web itself, by the way, isn't necessarily unreliable. Many "reliable sources" are web-based. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be very impressed if you were able to build up "a substantial presence on the web" in a few days. It happens I am moderately well known on the web, but that was non-intentional and took decades of doing things like here: [14].


  • Weak keep I'm trying not to rely on saying that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but List of Half-Life 2 mods and Deus Ex mods are both around. However, without sources (and not just the game's homepage), it's a weak article. —ScouterSig 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are lists. Not articles. Two very different kinds of creature. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's still a well written article, something not all that common on wikipedia. Perhaps I can move it to a place where it would be appreciated before you delete it. Keith Henson (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well-written or not, it's still unsourced. My problem's not with the name of the article. (and -I- am not the one deleting it, so there's no need for the accusatory tone) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no intent to be accusatory. Should have been more specific, exchange "you" for "some admin." Still, it's obvious where you stand on the issue. It's not that there are no sources, there is lots of stuff on the web about the game and the developers, it's just that there are no *acceptable* sources. Wiki lawyers will may cut the number of articles by half over the next year or three. Is this good or bad? I don't know, but it sure results in a lot of strife. A related problem is topic clueless editors and admins driving out people who know a topic well enough to speak authoritatively about it. It's possible that one may have a solution outside of wikipedia. Keith Henson (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Lots of stuff on the web"? Great. Put it in. The debate over whether or not sources are "acceptable" at this point is moot. Right now, there are no sources. If there's a lot of things out there on the web, then start putting it into the article. Or post them here to sort them out. All this "It exists, and it's notable, just not by the rules, trust us" stuff doesn't work nor help. Believe it or not, most "delete" voters I've seen are not slavering wolves out to kill articles they don't like...I would love to save the article, and I'll bet others would change their minds too. We're even willing to help, if you need it, just ask. But you need to step up and get some sources, not just complain the notability rules are unfair. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

http://forum.fok.nl/topic/900359

http://guide.opendns.com/?url=%22San+Andreas+mulitplayer%22+kyeman&client=ff20

Results 1 - 10 of 460 for "San Andreas multiplayer" kyeman

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/san_andreas_multiplayer

http://forum.cstrike.ro/f/Jocuri-online/16845/TuTOrIaL-GTA-San-Andreas-MULTIPLAYER.html

http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=22445 (June 2005)

http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1141395

In 10 minutes I found the game is discussed in at least 4 languages, Dutch, German, Russian and Romanian(?). Some of these are very likely reviews by third parties because they list games besides this one. (I can't tell for sure since I don't read those languages.) I suspect the fans don't care enough to work the third party cites into a Wikipedia article even if web sources like these were permitted. If the article is deleted here it is on other wikis.

http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/wiki/San_Andreas_Multiplayer

Which as a guess is more important to them.

I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article even if I could read the foreign sources.

I have no feel for the notability of a multi user video game played played in a number of countries by as many people as live in a substantial city. If it is notable (and note that I don't feel qualified to answer that) you could be doing Wikipedia a disservice by not looking at the wider picture in spite of the article's lack of cites.

It probably doesn't make a bit of difference to information seekers since other wikis have sprung up and seekers can find the information there. Cites or no cites the notability of an article in a specialized area is obvious to topic specialized local editors who know the subject.

Wiki editors working on articles in topic areas they don't understand had to have a mechanical way to judge them. It has devolved into an army of wiki lawyers who value form over content because they don't understand the subjects.

This discussion has been interesting since it directly relates to the problems wikipedia has with experts rapidly getting disgusted and leaving. My recent experience lead me to the conclusion that this problem can't be solved within wikipedia given the social context that has evolved here. The spontaneous solution of fragmentation is probably the best that can be expected. Keep or delete. In the larger picture it doesn't matter. Keith Henson (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Most of those are forum posts, which don't count for anything. That gamespy link, though, qualifies, but it's not much more than a press-release paragraph...it's the best we have to go on, right now. It's not even on their list of San Andreas mods, though, so that doesn't help. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N due to a complete lack of sources, notability is not inherited, popularity is not notability. More than enough time has passed for someone to shake out some sources if they were available, I had a look a few days ago and could find none.Someone another (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From the wash of red on the page, it looks like 95% of the video games are going to be booted. At this rate, wikipedia may shrink even faster than I anticipated. The material isn't likely to be lost though. Keith Henson (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest reading this. Notability isn't based on the inclusion or deletion of other articles, even similar ones. Each article stands on it's own merits. In fact, skimming the entire WP:AADD page may do some good. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"This." A pointer into 54,569 bytes of finely argued wiki policy, where the policy itself has been subjected to more than 500 edits but in fact depends on arbitrary opinions of what is a "source." I.e., if some editor and their friends don't like an article, or an editor, chances are high it gets deleted. Or they can take a trivial mention and the fact some subject is being discussed in 4 languages as "notability."

I noticed in that deletion list that someone put up one of the Super Mario games for deletion. It didn't pass though most of the rest did. Understand that I don't give a hoot if a single video game of any kind was put in the wikipedia. Don't play them, don't care, only accidentally came upon this deletion notice. Am only interested in this because I generally hate to see information lost (my wife is a professional archivist and librarian) and since I am into evolutionary psychology the intense social interactions are interesting at a meta level.

Jeeze. Google lists 56,600 web pages for wikipedia inclusionist deletionist. Keith Henson (talk) 18:39, 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let Me Tell You Something

Let Me Tell You Something (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Non-notable local show MorrisRob (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-Purely listed to promote the gallery owners and some of the artists attached to the gallery site, which shouldn't be on there either; I can pull up the local McDonald's on Google but that doesn't mean it should be listed here.---Iconoclast Horizon 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Had a look for sources, there is a few, don't think these are notable. It has a parent article at Rivington Arms which if this article is kept, should be merge into. scope_creep (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Montgomery, Jr.

Robert Montgomery, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minor actor and stockbroker whose only real claim to notability is being the son of Robert Montgomery. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't sound that notable to me. Alberon (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Call the Speedy. scope_creep (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as it has ZERO cites per WP:BIO. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lieutenant Dan Taylor

Lieutenant Dan Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recreation of article that was deleted via PROD (as was the article on Bubba). Lacks notability apart from film and it is already adequately covered by main Forrest Gump (film) article and Gary Sinise's article. Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. The article is just a regurgitation of his part in the plot of the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alberon (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete The character is a major part of the film. Detail should be merged into main parent article, then delete. scope_creep (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If we merge, we must either merge article history (a cumbersome process) or retain a redirect. Both are means of preserving a record of editorial contributions under the GFDL. Please don't vote "merge and delete" as it violates the license under which we ask people to contribute. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:37, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Girl (comics)

American Girl (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete this stub of an article about a supposed Amalgam Comics character, not notable enough for her own article. Without a source to confirm that this character really appeared in any Amalgam issue (as opposed to many fan fiction creations or hoaxes or Amalgam's metafictional references to character and events that never really appeared in any comic), there is nothing to merge into any other article. Doczilla (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete There is a lot of archive list and fancruft comic sites, but I can't find anything which asserts the notability of this article. But in the same instance, there was bound to be a character called this in the 50's after the allies won the war. That could also be a hoax, with this line of thinking used to reinforce the notability of the article. 0I think we should wait for sources, then delete up the line if they don't appear. scope_creep (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just to clarify things, the character this article talks about isn't a 40s or 50s character. Amalgam was a creation of DC Comics and Marvel Comics that was published as a series of single issue titles in 1996 and 1997. Stephen Day (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really notable.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll say the same thing everytime one of these minor Amalgam characters comes up for deletion. Amalgam Comics itself deserves its own article, but there are only a select few individual characters that are significant enough outside of that topic deserving of their own articles. American Girl would not be on that short list. Stephen Day (talk) 22:18, 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 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delegation marketing

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

Also included in this nom:

These three articles appear to be part of some scheme to promote the authors' services. See [15] [16] Toohool (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete All appear to be neologisms and specifically created by the company in question to promote specific services. No evidence the term is used beyond those by the company who created it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Neologismsthat appear to be non-notable. Plus, Rbjewell has removed an {{unsourced}} tag from one of these articles without addressing the issue. The notability of these terms is not asserted, and there are unreferenced claims of these methods being successful, which beg the question, where? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, quite strongly; concur with all above. These articles are full of vacuous word salad:
    Marketing has many interpretations, and depending on which text book you read, you will get conflicting definitions. The term marketing is very misunderstood with the common thought of sales. Behind marketing is a complex system that directs strategies and processes in the delivery of products to the point of sale.
    — essentially meaningless or tautological complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete First ghit you view, describes it as a Neo. Call Speedy. scope_creep (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Additionally, the meta-reference to Wikipedia seems important but unsalvagable. \sim Lenoxus " * " 01:36, 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 Acalamari 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Imaging Websites Association

Digital Imaging Websites Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

deletion nomination Somewhat spammy, stubby article about a series of websites that lacks any independent sources which may point to notability. Fails guidelines for notability in general and for web content specifically. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:30, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabish Qureshi

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

Deletion nomination Non-notable academic. Does not seem to meet any of the notability guidelines for either people in general or academics specifically. Lacks any independent sources and also makes very few claims that would point to notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

that's not \ the only factor--Senior reader has often been accepted as notability, depending on the publications and so forth. I usually argue for respecting university ranks to a certain extent, but I would never do so completely--in either direction.DGG (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete WoS gives somewhat confusing results--there seem to be more than one field of research involved. If it is the same person, there is one highly cited paper, "Aspects of tachyonic inflation with an exponential potential" Sami M, Chingangbam P, Qureshi T. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 66 (4): Art. No. 043530 AUG 15 2002 cited 82 times, but otherwise there are about 10 inconsequential papers. DGG (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:54, 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 Acalamari 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By Summer`s End

By Summer`s End (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be all original research and commentary on a novel. It reads like a student book report or something. Poorly formatted too. Although the book appears on Amazon, its notability is at best unclear. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: For now. It has only been here a few hours, and appears to be an actual book. Needs work, a lot of work, but I'm willing to give it some time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, if not significantly improved after 5 days. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete is the book notable? no indication that it is. As it stands the article is a mess, I doubt it's worth salvaging. RMHED (talk) 19:21, 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 due to improvements to the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is an original synthesis of ideas, which is clearly forbidden by WP:OR and WP:SYN. Quoting the OR policy: Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses.   Skopp   00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep: For now. References have been added to support the statements listed, so I don't see the OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I've been convinced, per the below comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Good work DGG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Overall concept of the article is OR and WP:SYN. Trying to tie together these diseases is OR. The entire thesis of the article is OR because there is no reference for it. Author is making a point, not reporting a point made by others.   Skopp   01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to me an entirely irrelevant article. Virtually every disease known to man had an unknown etiology before some period in its history, which readers can find out about in each disease's own article. For the handful of Wikipedia articles on diseases of unknown cause, we have Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Readers can also find lists of inflammatory diseases in inflammation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article rewrite displays this topic to be independently notable and verifiable. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Someguy1221. (he pretty much covered everything.)   jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete looks to me like a pretty straight-forward case of WP:SYN. Article author is collecting primary sources together to present a novel synthesis. The result does not appear to be an encyclopedic documentation of a topic with "extensive coverage" by reliable, secondary, sources as required by WP:N. If secondary sources existed, they would be review articles covering all the material covered in this article. If this article were to summarize a number of review articles from the medical journals, then I'd be satisfied, but that's not what's happening here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, essay. JJL (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article creates a generalisation that doesn't exist. Most diseases mentioned are reasonably well understood, even if their etiologic agent is not known, and the author mixes autoimmune and infectious conditions, as well as suggesting diseases that feature inflammation are therefore "inflammatory diseases". WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH concerns as described. JFW | T@lk 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Whilst I agree there is a strong risk (indeed currently so) that this article breaches Original Research for the collation of different disease (not that any one disorder does not have plenty of references that could be cited), I would point out that the article is currently "Under construction" and already has had another admin (User:DGG) comment on problems and initial workup tasks required - see User talk:Reasonablelogicalman#Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology.
    • As such, I’d be inclined to allow a little more leeway before AfD, and Skopp's (Skoppensboer (talk · contribs)) belittling of admin action/observation[17] is sailing close to the wind given the previous uncivil[18] edit warring against Reasonablelogicalman (talk · contribs) over whether there is a possible unrecognised infectious cause to chronic prostatitis.
    • I agree though that WP:NOR risk and the topic might have been better worked up as a user subpage with some input from other editors to address the OR issues (too late now).
    • Whilst a start has been made at citing references, many more are needed for the historical descriptions of each of the various diseases listed. Also if there is a citation which can be given to an article or textbook that considers inflammatory reponses to infections, then the charge of OR for the inclusion selection process for the various diseases would be (partly) addressed.
    • Whilst I dislike intensely articles that collate unrelated disorders, there is no doubt that a large number of concurrently problematic disorders (MS, CFS, some cancers (cervical and possibly some of haematological cancers), inflammatory arthropathies, and dare I suggest chronic prostatitis) have had notable suggestions of having underlying infectious triggers. Of course whilst some initial research suggestions later confirmed and widely accepted, for many more acceptance has not been the case and WP:NPOV needs ensure such disproved/non-accepted suggestions not given WP:UNDUE weight.
    • A description giving a historical outline of such notable claims does not seem unreasonable - the current (very brief) infection article addresses the direct effects of infections but not adverse effects of immune responses. Whether such coverage should be placed under infection or perhaps a better titled article (e.g. Inflammatory response to infections - but better phrased than my poor attempt) I'm unsure. However at very least "Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology" seems the wrong title for what is mostly an infections-as-putative-causes-of-inflammatory-disorders discussion. David Ruben Talk 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have tried to persuade the author to at least divide the article: between one of diseases of presently unknown causation, and those that have been solved long ago, he has not done so. I cannot see any harm in deleting the article and starting over on a more rational plan.
  • I also remain unclear despite several questions about why there is a concentration upon inflammatory diseases, a very broad and inhomogeneous class--not all of which are infective.
  • However, I do not see the rush to delete the article, especially in view of the conflict between its author and the nom. over an article elsewhere. I have not been as involved with trying to straighten out the problems there as David R, but I concur in general with what he says above. DGG (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment the author does seem to be constructively working on it. I would continue to strongly advise division of the article. DGG (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • request more time I am requesting more time to work on the article. I have added much more content and have focused on adding more references that are from review articles in the medical literature. I have also rewritten the concept. Each day I add at least a little bit to the article. Thank for all the constructive input. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as modified. As the author is apparently reluctant to make the necessary drastic revisions in his article, I have boldly removed the long introduction explaining with over-long quotes why the subject is important, and also eliminated the section on diseases which have presently known etiologies. Such a summary section might well a separate article with an appropriate title, but I leave the author to do it. But he has by now added what seem to be adequate sources to verify the current status of each of the diseases mentioned, though one or two of the present ones seem to be individual case studies--they still need to be presented as proper references, not just links to PubMed. DGG (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as modified I think DGG has done a good job in modifying the article, and it is now both useful and more-or-less in compliance with OR. Tim Ross·talk 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with further modifications. The author asked my feedback. I was shocked to find a request for deletion. Clearly, it is misplaced here. Where are the calls to delete the 2007 Peruvian meteorite event article? This list is useful; please do not delete. I do, however, believe that the article should be simplified into a simple list of diseases. I notice that a List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies already exist. The author may chose to cross-link both lists or merge his list with the latter. I left a comment to that effect in the article talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The article is sourced and informative.Biophys (talk) 04:33, 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 Speedy delete CSD A7. I am not SALTing this article for now, but I would do it in case of reinstantiation. --Angelo (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Childrens center of lake forest

Childrens center of lake forest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Spam, author(s) keep recreating article after deletion Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under G11, A1, or A7. All three I think would apply and there is little reason to bring the issue here. May want to salt it as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not speedy. No notability even for random schools, let alone daycare centres and articles written like that. digitalemotion 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It was speedied a couple times already, author keeps recreating it. Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If it helps, it was The childrens center of lake forest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) that was deleted and recreated a couple of times.Eatcacti (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non notable, and salt them both. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt both of them, and indefblock the author--an obvious SPA. Blueboy96 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, without SALT. If the author recreates again, Delete and SALT both articles and ban him. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete SALT the article. Maybe give the User one more chance. Alberon (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If high schools can have entries in Wikipedia, there is no reason why this respected establishment for children cannot also secure a notable place in Wikipedia. Batright (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User's 9th edit. Blueboy96 16:00, 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 JForget 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horses and taxes

Horses and taxes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We're not a how to guide. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article could be considered either a personal essay or a page of legal advice. Either way, it's not an encyclopedia article, and it's difficult to imagine it being revised to make it into an encyclopedia article. Further, it has narrow geographic scope (US only) and seems to have been written as a bit of a joke (e.g., the line that says "not to be confused with keeping a hobby horse"). --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as WP:OR, WP:BOLLOCKS, possible WP:HOAX, WP:NOT#HOWTO, etc. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Maintain. This is an encyclopedic entry about one type of tax shelter: a horse-related venture. This is a fairly common method of tax avoidance in the United States and therefore merits a listing in an encyclopedia. I have edited it a bit to make it less like a how to guide and more like an overview of the two ways in which a horse-related activity can provide an owner with tax benefits (i.e., either as a hobby activity under IRC § 183 or as a for profit activity according to the guidelines set forth in Treasury Regulation 1.183-2 and the common law related to that provision). (Andeclercq (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)).
  • Strong Delete: This "article" clearly does not belong on WP. It should be deleted per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I'm with Orlady--if there's an encyclopedia article to be written on this topic, I don't see it. Too bad there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy96 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the many comments above, but let's point the creator to WikiBooks : ) - jc37 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A short mention in the article Tax shelter will be enough. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete & close - per nomination. Rudget.talk 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Rudget.talk 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, or a how-to, perhaps, and unencyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether its OR or a how-to, to borrow the quote about pornography, I know it when I see it. Xymmax (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per many previous comments. —ScouterSig 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melaleuca Elementary School

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

No assertion of notability J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, seriously considering writing a guide to notability for random schools. digitalemotion 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Good idea! Definitely let me know if you ever do that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of proposing that, but it seems to be covered by WP:ORG. Maybe that should be expanded for schools. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and second the motion for a guideline. It's been sorely needed for a while now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Another non-notable school. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Its a primary school, use by loads of folk every day, and by definition is notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable school. Scope_creep must understand "by definition" differently than I understand it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Victuallers (talk) 22:25, 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 --JForget 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Archers, A list of the Articles and Photographs that have appeared in the Radio Times since 1950

The Archers, A list of the Articles and Photographs that have appeared in the Radio Times since 1950 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A list meant to categorify... something. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Good faith, but unneeded, listcruft. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary. Basically an index of appearances spanning 57 years. Have to congratulate the effort, but unfortunately it really doesn't belong here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is definitely an indiscriminate collection (list) of information. Probably was good faith, but it isn't for WP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteWIkipedia is not a directory, if this doesn't cover what is essentially an index for the Radio Times, it probably should. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Without the supporting articles, the list is useless. I don't know what the author is trying to say? Also WP is not a Directory. scope_creep (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per any of the above. Wrong place. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:UNENC. An article such as The Archers in print (covering all printed media) might do as an alternative, but each individual entry would have to be verifiable and properly referenced for this to be of any use. A1octopus (talk) 18:09, 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 delete as failing WP:FICT and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mature (The King of Fighters)

Mature (The King of Fighters) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Lacks real world notability. No secondary sources cited, solely plot information from a game and only an in universe context. In addition to these problems, the article was tagged as unsourced in March and no sources have been located. Bbwlover (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Character is more notable than Angel (The King of Fighters), a character from the same series that is currently a GA and being used as an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. Suggest cleanup, not deletion.--SeizureDog (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: See WP:WAX. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is that real world notability is just as possible with this character as it is the other. Deletion is not based on how the article is, but how it could/should be.--SeizureDog (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that, so think of it this way: If all of the unsourced content is removed, and the unnecessary plot info is removed, there would be nothing left. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No, what we would have is a stub. --SeizureDog (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You could call it that, or you could call it speedy-deletable. It just depends on what would be left. Luckily, we don't really have to play the "what-if" game with this one ;). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that "what-if game" comment. I've cleaned up the article to include a Development section. While small at the moment, it is can be expanded. Besides, AFD isn't clean-up.--SeizureDog (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: No sources and it is plot info, but it isn't notable anyways. If it is important to the game, then merge into the games article, but no need for a separate one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete is see no evidence of the "extensive coverage" in reliable sources independent of the subject it's self. Without sources analyzing the larger meaning of this "in universe" character in the manner of a secondary source, there is no encyclopedic content, merely fan cruft. This article fails the standards set by WP:N and ought to be deleted. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge then Delete Their is already a parent article, which lists some characters, why do we need to waste so many resources on single pages, for minor game characters, which we take the long view, are probably only going to be read by specialists in the field, infrequently, once or twice a year maybe. scope_creep (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • COmment "Merge and delete" is invalid under the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleting the article does not free up any system resources and being "just for specialists" is not a valid arugument for deletion.--SeizureDog (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Since there is a list of characters for this subject why not merge the relevent bits to there? Æon Insanity Now! 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a quite conclusive delete.

[edit] Shion (The King of Fighters)

Shion (The King of Fighters) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Video game character has no real world notability. Article has an in world only context. Notability is not and cannot be shown with reliable secondary sources (WP:FICT). Simply game plot information failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Bbwlover (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: No sources and it is plot info, but it isn't notable anyways. If it is important to the game, then merge into The King of Fighters and / or The King of Fighters XI, but no need for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete is see no evidence of the "extensive coverage" in reliable sources independent of the subject it's self. Without sources analyzing the larger meaning of this "in universe" character in the manner of a secondary source, there is no encyclopedic content, merely fan cruft. This article fails the standards set by WP:N and ought to be deleted. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge then Delete as above. scope_creep (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Burns

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

Totally NN weather broadcaster. This article has been around for years with no improvement. Also parts are a copy vio from [19] meshach (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: as there are no independent sources, one cannot verify this persons notability as required for the guideline for writing about people. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Nom. scope_creep (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable weatherman. Qworty (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article does assert notability in that he has won awards. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I was the MVP of my 5th Grade Intramural Flag Football League. I also was the third highest scorer at the 1997 University of Maryland at Baltimore County Pop Culture Trivia Tournament (I have nifty little trophies for both). Does that make me notable? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as it is a WP:BLP with ZERO cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moist Towelettes

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

Non-notable musical group, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, their "label" CD Baby looks more like a Vanity press than a notable record label. All references appear to be self-generated. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because it covers the only album released by above group:

The Moist EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as they don't seem to meet many of the notability criteria (WP:MUSIC requires two albums), however the article does state that they've been played on a radio station (possibly meeting #11). Most of the ghits for "The Moist Towelettes band" just get MySpace sites or blogs from people who have actually seen them - nothing reliable. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both: Does not meet MUSIC, and is basically unsourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was No Concensus. Davewild (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alastair Donaldson

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

notability not established with any sources Arx Fortis (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notability is well asserted through membership in multiple notable bands. Unless the notability of said bands or the truthfulness of this article is suspect, lack of sources is not a valid reason to delete. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I cannot find any reliable sources, and there are none in the article. This person does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC, specifically this section of the guideline. So unless some sources to verify this notability can be dug up, I say delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources were fairly easy to find and have been added to the article.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Sources are plentiful, but shouldn't this content be on parent article. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with his main band, but watch for weasel words. —ScouterSig 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
GJH: Please be careful with your edits, as you deleted my vote. —ScouterSig 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This musician is considered highly influential in the later pop and punk genres. He has had a significant recorded output, and all of his major bands are listed on Wikpedia (Rezillos, Silly Wizard, Revillos etc). gjhdiver 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to Revillos. All the references in this article are to trivial or incidental coverage of him. If he is as influential as some here claim, why is there no substantial coverage of him? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources in the article are enough to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:52, 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 --JForget 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovernance

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

Speedy and Prod tags have both been removed by WP:SPA creator, so here we are. Dic def of made-up word. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - by someone who is now wondering what good prods are anyway. I couldn't put it better than Ravenna1961. ---- WebHamster 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: No explanation is needed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Concur: not a dictionary, single purpose account, by an editor apparently documenting his/her own creation (see article history).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to be either a hoax or self-creation. No such word at "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)", in spite of the article's reference. Tim Ross (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no Google entries, clearly a hoax or a self-created dictionary definition. --Angelo (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 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 let them face the firing squad delete. Note to those wanting to keep this list: We have Wikipedia:Categories, and these categories can have subcategories for revolutionaries of every flavour! Sandstein (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of political revolutionaries

List of political revolutionaries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Inherently POV unreferenced list of ridiculous content, defined as " a list of individuals and groups that may be considered politically revolutionary" an listing Idi Amin and Huey P. Newton of Black Panthers and Peter Kropotkin in one and the same bunch. `'Míkka>t 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Definitely a POV list. What makes somebody politically revolutionary?? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I dunno, maybe the fact that those people advocated for a swift overthrow of dominant regimes or political systems? digitalemotion 04:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there some sort of litmus-test for inclusion on this list? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't know if this would help but I'll say it anyway. Revolutions are significant changes in a short period of time so revolutionaries should be people whose actions or influence produce lasting change. People who refuse political authorities are called rebels. They should be recognized by history first as revolutionaries. For this article to survive we should remove the rebels from the true revolutionaries. For the surviving members, an sourced explanation of their exploits should be included to tell us why they should be considered as revolutionaries.--Lenticel (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a silly list. The IRA are listed as a 'revolutionary group', not the first phrase which leaps to mind when you think of the provos. Linking anarchists such as Kropotkin or democrats such as Havelwith thugs such as Amin in political terms is absurd. Nick mallory (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete An indiscriminate list. Potentially endless. Anybody who's ever been involved in a coup of some kind (or plotted one) could be included. --Folantin (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that a clearer criterion and oversight to avoid POV is necessary but that this could be made into a good list. "Political revolutionaries" are people who, one way or another, fought for an overthrow of the existing order. It's a broad but very real category. Cadriel (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • NAil meet the hammer. "Category" is the word. List is pointless and useless: There are thousands of people who wanted to overthrow. Starting from Jesus Christ. `'Míkka>t 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete completely POV, one persons political revolutionary is anothers terrorist. RMHED (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Some work is needing done, by categories like this add value to WP. scope_creep (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and Folantin. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone (and by that I mean "I sure as heck don't care enough to do it") can make this giant pile of wikilinks into some categories that make sense; either type, origin, success rate, current status, or something. Otherwise, it's only a list like "stuff made up in school one day." —ScouterSig 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the textbook example of the indiscriminate list of blue links. It started with three names more than 5 years ago (Fidel, Che, and Francisco Madero), and it just kept growing. Names are added and taken off. Is Hugo Chavez there today? No? Be the first on you block to add his name. Or not. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate, undefined, POV. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep and refine into groups having some similarity, rather than just an alphabetic list. As is, this does not actually give any more information than a category, but it has possibilities. DGG (talk) 19:11, 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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hazarajat

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

Disputed as to whether this is a real geographic division or not (see talk page). I removed a speedy tag because I think this is sufficiently in dispute that a wider discussion would be worthwhile, but take no position myself. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there was a tag from Wikipedia:WikiProject Afghanistan on the talk page, I notified that project on its talk page that this AfD was underway. There, like here, I take no position and advocate no point of view; I just want to see this thoroughly discussed before its fate is decided. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Needs sourcing in the article, but this Google search makes it seem as if it is a real place. According to this source there was a food shortage in the region of Hazarajat. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of 3rd party sources acknowledge it as a real region, including 1911 Britannica [20] (and Britannica Online), HRW [21], and BBC News [22]. Article needs to be sourced. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Talk page claim that this isn't a real region was fairly clearly bad faith. The Hazara are tolerant Shia (for example, largely proud of the Buddhas of Bamiyan), while many of the other Afghan tribal groups are Sunni. They have never held a position of power in Afghanistan. This attempt to delete the article is a familiar example of ethnic rivalry on Wikipedia and should be given no credence. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Dhartung, as usual, is quite right. The Taliban tried to systematically destroy the Hazara during their brutal and benighted rule of Afganistan and there's no call for that sort of ethnic cleansing on Wikipedia. The 'food shortage' was used as a weapon by the Islamists, in the manner of Stalin's man made famine in the Ukraine. I hope this nomination is based in ignorance rather than political point scoring. Nick mallory (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Please provide a trusted website, but PLEASE, DO NOT USE GOOGLE AS YOUR SOURCE OR REF. You people are bringing race into a geographical issue and forgetting the rules of Wikipedia. You are free to love Hazara people all you want but the fact is that there is no officially given name "Hazarajat" according to the Government of Afghanistan or any official historical documents of any nation. What you find on google is Hazara nationalistic blogs, forums and hate websites and do not use those as references. The creator of Hazarajat article on Wiki is a Hazara nationalistic, he is anti-Tajik and anti-Pashtun as well. I just asked for the article to be deleted because there is no such place called Hazarajat or Hazaraistan, and there never existed such place in the past neither. It is just a name made-up by the Hazara people to feel as they are natives of Central Afghanistan. Afghanistan is divided into 34 provinces and each province is further divided into many districts, the whole country comprises of about 400 districts total. You will not find Hazarajat anywhere in them, check Provinces of Afghanistan or Districts of Afghanistan. Hazaras are a very small minority in Afghanistan so of course they will stay that way and not have as much government positions as the major ethnic groups, such as Pashtuns and Tajiks. Not to mention that there are many other minorities, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Baloch, Aimaq, Nuristanis, Pashai, Qizilbash, etc. The reason why most Afghans don't get along with Hazaras is because of their personal character, they have always been against every government of Afghanistan. They are Shia extremists and they always prefer to go against the powerful Sunni governments that surrounds them. You are free to support them but here the issue is that this article needs to be deleted as it has been here for a very long time and there is no sources, the fact is that it is made by someone as a joke because anyone can create an article with all sorts of BS in it. I am not in hate feelings for Hazaras or any other citizens of my lovely Afghanistan, my group of people are doing fine with the vice president being from my province or hometown.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment about the wall of text: People aren't using Google as a source. They are using Google to search for sources, and there are plenty of sources (several of which can be considered reliable) available from a google search that do suggest that it is a real place, and a notable place nonetheless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: First of all, speedy deletion has specific criteria, which this nomination does not meet. It isn't for stuff you want deleted faster. Second, you say that it is not a province or district, but there is no reason that we cannot write about unofficial regions (see Kurdistan, for example). Third, I'm not using "Google" as my source, I am using books published as much as a century ago, not "nationalistic websites". Fourth, your reference to "personal character" of Hazaras really betrays your agenda here and I hope you won't believe we will fall for your prejudices, which are unacceptable here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: You don't need to teach me history about Afghanistan, I can teach you, if you want to know any details. You seems to be provoking me to start talking about race, and you are avoiding the main point that this Hazarajat article is all POV and qualifies to be deleted. You may try to instigate ethnic war here with me but it will not work. Afghanistan may appear like an ethnically divided nation but it's not if you really read the 5,000 year old history of the land. I can't stand stereo type people, and please don't focus on my every word that I type here. Lets end this conversation, it's up to you people to decide if this article remains or not.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not an official province - the Hazara province being Bamiyan. However, historic or self-identified areas are valid subjects for articles - Kurdistan and Wessex being examples. The existence of the Britannica Online articles provide a valid sourcing. MLA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There is many sources which validate this article. They have their own television station, called Hazarajat TV. scope_creep (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That tv channel was named by Hazara nationlists as is the case with all tv channels of the world. there is nothing nobody can do with them naming their channel as hazarajat. Hazaras do not have recorded history in Afghanistan before the 16th century, this makes it extremely difficult for anyone to find any Hazarajat being mentioned in any pre-16th century writings by invaders or conquerers. I still say to delete this "Hazarajat" article and just add the little information about "Hazarajat" being called for a region by the Hazaras inside the Bamiyan article, since that is considered as the capital of the whole Hazarajat made-believe region. The made-believe size may be added to whatever extend Hazara nationalists want to. hahaha, I give them permission. I noticed that since Hazaras are Shias, they are pushing for adding areas that is towards Shia nation, Iran. hahaha.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-The article is weak and needs further validation but the concept as a separate region is sound. Tibet, even the T.A.R (Tibetan Autonomous Region) is not recognized anymore inside of China but that doesn't make it any less of an ethnic or primarily historical region.---Iconoclast Horizon 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The point being made here is that it's a rather amorphous but nonetheless real region. It isn't a province of Afghanistan, but neither does the article pretend that it is a province of Afghanistan. The analogy with Kurdistan is a very apt one, particularly when Kurdistan is taken at its fullest hypothetical extent. There are many citations provided, and that should be enough to address the minor forest of "citeneeded" tags added to this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:31, 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 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Thing 2: Ground Zero

The Thing 2: Ground Zero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

prod deleted - This looks to be a hoax. There is no support for this movie on IMDB and all the actors listed are committed to other projects. NrDg 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Author added "NOTE: This is not a actual upcoming film!" to article [23] --NrDg 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not appear to be notable, there are no sources in the article, and I cannot find any reliable sources via a Google search. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong delete. Non-notable hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Author is now alleging that it is a fan-made film. If this is the one that's on YouTube, then I say to speedy it as non-notable web content. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per notability. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and, I guess, author as well. Maxamegalon2000 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • SPEEEEEEEEDY Delete, NOTE: This is not a actual upcoming film! ViperSnake151 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per notability, and likely being a hoax. In any case, both things are not enough to support a speedy deletion choice. --Angelo (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To clarify my comment about speedy deletion, I said it's only a candidate if it's a fan-film whose claim to fame is as YouTube content. Then it would be non-notable web content, which is speedyable under A7. In the article's current condition, the assertion is that it's a movie, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is atrocious, notability fails to assert. scope_creep (talk) 19:08, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Booth's Harbor, Ontario

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Booth's Harbor, Ontario
Booth's Harbor, Ontario (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this place exists at all, but doesn't seem to be an actual village or contain any historical harbor. Collectonian (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, zero Google hits, so it must not be an actual settlement. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: There are some hits on Google, but I don't see anything that would make the place actually notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it does in fact exist. Geographical features such as this are notable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Oakshade. The community, although unincorporated, does exist. GVnayR (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Could use a bit of expansion, but no reason to delete it. It exists, it's a named community, it's notable. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The creator of the article just expanded it to note that it is in Norfolk County. According to the Norfolk County tourism page: "Booth's Harbour is a seasonal trailer park and marina catering to fishermen and recreational boaters." It is in St. Williams. That doesn't sound like a notable city to me (and it indicates that the article's name is misspelled) [24]
  • Delete. It does appear to be just a trailer park. I couldn't find it in the Canadian Geographic Names database. No Google News or Books results. Though I am happy to keep all verifiable human settlements per WP:OUTCOMES this doesn't strike me as meeting even that lenient standard. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. For geographic locations, it is Mapquest, not Google, that is the more adequate reference. The place does exist, albeit as a small village. The article fails to mention that the village is on Lake Erie, just across the bay from Long Point. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I just added that fact today. GVnayR (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Norfolk County, Ontario, as I doubt the article can be significantly expanded. --Angelo (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep even a short stub is sufficient for a geographic feature, regardless of expandability. DGG (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Angelo, it's a trailer park, it isn't notable This is a Secret account 23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete forget issues of principle in respect of "keep all places", this is fundamentally unverifiable from reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Does appear to be a real inhabited settlement, which can be verified as existing from[25]. It looks like the article is misspelled and should be Booth's Harbour. Davewild (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A one word mention doesn't mean it meets WP:V This is a Secret account 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree but I have no doubt it is verifiable and can be verified by someone with access to relevant sources that are not readily available on the internet. What I am establishing with that link is that it does exist and that is an inhabited settlement and not a trailer park as some have said above and as such I believe it should be kept. Davewild (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Unsure - google maps location. Although small, it seems the settlement does exist, and "all permanent settlements are notable" is one of very few rules that have been broadly agreed in the past. If the place turns out simply to be a development site with a prospective settlement, or a trailer park, or marketing only, or some other kind of non-settlement, that would be different, but it does look like a genuine established harbor on the map pics..... FT2 (Talk | email) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - local realator services refer to "the village of Booth's Harbor" [26], and bed & breakfast to "the hamlet of Booth's Harbour" [27]. The Norfolk county bylaws refer to a property at "Lot A, Plan 82B, 280 Front Road, Booth's Harbour, (Charlotteville), Norfolk", although this doesn't specifically call it a "village" or "hamlet", it does suggest it is a settlement rather than a trailer park [28]. A fourth reference, not a reliable source, may also help to provide more leads: [29] blog post "Norfolk County: Speed to be Reduced in Booth's Harbour. Booth's Harbour residents will have to slow down when travelling through the village. Council has approved the speed limit be reduced to 50 km an hour. The change is a result of the Charlotteville community policing committee fielding many requests for the change because of safety concerns and the villages many winding roads." FT2 (Talk | email) 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xfanz

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

Delete - 1st AFD closed ten months ago no consensus with the closing admin expressing serious doubts about the notability of this website. In the intervening months the article still does not appear to pass WP:WEB or otherwise be notable. The sourcing is all in the form of press releases and mentions from organizations with which the site has some affiliation (the Free Speech Coalition site sources the mention of Xfanz donating money to the Free Speech Coalition, for example). While not definitive, Google News turns up a single hit which merely mentions Xfanz trivially in passing and Ghits are on the level of blogs and forum posts. There's been more than enough time for sources to materialize to establish notability and they are not forthcoming. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sim Touring Car Cup

Sim Touring Car Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming league Corvus cornix (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep How is this non notable? I added multiple third party resources including interviews and race reviews as well as a featured article of a official racing simulation online magazine. It's more notable than Formula SimRacing.--LizardPariah (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep what about this? http://autosimsport.net an online racing simulation magazine that featured the STCC. The magazine was no way affiliated with the STCC--LizardPariah (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC). Another, digital dispacement: http://www.digitaldisplacement.com/2007/01/29/sim-touring-car-cup-round-5/ An independent auto sports sim racing reviewer that is not way affiliated with the STCC but featured one of the races--LizardPariah (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • autosimsport.net is actually at thenewmasters.com. But in either case, how do we determine if these sites are notable? Do they have accredited journalists? How reliable are their "reporters"? Do they accpet first-party articles? We need proof that they're reliable. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll give you the profile of one of the "reliable" writers: "Sports/Feature Writer: Joe Cortez.

Joe comes to the AUTOSIMSPORT Team with two years of experience as a working journalist in television and radio. The winner of several awards for journalistic excellence, Cortez resides in California, after completing his education in Ohio."

Keep - If the STCC is not notable, why is Formula_SimRacing notable? They are both simracing leagues, albeit using different simulations. In fact the FSR article, doesn't even contain any third-party sources, it's just... there. I feel that there should be an article for the STCC, it's informative, it ain't doing damage, and seeing that the STCC is (to my knowledge) one of the most viewed simracing leagues, and has the most professional broadcasts for pretty much the entire video game sector (bar maybe the larger pro-leagues in Korea or other countries), especially being produced by a group of 2 people (Becky and whom-ever commentates with her). Gu3st (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:WAX, this debate needs ot be about this article, not other articles. meshach (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize some of my mistakes and I used these reliable third party resources as a reference to the article. (something i forgot to do).--LizardPariah (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a reliable source in the lot. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a site that broadcasts game recaps. That's not a reliable site. Give us newspapers and magazines. Or even books. Corvus cornix (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I gave you examples already: AutoSimSport online magazine and Digital Displacement Online Reviewer. See above. ^--LizardPariah (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: That Sim Racing website does appear to be affiliated with the subject of the article. I've searched around, and cannot find any reliable third-party sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep How is it affiliated with the STCC? It's an online racing simulation magazine. It's not produced by the same people. it just featured ONE of the STCC races.--LizardPariah (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That publication doesn't write about anything else. It does not meet WP:RS for this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep That publication talks about NOTABLE Racing Simulation. The STCC is just a PART of the entire Racing Simulation authority system. It is NOT THE entire racing simulation so the magazine does not talk ONLY about the STCC. In fact there was only A FEW articles talking about the STCC. A good majority of the articles were talking about leagues taking place in rFactor such as Formula SimRacing. The STCC takes place in Live for Speed but was notable enough (because of it's 120,000+ spectator count) to have a feature within the AutoSimSport magazine. In no way shape or form is the STCC affiliated with AutoSimSport and the fact that they got a feature on a official racing simulation magazine is proof of its notability.--LizardPariah (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've struckout all of your extra bold "keep" words, as it is misleading to the consensus that will be built on the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, unless you consider racing simulation videogames now Cruft, and if it were advertisement, it'd be much less informative and use more persuasive words than the article does use.Gu3st (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/request could someone please tag the article with the tag that means "regular people outside this subject may not understand this article" and then tell me how to find that tag on my own next time? Because I honestly have no Idea what this article is about. Is it like fantasy football, but for racecars? Or is it closer to SimCity, but for racecars?—ScouterSig 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe {{In-universe}}? Corvus cornix (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Mehhhhh, no, not quite what I was thinking. I've seen one of them before. Close but no cigar Corvus. —ScouterSig 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Found it (and on an article called Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 3 no less! {{context}} Thanks for your help. —ScouterSig 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the article could stay, but with that same flag on it, seeing there are future things happening for the STCC, which will come to light in the near future. Can we agree on that as a fair compromise? Gu3st (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Walker Bush

Dorothy Walker Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete Not independently notable per WP:NN and WP:BIO Strothra (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: The name and relationship does not alone make you notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- An important matriarch of a very notable family. See all similarly notable members of the Kennedy family. From the cited article in TIME Magazine:

DOROTHY (WALKER) BUSH 1901-92 The most competitive Bush, she bred in her children the drive to win and the rule never to brag about it. While in the White House, her son called her every day.

-- Dougie WII (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While the single sentance in the Time Magazine article fails the "multiple" and "non-trivial" tests required of a notable subject, a google search turns up some specific extra information, such as this one indicating that a building is being named after her at the Southern Maine Medical Center and this one, an actual book with some honest to God biograph just on her, and a full-page NY Times obit on her (much more than trivial, IMHO) and another biography of her. While the article itself is stubby, she has notability in spades. Any of these sources, and more found in the google source, could easily be used to expand the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that you can have a building named after anyone for the right amount of money - it doesn't make the person it's named after notable just that the family who paid to have the building named wants to name it after one of their loved ones; hardly criteria for notability. Also, NYT runs obits of many people from notable families, but the individuals don't have to be notable themselves. In the biography you linked, she is not the primary subject of that work and is only given a chapter thus failing inclusion criteria. --Strothra (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Prescott Bush. The NY Times obit doesn't establish any notability other than the association with her son. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - apart from the possible medical centre building naming, she attracted significant press coverage on her 90th birthday, on her death, apparently has a museum in her name (Miami Herald - Aug 10, 2003 tells me she was a rail enthusiast although other sources make me doubt this). Other news articles "The first Mother" (Palm Beach Post - May 12, 1991), Dedication of a red Cross centre to her (Greenwich Citizen - Oct 17, 2003). I can also see references that she was a nationally ranked tennis player, is covered in Faith of Our Mothers: The Stories of Presidential Mothers from Mary Washington to Barbara Bush. Clearly written about enough for a good verifyable, neutral, reliably sourced article - Peripitus (Talk) 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Obituaries in all the major papers of the USA, buildings named after her and a political matriarch. How can this not be notable? Nick mallory (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources mentioned by JaySweet, and others like an 800 word Washington Post obit, [30] more than meet the requirement for substantial coverage in independent sources. The fact that the sources give her coverage mainly because of her relationship to two presidents shouldn't matter - they give her coverage, so we should as well. There's plenty of information with whihc this stubby article can be fleshed out. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

*Redirect. Unless some of you "keep"ers start to add in those sources and info, such as buildings, the article shows no notability, no matter how notable she actually is. —ScouterSig 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a positive argument. Short articles are for expanding not deleting or redirecting. If we did this to articles just because they are not expanded yet we'd have a parsimonious list of articles - Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I change my vote to Delete. —ScouterSig 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't worry, Scout. There have been mentions in articles and books about Mrs. Bush, so souces are available. There was a similar debate about Gerald Rudolf Ford, father of President Ford, and the consensus was that a person who raised, and helped shape the values of, a future president is notable if for that reason alone. Although further "proof" is always encouraged, being one of the 41st president's parents is noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect- This is not a genealogy site. Just because she gave birth, doesn't make her notable, did she write a book, start a cause, etc. "...relationship to someone noteable does not, in itself, make that person notable." Wiki: guidelines for notablity. Post is on RootsWeb, it's a genealogical footnote.---Iconoclast Horizon 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Comment --Guidelines such as those are explicitly just guidelines. A President of the United States, let alone two Presidents, are just not ordinary run-of-the-mill notable persons like an actor or singer etc. Obviously this woman was a powerful force behind her husband (a U.S. Senator) and her descendants that include two U.S. Presidents and also a governor of a major U.S. state so far. Plus, there seems to some things that make her notable on her own besides that like her tennis career. I really can't see how anyone could think that she's not notable. Dougie WII (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-- Apparently there are several people here that feel otherwise. I am of the opinion, that she is merely a genealogical footnote and that giving birth and playing tennis isn't notable. While I had read of her by default, being related to the President(s), she is otherwise not notable in her own right. This is merely my opinion, for this discussion---Iconoclast Horizon 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would share that opinion about most family (grandparents, siblings, offspring) of a President, but a parent (or for that matter, a step-parent) does somewhat more than merely bring a child into the world. Even if "Doro" had left her son on a doorstep, that would have been a major influence. Mandsford (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is absolutely nothing in this page that shows she is independently notable; relationship with a notable person is irrelevant. What has she done? TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedians don't vote to see if a person is notable, the media outlets determine notability by their coverage. Her coverage in Time magazine and the Washington Post meets the Wikipedia standard. You don't always have to do something amazing to be notable, thats for Guinness World Records. Sometime greatness comes from refusing to give your seat up on a bus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, if sources are available (and it appears they are), there's no reason to delete the article of a matiarch of an important political family. Mr Which??? 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm pleased to see this AfD going well beyond the generic notability test, but being the influential mother of GHWB amounts to some pretty significant spillover notability. The rationale for deletion seems to be that notability from incidental/trivial relationships doesn't really count as notability, but I don't agree. Emma Watson's famous role as Hermione Granger, for example, could have plausibly gone to one of a hundred otherwise non-notable actors, but because Watson happened to get it she (rightfully) has an article. I don't think there's really a distinction between "notability through doing things" and notability inherent to a person, incidental or not. People will seek information (and have information to contribute) on the subject either way, and that's what notability standards are really for. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a general rule, mothers of Presidents of the United States are notable. This is an exception to the general notion that "notability is not heritable", and it is based on the exceedingly high likelihood that any presidential mother will be the subject of significant scholarly research, for genealogical reasons, if nothing else. Spouses of US Senators are also generally notable, as (unless they are extraordinarily reclusive), they will receive substantial press coverage. Xoloz (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mother and strong influence on the religion and bearing of the past president. The incumbent is named (middle name) for her. Lits of cites verifying her notability. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Mperry (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete CSD A7. As someone noted, the article does not even try to assert its notability, so it can be speedied. --Angelo (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel's Nite Spot

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gabriel's Nite Spot
Gabriel's Nite Spot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable business. No significant coverage. Nv8200p talk 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This one could probably have been speedied, as there is no assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The way this article is written has non notable written all over. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:28, 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 --JForget 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Dorothy's Elementary School, Drexel Hill, PA

St. Dorothy's Elementary School, Drexel Hill, PA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. prod contested. A redirect is pointless, since nobody will ever, ever be typing in the 48 characters exactly as shown, and the page is orphaned. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non notable school. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Except in some very rare circumstances, elementary schools simply aren't notable. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rjd. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This school is not notable for anything. Qworty (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete good nom Victuallers (talk) 22:27, 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 --JForget 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student News Network

Student News Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The notability of the Student News Network is not asserted in the article. It might be notable enough for Wikipedia though, in view of the role of Iranian students in society and politics, so I prefer to take this through AFD, rather than A7'ing it. AecisBrievenbus 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, no indication of satisfying WP:N. The actual site is not English and there are no sources. meshach (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not appear to be notable, and there are no sources to verify notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. So little content it could almost be an A1 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Qworty (talk) 21:15, 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 weak delete, possible redirect. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angelica Mandy

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

Does not meet WP:BLP guidelines. Article has been prod'd and deleted before with nearly similar content. I recreated the article as a redirect only to List of Harry Potter films cast members as she had a very minor role in it. Actress has also appeared in Vanity Fair and thus the redirect was not considered appropriate and article was recreated as a biography. Fbv65edel — t — c // 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep young child actress will not have had many roles, but appears as Gabrielle Delacour in HP and the Goblet of Fire, and the young version of the main character in Vanity Fair, so notable enough. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Gabrielle's screen time consists of a shot as she enters Hogwarts, a wax double shot for approx. 1 minute as Harry saves her from underwater, a smile to her sister as she goes to compete in the third task, and a brief kiss to Ron at the end of the film. Playing the young version of a main character does not necessarily merit notability. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The HP stuff does sound weak. Unfortunately, I haven't seen Vanity Fair either, but "playing the young version" is neither here nor there, it's how much talking she does. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Anteater above; notable enough.   jj137 (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, two roles in notable films might just be enough provided they weren't just super short appearances. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failure of WP:RS. Sorry kid, not yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Read my response to AnteaterZot above. I cannot speak for the Vanity Fair appearance, however. Still, read WP:BLP1E. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." That means a person who might be mildly important to a larger subject, like a film, but is not generally important himself or herself, should simply be mentioned in the larger article without a wikilink. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets WP's notability requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree. A young actress wouldn't have a long list of films they've been in. She has been in two movies that featured major actors. It's notable enough. - Kkarma (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability is not inherited. Being in a film that happened to "feature major actors" does not make one notable. What about Ben Borowiecki, who was in two Harry Potters, another film, and two episodes of a TV show? He was in more things with famous people, but he's not getting a page. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • This argument is strange. How else is an actor supposed to be notable, except by acting in things, or getting arrested? They can't all be Lindsay Lohan. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • An actor becomes notable by acting in things, I agree. However, not every member of a film's cast is notable. You would become notable by having a notable role, and, unless her time as Young Becky was quite notable, she's not. Take a simple Google test -- she's mentioned in 9 articles, most of them just referring to her out of journalistic integrity for mentioning the actor when mentioning a role. Two news articles mention her casting in Harry Potter when it was first learned. One article seems to be a local paper announcing her casting. I can't find any reviews of her performance in either of the films. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
          • She had a speaking role in Vanity Fair, as young Becky. Does that not count as something? Angelica Mandy is also in the trailer for the movie. As for mentioning her in a review, the movie was almost four years ago. Reviews for a movie that was only in theaters for a short while, and only brought in $19 million worldwide, would probably be in the back logs of the reviewers blogs. kkarma (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't know the level of her speaking role in Vanity Fair, so I can't really comment on that. But if the film was not in theaters for a long time, did not fare too well at the box office, and she wasn't a star, how high is her level of notability? Sure, her speaking role counts as "something," so mention her in the Vanity Fair article. But considering there's absolutely nothing out there to reliably document her life other than the fact that she appeared in these two films, there is no point in having an article. I'm not saying we delete her name from the articles about the two movies she was in, just remove the article which describes her life because (a) we don't have anything to cite it by, and (b) she does not meet notability standards by WP:BLP. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because she's cute Sorry, couldn't help it. Delete per notability and BLP, as above. I'm sure one day an article could be written about her, but not now, apparently. —ScouterSig 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • She has a remarkably large fanbase, and releases private pictures of herself via her bebo, myspace, and facebook. She may not be a star yet, but she is up and coming. 70.252.81.172 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Having a large fanbase doesn't necessarily make someone notable, and I could create a Facebook profile and upload some images of myself onto it, would that make me notable? If she had a few more roles, then sure, but at this stage, she isn;t (in my view) notable. So Delete. Gran2 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Her Harry Potter role is clearly not notable (she has no spoken lines). I don't know about Vanity Fair, but it doesn't seem notable either: IMDb has no quotes and no photos of her in that movie. Furthermore, the article claims notability based on the HP role, and that claim is not valid. A large fanbase is a notability criterium according to WP:BIO, but I see no evidence of such a fanbase. Pruneautalk 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Also referenced in BBC News and an Irish newspaper. • Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've already noted this. These articles announce her casting, which is what any good newspaper would do -- report the news. It does not talk about her role, the importance of her role, or her at all, except that she was cast. We Harry Potter fans are obsessive about knowing who's been cast in every little tiny role (see List of Harry Potter films cast members), so the news of her casting was thankfully brought by these news sources. If the only information, then, that we need to know about her, is that she played Gabrielle in movie 4, then it's on the List I just referenced. We also need to know that she played Young Becky in Vanity Fair, and she's mentioned on that film's page too. Good. Done. There's nothing else about her which is notable enough to know or which can be referenced. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd be willing to concede to a Weak Keep, to be honest, and I'm usually more ready to say Delete as opposed to Keep on the borderline, but I think is just over the other side of that borderline... • Lawrence Cohen 06:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not sure whether meeting the notability yardstick, but that is just a yardstick anyway and meeting one or more criteria does not imply that a subject should be included. And there do not seem to be sufficient sources to write an article about the person that is more than a filmography with two entries. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BLP due to lack of sources per Tikiwont. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete in accordance with the rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture, which seems to have been well-accepted. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture

Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's a list of pop culture, primarily video game appearances, tied together with unsourced assertions about why it's so popular. Though such pages are often steam valves for the main article, it's a poor practice and an invitation to crufty, ill-supported fan assertions. A previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture resulted in a categorical "delete all" on "Gun X in Popular Culture" articles Mmx1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: It is Original Research with no sources to back it up. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated items. The listed things have nothing in common past the presence of a representation of a particular gun and the presence of a gun does not unite the listed items. "This gun is in it" is not a theme. Otto4711 (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - pop culture lists are bad. --Philip Laurence (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It has not influenced pop culture, but rather it is perhaps a part of pop culture. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete There is already a primary article looking at the shotgun. If not OR, put detail in main article and delete this waste of sources. scope_creep (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but add more references. Articles like this one help demonstrate the influence of an item and are naturally encyclopedic. As this particular article is short, I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without deleting as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge This is a short list, and the main article is also fairly short--there does not seem to be any real reason for more than one article. DGG (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mergism in popular culture From the top of the Noir York City it looked like the night of In Popular Culture articles seemed to continue to the end of eternity. The memories of engaging in the eternal chilled discussions on their relevance... But I refused to give in. I decided the article could be crunched into a few paragraphs. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into main Jackhammer article and wait a bit to see if the Rescue Squad can find sources for it all. With only a handful ever produced, the pop culture refs are the only notable thing about this gun. Moyabrit (talk) 11:35, 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.