Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 1

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonka Rescue Patrol

Tonka Rescue Patrol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned stub, apparently about a game. Its one and only sentence is spam. Lack of context/content almost makes it a contender for a speedy deletion, but just in case it's a horribly notable game I thought I'd bring it here to be rescued. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Has 666 Ghits, mostly resales of used games but not even reviewed by IGN, a useful source for video games. Released 2003. Have put a notice on Project:Video Games to see if anyone's keen on rescuing this but as it stands it fails notability. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I can certainly see how this one ended up at AFD, probably one of the least notable GameCube games in existence... however! Gamefreaks365 review, GameSpy E3 Preview, the composer produced work for several other games and according to his own page the game's music received an award (whether it's a desperately notable award is to be seen). GameSpot lists the game as having been reviewed by Nintendo Power here, there may be some other magazine reviews somewhere. There's pretty much nothing else on the web.Someone another 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Someone another. Notable, especially the Nintendo Power coverage sounds promising for notability. We shouldn't delete articles because we happen to cannot get a certain magazine. User:Krator (t c) 11:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment - awesome. Does anyone want to add those sources, or the content, to the article itself? Cos, right now, it's a 1-sentence stub that doesn't even assert notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Only reviewed by one major outlet (I don't think gamefreaks365 cna be considered "significant secondary coverage" per WP:N) means that it's not that worthy of noitce, per WP:N. hbdragon88 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability has been far from proved in the one line stub. That the game existed is shown by the two reviews, but if people are scrabbling around to find a possible third or fourth review that in itself is damning proof that this game lacks any kind of significant existence, let alone notability. 666 ghits is pathetic - my user name is unique to me, and I get 44,600 ghits - but I'm not notable. Delete, piss on it, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia about stuff that rocks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tome of Time

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

An article on a book from a cartoon series, featuring either WP:OR or a lack of external third-party sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FICT. No evidence of notability via secondary sources, 30 ghits for "'Tome of Time' 'swat kats' -wikipedia". Doctorfluffy 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable fictional item. No coverage at all by independent reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niko Papasideris

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

Originally marked with a speedy deletion tag; I moved it here to allow some discussion as there may be a marginal claim to notability. However, it currently reads like an advertisement. If someone can provide some reliable, third-party sources, then clean it up and keep it. If not, then this one needs to go. Tijuana Brass 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsourced vanity page by/for non-notable artist. --DAJF 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I found very little about this musician that wasn't self-promotion; doesn't meet WP:BAND. Accounting4Taste 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy per A7 vanicruftisement. Martijn Hoekstra 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:VSCA -- Dougie WII 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Here be non-notable musician. tomasz. 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balthorium

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

This article is about a very minor plot element in a famous movie. There are no references, probably because none exist. A lot of speculative OR, fails WP:NEO and common sense. Gentlemen, you can't write this here, this is the Wikipedia! <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:FICT. Secondary sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. Google turns up only fansites and related. Doctorfluffy 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. WP:FICT, WP:OR (WP:SYNTH) & no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not even worth redirecting to the movie. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castle irwell student village

Castle irwell student village (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect to University of Salford or University of Salford campus. Neutrality^talk 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to University of Salford. -- RHaworth 06:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect as it's the wrong capitalisation. Reads like an advert and seems non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable studnt residence, potentially speedyable as G11. DGG (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, nothing to address concerns for deletion. --Coredesat 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavadon

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

Non-notable, in-universe use only D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Mark it as a stub and start a rewrite. The character is clearly notable to the series. Hagan jared 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  Notable in the series does not indicate it passes WP:N or WP:FICT. Do secondary sources discuss this topic? Doctorfluffy 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natalie 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe the article, while definitely in need of cleanup and perhaps images as well, was nominated in bad faith as per Doctorfluffy's User page. Simply deleting things for the sake of deleting things does nothing to improve Wikipedia. -- Veled 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment My user page is talking about WP:N, which is one of the most important concepts here, and the disrespect it constantly receives from uninformed editors. I suggest you read it. Also, check out WP:FICT, the specific notability policy for fictional subjects, which explains how articles on such topics need references from reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: how does this possibly fulfill the requirement of coverage by multiple secondary sources? Nyttend 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability. Fails WP:FICT. Fails WP:PLOT. Bobby1011 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Secondarily, agree with assertion that this was nominated in bad faith. -- Masterzora 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnibus (song)

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

I don't know if this trance song has ssufficient notability, but no outright proof is given in the article. I'm unsure in any case if any reliable sources would have written about the song. The artist who performs the song is redlinked. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Article as it stands is OR, website linked as ref is commercial - and if you believe that those who bought this (a trance record) also bought Sonny & Cher & The Association! Also, does not appear to have hit anything but personal charts, and that at number 415=. Extremely underground, possibly a good track, but no way notable. I've been around trance for about 15 years and have never heard of it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as seeming to fail WP:N.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless reliable sources can be produced to verify notability per WP:Music#Songs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Pater

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP stub. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep You're kidding right? Hansonc 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think I prodded this a while back, cause it was on my watchlist. Anyway, no mention of notability, no sourcing. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment You mean other than being a founding member of the most popular tech news site on the planet right? Does this mean I should AfD Jimbo Wales because all he's done is create an online encyclopedia? Hansonc 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply Yes, if Jimbo had not been in multiple press interviews and had hundreds of reliable sources. There is no verifiability here, so there is no content here, so there is no article. What has Pater done lately anyway? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but if you are going to ignore Cowboyneal's reason for notability (Slashdot) you have to ignore Jimbo's too (Wikipedia) and the only reason he was interview was for Wikipedia so those sources are useless too. Seriously he's famous for what he's famous for why does he need to be famous for something else to pass your notability test? Hansonc 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a damn about notability, I care about sourcing. Jimbo has been in press. Pater has not. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

delete Hansonc, the reason it should be deleted isn't nec. because he's not notable; it's that there is no reason in the article that is sourced that says that he is, and that the entire article is clearly just promoting slashdot, which is not acceptable. Barsportsunlimited 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment Isn't the reason any individual has a wikipedia article about them for the promotion of what they do? I'm going back to Jimbo here. Would he have a wikipedia page if he hadn't founded the site ? The answer is no. What's his job? Promoting Wikipedia. What's his Wikipedia page do? Promote Wikipedia and Wikia. So basically to get back to my point, of course Cowboyneal's wikipedia page discusses what he does and what he's known for, Slashdot, as it should. Hansonc 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment No, it isn't "the reason" people have articles. Articles must assert notability, be verifiable, and have enough content to deserve a separate article. This article fails ALL THREE. Mention he's a co-founder in Slashdot and delete this unverified substub. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • • Comment So what you're saying is being known for what he's known for isn't good enough. What would make him notable other than being an editor of slashdot. Back to Jimbo. He's only notable for founding wikipedia, should his article be deleted as well since he's not notable for anything other than what he's notable for? He is an extremely early (he was there within about a year of the original purchase of the domain name) editor of slashdot (employee #6 according to my count from the slashdot history here) and he has always been the "humorous" poll choice. Personally I feel it was a bad idea for Jonathan Pater to be the article when he's actually known as Cowboyneal but that's a whole different argument. By the way, I do agree this needs to be cleanedup and expanded but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. Hansonc 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It does need a rewrite to show a source for notability, but it's a definite keep. Geoffrey.landis 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment here's the last time someone tried to delete the article in question Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CowboyNeal as you can see it's a nearly unanimous keep. It's still here for a reason. Hansonc 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please remember that consensus can change, it's been well over a year since then. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Remember rule #1 according to King Jimbo, WP:IAR Hansonc 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If I had been thinking WP:IAR, I would've just deleted it outright. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The fact that consensus can change isn't a "rule", it's a fact. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. For all the reasons listed by Hansonc --Vrmlguy 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability and the article is mainly concerned with his name's origin anyway. Bobby1011 06:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete He is a pretty 'known' person, but I can't find any sources (at all). A google test throws up lots of results, but no reliable sources (that I found). Without those it will never satisfy WP:BLP. Martijn Hoekstra 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Martijn Hoekstra. It doesn't appear that sources actually exist to establish notability per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This was just the information I was looking for. --Dmcneece 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Wooden

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

Asserts notability, but I can find no verifiable sources for claims of being pundit, being disliked by China, or being censured by Congress. Cannot find evidence of meeting WP:BIO.

• Google search for Chris Wooden yeilded 56 UNIQUE hits. There are other "Chris Woodens" on the web.
• Google search for "Christopher Wooden" yileded 52 UNIQUE hits. There are other "Christopher Wooden"s on the web.
• Google News gave me 9 hits about other "Christopher Wooden"s.
• Google News for "Chris Wood" yeilded about 50 hits. There is a more notable football player by the same name. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC

• Delete per nom and as possible hoax. The absence of media coverage is particularly suspicious for somebody who supposedly "made American History". EALacey 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I can't find verification of anything in this article. --Metropolitan90 02:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not verifiable to reliable sources. What a cool beard the guy has got though...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Beardopedia. or Dev0. Martijn Hoekstra 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• It'd be strange if Beardopedia actually existed. It'd have to include Robert Wyatt and Jimbo Wales.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom's excellent research into the subject. Doctorfluffy 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources showing that they meet WP:MUSIC are found and used. Eluchil404 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cypher (band)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), possible self-promotion. The band formed in 2002 and only has one full release. If this band is entitled to a Wikipedia entry there are over 5,000 other metal bands that would need an article as well. (not an exaggeration, see metal-archives.com) -RiverHockey 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - at present there are no independent sources and the article doesn't seem to have any proof of notability. Also, per RiverHockey's last comment. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep but needs more info and sources. This band did international tours, have been reviewed by dozens of Dutch, German and UK magazines.[1] I will work on it. Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, please do. I don't like deleting articles on European bands, but I prefer that such articles have better content and sourcing so that it's easier to tell the obvious spam apart from proper band articles. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to show notability. This link quoted above appears to give no evidence of touring, and the album reviews appear to be by non-notable sources - music blogs mostly. The article as it stands now doesn't show good enough reason for being on Wiki, and that is the article we are discussing. But there is nothing stopping anyone from writing the article up again after it has been deleted, if someone discovers better sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tijuana Brass 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher english

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

Non-notable individual. Article doesn't establish notability. Dr. Cash 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Seems like a speedy delete candidate. -RiverHockey 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per criterion A7 (biography with no indication of notability). Probably a well intentioned creation by a new user unfamiliar with our notability guidelines. I see the article itself already been tagged for speedy deletion. EALacey 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete seems right. No context, little content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources added, though some of them are trivial. Borderline case. PeaceNT 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spartak Tennis Club

Spartak Tennis Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tennis-club. fails WP:CORP and no sources are cited. notability is not inherited from the people who trained or taken a crap in the bathrooms. ^Law/_Disorder 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, if it trained all those famous players, it might have something written about it; but there's nothing given, so it fails the notability test. Nyttend 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I hadn't heard of it, and I thought it was a joke - this run down tennis court that is unused for half the year producing all those tennis stars. But a quick search showed that the place is well known and highly revered in the tennis community. I put in just three sources, but there are plenty more. And the Not Inherited doesn't apply to places which are sourced as being notable such as CBGB or Spartak Tennis Club, it applies to arguments used in AfD debates in which someone says "notability is not inherited from the people who trained or taken a crap in the bathrooms." And now that the article is sourced, it passes WP:CORP. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep per silkytalk. Witty Lama 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dwight Davis Memorial Tennis Center

Dwight Davis Memorial Tennis Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tennis-center. fails WP:CORP and cites no sources. Please note: notability is not inherited. ^Law/_Disorder 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep - I could find some mentions in the press for this location. I would think that a sports facility would have sufficient notability for some small page, no? I'll try and add a bit of content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - I added some small amount of content, and 2 proper (though perhaps not high quality) sources, to back up the article topic's notability. I assume this'll get a relist, though, as nobody's been weighing in. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I may as well withdraw at this point. Noone cares either way. ^Law/_Disorder 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bakersfield(UK tv series)

Bakersfield(UK tv series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to establish that article is anything but something made up by the article creator, article even says only about 20 people have watched, earlier prod removed by article creator Davewild 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete clearly a hoax. Chris! _ct 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It could be a hoax or possibly it's something on Youtube (or somewhere similar), but clearly it doesn't meet WP:N FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax or at the very least a variation of WP:NFT. 23skidoo 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete as something whose hoaxiness or lack thereof isn't even evident in the article. Fails WP:N and WP:RS at present. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a plan, a desire, possibly, or mobile phone footage, possibly something made up in school one day, but hasn't yet made it to a UK TV channel. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The show doesn't exist. Its a hoax. Operating 10:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The article itself states that only ~20 people have seen the programme, so definitely not notable, and most likely never been on television therefore. Perhaps a small-scale project by a hobbyist. Mouchoir le Souris 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, clear WP:HOAX. Doctorfluffy 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harpenden Lawn Tennis Club

Harpenden Lawn Tennis Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tennis-court club. fails WP:CORP. if claims that it has won important awards can be verified... but it makes the claim without sources. ^Law/_Disorder 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - researched and added references, still could not justify notability or WP:CORP. MatthewYeager 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I can't remember why I created this article. I seem to recall that the Club was the oldest something or other in the UK, but I cannot now recall, and obviously I didn't at the time put in the article. On the face of it, I couldn't argue with deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No apparent notability. Closest thing I could find was "one of the leading tennis clubs in the country". --Fang Aili ^talk 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Coredesat 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Wells Tennis Garden

Indian Wells Tennis Garden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tennis-court club. fails WP:CORP and cites no sources. ^Law/_Disorder 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I added references and rewrote. This location is the 2nd largest tennis stadium in the world, hosting many of the top 10 largest tennis tournaments in the world. please reassess nomination. MatthewYeager 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any newspaper articles in that list of sources... ^Law/_Disorder 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per above comment - it's a major and very well-known tennis ground. IIRC it hosts at least one stop on the ATP and WTA tours. Edit: see Pacific Life Open --Sesameball^Talk 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titans (Warcraft)

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This characters article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• merge all into one massive Warcraft NPC article. It's no worse than other fancruft all over Wikipedia if it's consolidated. This vote goes for all the AfDs posted by IAmSasori that say "do not merge" but I'm far too lazy to post this in all the AfDs. Hansonc 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as appropriate, Keep as appropriate (i.e., if notable and supported). Was it really necessary to create some 40+ different AfDs when many during the combined AfD suggested either a keep or a merge? Surely simply relying on that is better than spamming AfD 40+ times? Consider this a keep/merge vote for each of these related 40+ AfDs; I certainly won't dignify spam with posting in each one. --Sesameball^Talk 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete based on unencyclopaedic status. Bobby1011 06:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per all the other !votes I've made in the warcruft AfDs. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anduin Lothar

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Characters from warcraft need not have their own pages due to obvious notability issues. Bobby1011 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, discounting invalid keep arguments below. --Coredesat 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirin Tor

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This characters article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It needs to remain. Ok. The end.

DarthSidious 07:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Keep - Include all pages Medivh, Tichondrius, Lady_Vashj, Velen_(World_of_Warcraft), Vol'jin, Malfurion_Stormrage, Sylvanas_Windrunner, Arthas Menethil and etc. And many other from Template:WarcraftBCharacter. How's that non-notable? If you did not hear about Warcraft that is your only problem! Also redir all pages I listen above to this page. --- DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anub'arak

Anub'arak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Bobby1011 06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It should remain here

DarthSidious 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archimonde

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Exceptionally Strong Keep It's an essential part of the plot. Have you even played the game before? Please cease this frenzy this nominator is on.

DarthSidious 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Weak Keep There's a link to a third-party database, so it definitely doesn't violate WP:OR. Whether it is notable is another matter, and I'm not convinced either way at the moment, what with the game being the most famous computer game around, known among non-gamers and gamers alike. (yes, Archimonde is just a character inside the indisputably notable game; but he is a sufficiently major and recurring character that he might be considered notable in his own right) Sakkura 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthas Menethil

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While I think a drive to delete all these Warcraft articles is a magnificently obnoxious contribution to deletionism, I'm fairly sure that this article is significant. Arthas is going to be the chief antagonist in the new expansion for World of Warcraft. He was the protagonist of Warcraft III. The character has had a significant impact on the Warcraft gameworld. I'd rate his importance similarly to that of Elminster in the Forgotten Realms fantasy world - a character whose actions span across several media and alter the fictional world.

Ah, screw it. Go on, delete Arthas. Nobody cares about Warcraft characters. But by God, I'd expect to see every single Pokemon critter entry, every single Final Fantasy character entry, every single Tolkien character entry deleted at the same time. Do I think these are all equivalent? Not really. But I'm sure that a complete stranger to the series wouldn't read about Electrike or Kefka or Barahir. Their articles violate "WP:Plot" and "WP:OR" and "WP:N" too. Well, not really, they don't. Not for a reasonable definition of the terms. But the AfD nominator clearly doesn't agree with a reasonable definition. So I say keep - unless you're planning on cutting every single fictional character's entry that doesn't have a third party source. Allandaros 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Major character in a notable fictional universe, chief protagonist and chief antagonist of multiple games and novels. JavaTenor 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Fancruft Bobby1011 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. The article is entirely an in-universe plot summary. No indication of real-world context or notability. Google search returned a fair number of hits, but they seem to be limited to passing mention in videogame reviews/guides and fansites so it's unlikely this character has been covered substantially by sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy 07:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - He is the main character in both WAR3 (its his face on the cover of TFT), and the second expansion of WoW. I'm going to have to go through all the other characters you've probably nominated as well.

DarthSidious 07:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Keep - Firstly, the article doesn't feature any fancruft/fanfiction or original research. Also, he is an important character in a famous fictional universe. So, if Doctor Doom, Emperor Palpatin or the Joker have articles, so can Arthas.Dimts 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me anything in this article that would pass WP:Plot. Ridernyc 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, then maybe give people a chance to improve the article, rather than trying to nuke it (or would that, y'know, make sense?). Would you people be satisfied with novelizations Blizzard has in the Warcraft setting, aside from the computer games, or are those not enough? Allandaros 13:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had seen one ounce of effort by anyone to improve the warcrqaft articles I might agree. But through all these AFD's I have never seen anyone add a single source or rewrite a single sentence. I have also never seen any of the editors of these articles show that they have an grasp of policies. Ridernyc 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The first nomination was over a year ago. shoy (^words _words) 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question Are there any substantial third party publications written about this character? Yamaguchi先生 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I just added a link to an article in Games for Windows magazine which is largely about this character's role in the upcoming expansion. As this is among the best-selling PC games of all time, there's plenty of coverage of many different aspects of the game in the gaming press, various books, etc. JavaTenor 09:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azshara

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. No information outside of in-universe story, doubtful that secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 07:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a "backstory" character who, as far as I can determine, does not feature in any games or novels set in the Warcraft universe. JavaTenor 08:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadlord

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This characters article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The idea that this article should be deleted is quite ridiculous

DarthSidious 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cairne Bloodhoof

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it should remain here.

DarthSidious 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Placeholder

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Admiral Daelin Proudmoore

Grand Admiral Daelin Proudmoore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not WoWWiki. JJL 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It deserves to stay here.

DarthSidious 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durotan

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elune

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garona Halforcen

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grom Hellscream

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. this article also has gameguide elements in it. Ridernyc 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Major character in the Warcraft universe; has appeared in multiple games and books. JavaTenor 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 12:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - no comment needed, really.

DarthSidious 07:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gul'dan

Gul'dan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Important Character

DarthSidious 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illidan Stormrage

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - He is one of the main characters in both Warcraft 3 and WOW, and almost all of the characters in these games have wiki articles for them (unless you've deleted them already). He definately should stay here.

DarthSidious 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaina Proudmoore

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. This article also has gameguide elements in it. Ridernyc 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - no comment needed, really

DarthSidious 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Keep - one of the main characters of the game. Fancruft/fanfiction and original research are absent. But I agree that the article needs more sources. Dimts 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kel'Thuzad

Kel'Thuzad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - needs to remain

DarthSidious 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khadgar

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kil'jaeden

Kil'jaeden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - needs to stay here.

DarthSidious 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killrogg Deadeye

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Terenas Menethil II

King Terenas Menethil II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article should stay

DarthSidious 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maiev Shadowsong

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A notable character from warcraft 3

DarthSidious 07:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malfurion Stormrage

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - No comment required

DarthSidious 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

You might want to read policy because, yes a comment is required.Ridernyc 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mannoroth

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a pity that I have to spend this time attempting to rescue articles from you lot, rather than something more constructive

DarthSidious 07:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medivh

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ridernyc. Also, I really doubt secondary sources exist to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Important Character.

DarthSidious 07:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neltharion

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ner'zhul

Ner'zhul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's evident that the person nominating all these doesn't actually play Warcraft 3, and probably knows nothing about it.

DarthSidious 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nozdormu

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orgrim Doomhammer

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kael'thas Sunstrider

Kael'thas Sunstrider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep; (a) try properly AfDing it, which is clearly described on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and does not involve moving the old page, and (b) if you're going to avoid a mass deletion, then avoid a mass deletion and treat each article distinctly. Don't post a bunch of reasons the article should be deleted and then state that they may not be relevant. Furthermore, the claim that a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all is wrong, given the number of times I've went to Wikipedia trying to understand an out-of-context quip someone made, and irrelevant. A complete stranger to English literature isn't going to try and look up Moby Dick. Someone not familiar with Australia isn't going to look up Robert Askin. Not every article in Wikipedia has to be for everyone.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Bobby1011 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of significant coverage from secondary sources to demostrate notability per WP:FICT. Also fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - These articles should not be deleted.

DarthSidious 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Strong Keep - one of the links leads to the official Warcraft site(!). Such as source can't be considered "secondary" Dimts 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rexxar

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes the Notability test

DarthSidious 07:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhonin

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sargeras

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - important character.

DarthSidious 07:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Keep - one of the sources is the official site. Or perhaps official sites are not reliable? Dimts 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Third party sites are needed as sources. Bobby1011 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sen'jin

Sen'jin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - No need to delete this article

DarthSidious 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shandris Feathermoon

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - needs to remain here

DarthSidious 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete, most of the keep voters didn't give a valid reason. This is a Secret ^account 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvanas Windrunner

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - For all the reasons as before. DarthSidious 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Hesitant Keep - The article is a god awful mess, but I believe it is notable enough on its own (major characters in TV shows meet the notability requirements so it only seems fitting that major characters in equally popular games do the same). Granted the article is a disaster right now but deleting it would set a precedent that would make it difficult to recreate it in proper form. As for it being OR, most, if not all of that information seems to be taken (although not properly referenced, from the various texts associated with the games and from actuall in-game mentions, cinematics, and so forth. Very little of it actually appears to be conjecture.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

read WP:WAF it expalins what is required for fiction. Even if sourcing was not an issue there is and I doubt there ever will any real world context in this article.Ridernyc 08:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - agree with the previous user. Dimts 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Unless the article gets into some kind of "unrepairable" state, I believe it should remain as its own article. BassxForte 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced, poorly written fancruft which fails WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Bobby1011 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tichondrius

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable character. Axl 10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he is a notable character —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthSidious (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrande Whisperwind

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. This article also has elements of a gameguide. Ridernyc 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This article should remain. Shows your passion - you've simply cut and past the same excuse for every War3 article!!

DarthSidious 07:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Keep - see my post in Article for deletion/Arthas Menethil. Dimts 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uther the Lightbringer

Uther the Lightbringer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - is Wikipedia running out of space or something? These should not be deleted!

DarthSidious 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Vashj

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - deserves to stay here

DarthSidious 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vol'jin

Vol'jin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zul'jin

Zul'jin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ritter Park Tennis Center

Ritter Park Tennis Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tennis-court club. fails WP:CORP and cites no sources. ^Law/_Disorder 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emma tatham

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

No proof of 'notability'. AlexSloan 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep Since the referenced book exists I'm going to go with notability met. Needs some serious cleanup since it appears to have been written by a high school student who liked her work but couldn't find her on Wikipedia. -Hansonc 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I dunno...something tells me that if she wasn't notable, there wouldn't be a company printing her book 148 years after it was written... Smashville 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She seems notable, and well sourced judging from the fact that the subject died near a century ago. Chris! _ct 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She was notable at the time. She seems to have been the subject of at least two biographies shortly after her death (both to be found on Google Books). Matthew Arnold refers to her, unfavourably, in one of his essays and her work crossed the Atlantic, where the Methodist Review in 1855, in a backhanded compliment, said: "WE must give the praise of good intention, at least, to "The Dream of Pythagoras, and Other Poems, by EMMA TATHAM ... The rhymed portions of the volume are better than the blank verse". There are references out there, if anyone wants to expand the article.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly not a hoax. This is a rare exception to Geogre's Law.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly a hoax how? I didn't know Amazon.com was in the business of selling non-existent books... Smashville 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So that would mean that Matthew Arnold, who wrote about her less than a decade after her death and whose works, including that particular essay, have been the subject of much academic scrutiny was pulling a fast one? Look, there are many references to her out there if you look. 10 seconds searching got me a mention in the the Dublin University Magazine from 1855 here. Very definitely not a hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If you check the history, you'll find that my comment was vandalised by an anon-IP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, indeed. Personal note on way. Honestly didn't think to check that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Striking my misplaced original reply to HisSpaceResearch, as I was replying to a vandalized version of his comment. (But leaving the link intact). I'm suitably embarrassed. Sorry about that, HSR. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I've un-vandalised my comment now, and no problem at all. Best not to feed the trolls and vandals too much - WP:DENY.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I also redacted mine. I guess Assuming Good Faith does have its consequences...I never really thought someone would vandalize someone's comments... Smashville 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep definitely notable. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article asserts notabilty and has sources to back up notabilty claims in article. AngelOfSadness talk 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was hoax. DS 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Phelps

Another hoax. Googling "Lewis Phelps" and WPVI together only pulls up this page and another hoax page. Smashville 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, news anchor fantasy league. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Moore (British Criminal)

Jason Moore (British Criminal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete interesting, newsy, but ultimately not notable - so this guy models his criminality after some movie bad guy, the BBC pick it up as a gee-whiz item, that's a claim to notability? WP≠Wiki Policeblotter. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not the news and this is really Chuck Shepherd material. Possibly worth a footnote in Freddy Krueger. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not the news. Not even worth a mention on the Freddy page. Operating 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - if multiple news agencies cover the same subject, that still doesn't mean that it's notable, just the same thing told over and over again.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This should be included in the Freddy page and referenced at the bottom.209.91.61.223 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shai Cherry

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

Lack of Notability Prof. Cherry is an innovative junior scholar. Perhaps someday he will be notable. Currently, however, he is among many emerging yet not-yet-notable scholars. HG | Talk 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Defo not notable by any measure at the moment. Give him 40 years. scope_creep 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete insufficiently notable. JJL 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment the article lists three sources, two of which are posted articles on MyJewishLearning.com, that turn out to be excerpts from ""Three twentieth-century Jewish responses to evolutionary theory," in Aleph: Historical Studies in Science & Judaism (Magnes Press)." & "Three Twentieth-Century Jewish Responses to Evolutionary Theory," Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, 2003 (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)." which seem therefore to be two different excerpts from the same article in the journal Aleph (which is " an international peer reviewed annual journal, devoted to the exploration of the interface between Judaism and science in history" according tho their website). I think these two references are really one, I've edited the article accordingly. Pete.Hurd 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete one chapter in a contributed volume, and one peer reviewed paper, and no real demonstration of an impact on academic thought. I don't think this passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 03:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Star (cider)

White Star (cider) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that the cider in this one-line article is notable. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I know the brewery who makes this cider, and I think it's been making it for over 200 years. I think the article should be heavily expanded.... scope_creep 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please see WP:IKNOWIT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not much to see there, I'm afraid. JuJube 06:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment er ... apparently you can only get there via WP:IDONTKNOWIT but it covers both concepts. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I created WP:IKNOWIT just right here and now as a redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find much beyond teh ratebeer page, with one vote. Not even the apparent brand owner actually has a page on it. I wasn't able to turn up anything substantial in Google News Archive, either. Even if it's venerable, there's no evidence it's Wikipedia-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I actually bought a bottle of this once (it is sold in co-op stores in the UK), and it tasted disgusting, as the ratebeer reviewer seems to agree - it's a very cheap brand of white cider and is probably drunk mainly by alcoholics, students and people living on benefits. I say weak delete unless sources are provided. At the moment, it's a substub and could be deleted for lacking context, speedily.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom, would keep if article were expanded and better-sourced AndalusianNaugahyde 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Axl 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Warcraft organizations

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

Fails notability, appears to be pure gamecruft, and is badly unsourced.

This use is most likely not going to be much use or even glanced at by a non-player of the Warcraft series, failing notability.

It appears to be cruft that may also be emerging with original research.

One final important note is that there are no sources whatsoever on the article.

There doesn't seem to be much use of this article besides to Warcraft players. IAmSasori 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:Plot, also orgianl reaserch with no references. Ridernyc 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as utter fancruft. Bobby1011 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly violates WP:NOT#PLOT without providing real-world context or significance. Unlikely any secondary source has devoted significant coverage to any of these groups so WP:FICT cannot be satisfied. Doctorfluffy 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Fordham

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

Yet another former parliamentary candidate. There are thousands of such candidates in elections around the globe. Timrollpickering 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The chap isn't an MP, just a researcher. Clearly not notable. So delete. scope_creep 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice toward recreation if he should run again and be elected. Nyttend 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, almost certainly fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Blu-ray Discs

List of Blu-ray Discs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Originally listed at C:CSD, but fails to meet any specific criteria. However, such a list would be exceedingly long and of little encyclopedic value - it would be comparable to "List of 8 tracks" or "List of television shows". Also includes List of HD DVDs. Delete Tijuana Brass 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Blu-ray Discs may be relatively new but there's nothing particularly special about movies that use them. It will be too broad to be a maintainable list. Spellcast 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not just un-encyclopedic, but useless - unless you wanted to own all the Blu-ray discs published ever. A simple search on an online shopping site would generate the same list, with more useful features. -- Emana 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - When Blu-Ray finally dies as a format I might vote to keep but until then it's going to be pretty much impossible to maintain. Hansonc 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Its a list, available in every serious website dealing with HD. Perhaps keeping the first 5, would be more important. scope_creep 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I hope the format does fail (like every other format Sony has created), there is the possibility that it might not and this list would become huge (imagine if someobody tried to this with DVDs, the US alone gets over 100 new DVDs every week). The list would become even bigger if PlayStation 3 games were added (since they are all on Blu-ray Discs). TJ Spyke 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete essentially an endless list. Chris! _ct 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Premature for this sort of list. If Blu-Ray wins the format war, then every release will be Blu-Ray. The list could have tens of thousands of titles. If, on the other hand, it goes the way of Beta, then a list of the limited-number of releases would be a viable idea. But not at this stage of the game. Ditto HD-DVD. 23skidoo 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• As long as both lists, the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are deleted, then Delete. Ank329 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Chris!. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zafar Ansari

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

Fails to meet Athlete's Bio notability criteria as player in junior league, also lack of secondary sources SkierRMH 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is a joke. I can't understand why speedy was declined. -- Magioladitis 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oos

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

Looks like vanispamcruftisement. No third party sources. No claim of notability. The article is just a list of features and to-do's. Previosly prodded. De-prodded without substantive change or comment. -- Ben 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep If that's WP:VSCA I'd like to see more cruft articles that well written. -Hansonc 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You know... you are probably right. It probably doesn't qualify as WP:VSCA. It reads like ad to me. Since you didn't comment on the lack of sources and lack of notability, does that mean that you agree that they aren't there and that the article's subject doesn't meet WP:N? -- Ben 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't feel WP:N is a good enough reason to delete 99% of the time. Why not fix the article rather than destroy it if you're not happy with WP:NPV which is what you should be arguing if you're calling it an advertisement. - Hansonc 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Problem is that it doesn't have much exposure, so going on WP:N and WP:WEB, I'd have to say no. Not every software project is notable, sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn, advertisement, probably coi as creators only edits have been to this page and a relating image: Special:Contributions/Habam2004. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per OSborn. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not the kind of company that has the notablity to be on Wikipedia. Also looks like an ad. Captain panda 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't find any third party reliable sources discussing it, so it does not (yet, at least) appear notable enough. Hal peridol 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people nicknamed "The King"

List of people nicknamed "The King" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list and trivial intersection. Spellcast 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

These are all people considered the best on what they do, and nicknamed The King of, for many years. It is interesting for many people, I can see a similarity with People known as the father or mother of something.--Xocoyote 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. See WP:WAX. Subdolous 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not an appropriate, encyclopedic, or meaningful subject for a stand alone list according to WP:SAL. Subdolous 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I considered putting this up for AfD, but you beat me to it. This is an indiscriminate list, and it should be deleted. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Chris! _ct 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with The King (disambiguation page). I fail to see why this list was created in the first place, as it is the disambiguation pages that are usually spammed with such mentions. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate, or re-work to a dab page if that seems useful (I do not think it would be). JJL 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AndalusianNaugahyde 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless page Hammer1980·^talk 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by The-G-Unit-Boss as a copyright violation. --Coredesat 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube Video Downloader

Youtube Video Downloader (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is some usefull content in this article, but in it's present form it has no place in Wikipedia. Some extensive reworking could make it comparison of Youtube video download tools? Martijn Hoekstra 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic non-notable original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Stuff like this belongs on software sites like downloads.com.--Cartman005 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE This is a copyright violation! It is a direct lift from http://mashable.com/2007/05/05/download-youtube-video/ Group29 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Villages Project

Millennium Villages Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed speedy, reposted. Originally speedy deleted as 'blatant advertising'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Its a really crappy article, but the organisation itself is part of the UN Millenium Project and Columbia University effort to end poverty in Africa using an multi pronged strategy. The article needs to be extensively improved, but defo keep. 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
• Keep For all the same reasons as Scope creep including crappy writing dig. Hansonc 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Scope creep, needs significant cleanup. Subdolous 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Move to original poster's namespace for re-write. It still reads like a promotional piece. -- Emana 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aside from the crappy wording, the article does not assert its subject's notability, and I'm not inclined to believe it has any. Bobby1011 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• What about the fact that it's a UN/Columbia University joint project, doesn't that make it notable in your mind? By the way I've added links to the official websites for someone to base a cleanup on. Millennium_Villages_Project#External_Links Hansonc 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Notability is not inherited. That is to say that the parent organisations are not important here. The subject must stand on its own two feet. I don't think it can. Bobby1011 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since searching for Wikipedia rules is like searching for a needle in a haystack is there a rule that states "your lack of knowledge about a topic does not mean it's non-notable"?... If there is I would like to cite that here... if not, well there should be. -Hansonc 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Maybe you're looking for WP:IDONTKNOWIT. In any case it's not up to me or any other reader to know anything about this project. It's the responsibility of the editor who created it to show that they have actually done the work to verify that what they read on the internet about this organisation is true. That means real sources. Third party ones. That independently assert the notability of the articles subject. At the moment the article is not convincing me that it is anything more than another group/think tank/lobby(the articles actually describes it as an "approach") that has not, as of yet, amounted to anything. If you wish to assert future notability then there is a place and time for that: the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was actually kidding about the lack of knowledge rule but it's nice to see that it exists :-) This brings me to my major problem with Wikipedia'a AfD process. It's easier to get valid articles such as this deleted than it is to save them. This is obviously a real program, backed by the UN and Columbia University which is worthy of a better Wikipedia article than it has but because people find it easier to just delete articles than to fix them, here we are arguing about if it should be in Wikipedia or not. -Hansonc 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment My problem with what you seem to be saying is that the program is notable because its two parent organisations are. Was it featured in any mainstream news? Has it accomplished any notable goals for which there are reliable third party sources? If yes, then list them as references. Bobby1011 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We would like to obtain some knowledge, if you can find some references that document it other than the projects own website. DGG (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft map

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

This article is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. It is almost game guide in its writing style and content, has no references and fails notability guidelines as all attempts by me to find a single reliable source to reference it failed. In addition, it is not linked to by anything but one user page and two redirects. I argue that the subject is not notable and the problem here is not surmountable, so the article should be deleted. Sabre 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge This is maps for the main game article. The main article is too big to contain this article, I would suggest tidy up and keep. scope_creep 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in no way part of the main game article, its guide information on various maps, consisting entirely of unverified original research. This has no place in the game article or anywhere on Wikipedia. The information cannot by tidied up because it has no notability. -- Sabre 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N, no sources at all let alone reliable ones, tagged since February. Would happily move to keep or merge to StarEdit if sources are found.Someone another 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy 06:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. The target article seems to require better referencing than currently exists for this term, so the people suggesting merger below will need to look into this. W.marsh 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paki shop

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

This page was speedily deleted in September, although it did not validly meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I asked for this to be restored so that it goes through a full AfD process. As for the article itself, I think a merge of any sourcable content and redirect to the "Paki" section of List of ethnic slurs would be the best option. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge I agree. Its a valid article, but defo merge with slur article. scope_creep 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the "Paki" section of List of ethnic slurs per nom, and merge any sourcable/non-redundant content to there or to Convenience store. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect - as the admin who deleted it, I agree with this. ELIMINATORJR 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's definitely not a valid article. If you're going to include "Paki shop" you may as well include "redneck bar", for example. The term "Paki" on it's own doesn't even have it's own page, and just redirects to "List of ethnic slurs". Furthermore, "Paki shop" isn't even a widely used term in itself. Search Google for it and you'll only find 547 instances of it. There are multiple different variations of what they might call a shop owned by someone of South Asian descent, such as "The Paki's" being much more common where I live, and others such as "Paki store", "the Paki tip" etc. The content just describes the origin of the racial slur "Paki", which is already covered in the list of ethnic slurs and the description of what a "Paki shop" sells is just that of a convenience store. I think it should just be removed outright like it was before, or it should redirect to the List of ethnic slurs. It's a really stupid article and doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impulsion (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. I'm undecided whether it would be better merged into List of ethnic slurs or Convenience store, but it should go into one or other of those. Definately shouldn't continue to exist in its own right. --AliceJMarkham 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect & Merge, per Iain99. Redirect to list of ethnic slurs and salvage content to convenience store. Witty Lama 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saavedro

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

Violates WP:Plot no real world context and no notabilty outside of the myst franchise. Ridernyc 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nom and as failing WP:OR and WP:RS, even though I'm a wicked great fan of Brad Dourif. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine (Myst)

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

Fails WP:Plot no references, notability outside the myst franchise. Ridernyc 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge There is a whole list of myst characters. This should be merged into a suitable character list article. Its a waste of resources scope_creep 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it should be noted that during the last round of Myst deletions most articles were voted to be merged. However since the articles are entirely original research with no references nothing was there to be merged so, basically the articles were deleted. Ridernyc 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and it's unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, it's impossible to establish notability per WP:N with any amount of rewriting or cleanup. Doctorfluffy 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doo World Order

Doo World Order (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not especially familiar with wrestling, so I can't determine if any of the claims made in this article attest to notability. Article also fails to include any sources. JavaTenor 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A wrestling clique in a backyard wrestling federation? I think CSD A7 comes into play here. Wildthing61476 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google laid an egg - no hits for Doo World Order, though some Scooby Doo World items popped up. None of the wrestling sites I know of mention a thing about any clique or stable with this name. WP:HOAX may apply, but WP:V and WP:RS are sufficient for deletion. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD A7 | WP:N | WP:HOAX | WP:RS I was unable to find any references in an attempt to keep the article as well. MatthewYeager 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Denneny

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

Taken from the talk page, as I think it sums up the article best: "This person does not appear to meet notability standards because he is merely a declared candidate for Congress and has not actually won that office, and has not otherwise met notability criteria. It's a borderline case, though, which is why I did not immediately nominate this for deletion. Moreover, the article is written like a news release and had issues with neutral points of view. If these issues persist, I will eventually nominate this for deletion." - User:Realkyhick. I don't think he's notable, so I prodded the article and invited Reallyhick to PROD2. This AFD is a result of the prod being disputed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Commander Denneny is one of the few airmen to earn the distinguished flying cross with a V for valor. He is also the most senior fighter pilot to criticize the Iraq War. In addition, he is expected to win his party's nomination in what will prove to be one of the most contested elections of the 08 cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• As someone interested in Denneny due all the blog coverage of him, I think this article is perfectly acceptable. How he has grounds for deletion as a top fighter pilot with a noteworthy career and new political presence makes no sense to me. If problems due to 'point of view' are present, lets get them edited and be done with it. Deletion of an article based on one person's opinion over if Denneny is a big enough figure for wikipedia seems ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom55 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) _{The aforementioned user has made few edits to Wikipedia, and appears to be a single-purpose account.}

'Comment - Please see WP:N. It's nopt opinion that's the issue here, it's rules and guidelines that have already been set out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article, I think written by himself, but it is notable. He's all over the web like a rash. Article needs de-poved, sources, category, wikied, the loot. scope_creep 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article should stay posted. As mentioned above there has been a lot of coverage of Denneny on the web, so we need an entry. Just keep it neutral and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msternbe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a candidate for a WP:BIO office by itself does not qualify under WP:BIO. Being a successful commander, even winning a few medals, is also not notability (just look at the Ds for the DFC). There isn't consensus that the Congressional Medal of Honor equals inherent notability, let alone the DFC. In any case, the article is terrible; Wikipedia is not a host for campaign brochures. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion about notability is a worthy one. It is my assertion that he is notable enough, and that this article will provide a resource (outside of campaign website, which in nature is clearly not neutral) for folks who want to know more about important races in 2008. That aside, the article is certainly not a campaign brochure: it states no platforms or positions. If it is written terribly, I urge you to edit it and improve it. That's the point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, listen carefully here: he doesn't meet the required standards already set out for notability. Asserting that he is notable enough in your opinion is all very well and good, but he doesn't meet the requirements set out at WP:BIO. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - I'd agree that simply being a declared candidate for office is insufficient notability - especially when oh, so many candidates for political office are using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. I'd also suggest someone with more Wikismarts than me check the accompanying photos to ensure they meet Wikipedia's open-source content guideline (or whatever it is we care about). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The American DFC seems to be 6 levels of precedence down from the Medal of Honor, less prestigious than the British version. The rest of his achievements don't seem to be notable enough either. Clarityfiend 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This article is repeatedly being vandalised by the people above who have voted to keep it. The AfD template is consistently removed, and no action has been taken to improve the article as suggested. This would lead me to believe that it's either a vanity article, a non-notable article, or both. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - or, that it's a cynical attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium instead of caring the slightest bit about the rules around here. If so, does that up this to a speedy delete? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny vendramini

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Can this be saved? I am not a scientist, so i cannot save it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I added the only 2 references i could find to the article. Mr. Vendramini's paper, which is his original research (if you want to see what his theory is). I'm leaning towards delete due to WP:N and lack of WP:RS, Yet feel best to have this review by someone else with knowledge in the area. I could only find his own site and 1 news site that interviewed him, no 3rd party confirmation to remove blatant WP:OR MatthewYeager 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is not original thought as it has been published and his paper is linked to by the article. It is however not notable. I am both an Australian and in the field, and I have never come accross this paper or any of its proponents. This is particularly significant since the idea's creator (like any idea that opposes natural selection as the ONLY method of evolution) fails to fully understand the absolute scope of modern selection theory. That is, that any change is only successful if it is favorable. In any case the idea is too far outside the scope of main stream science to garner any notability in that respect, and it is also absent from the popular press. Bobby1011 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a Secret ^account 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DISCover

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

Reads like an advertisement, no sources cited, however the topic does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications. Is this software notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article? GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established. Subdolous 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Noor Aalam 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the original posters comment of "the topic does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications." If a gaming console that's discussed by gaming publications doesn't meet wp:nn it's time to fix wp:nn. My general opinion is that if the niche crowd (in this case gaming publications) finds the topic notable it is notable. Leave notability to the experts not the unwashed masses :-) Hansonc 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hence the "unless notability can be established." The sources need to be presented. A statement by a wikipedia user that it "does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications" is not a secondary source. Subdolous 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • True that. My comment was based on some extremely cursory googling. The question is whether there's enough coverage in gaming publications to support an article. Is this article from GameSpot a reliable source, for instance? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Hansonc. 132.205.99.122 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, need sources integrated. I remembered this er, console from a few years ago getting coverage from PC gaming places. I took several minutes to search for sources: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6] (though it's an editorial-like piece by the CEO), [7] (Press release of their partnership with firingsquad.com) all with Googling "discover gaming," "discover console," and "discover firingsquad." These should be considered for integration into the article and the article neutered from any promotional tone. There are a few smaller "future tech" mentions of DISCover in various reliable sources; I'm not sure if they can be considered though. --CRiyl 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  That was a good edit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully the article now stands a chance of not entering WP oblivion. --CRiyl 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Almost every HP Media Center PC now comes with this software. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 03:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snugpak. A menion of the item will be included in the Snugpak article. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snugpak RocketPak

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

Delete. It's a backpack, and that's about it. No evidence or assertion of notability, only source is the manufactuters' website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Snugpak and mention there. As a company Snugpak is definitely notable, but there's just not much to be said about individual backpack models on an encyclopedia level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything sourceable and redirect as above. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bateman

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

Contested PROD; in the PROD summary, I wrote "No evidence of notability. Main claim to fame, 'Portable media operating system', gets 5 google hits that aren't copies of this article or of the patent application." These reasons still apply. An anon editor argued on the article talk page that it should be kept, giving reasons that -- if anything -- strengthen the case for deletion. Delete. SparsityProblem 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Co-nominated: Portable media operating system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this and Portable Media Operating System as well. Neither seems to have any notability at all. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - neither shows any notability at all. Bateman clearly fails WP:BIO. The first two sources are letters written by Rob Tidwell, who's name is surprisingly similar to the creator of the article, too. The Portable Media Operating System only has 22 Google hits. Jauerback 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it fails WP:BIO scope_creep 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and above Weathermandan 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per notability assertion--Zingostar 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which notability assertion is that? SparsityProblem 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and block article creator. DS 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carly Rhodes

Seems to violate WP:HOAX. Creator has created several hoax pages such as this one. Smashville 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Station purportedly employing her does not appear to exist. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I first thought this was probably real, and that her current station was merely a typo. However, I don't see anything remotely resembling it listed on this site or this article. I also can't find anything in Google about a Carly Rhodes with keywords of "anchor" or "Tyler" except this article. Jauerback 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Evans (journalist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Williams (journalist) Jauerback 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - all the information is unverifiable. Google searching does not turn up a Carly Rhodes matching the one in the article. -- Whpq 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Chioji

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

Fails WP:BIO, not notable outside her area Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete local notability only. JJL 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 06:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryu sei ken

Ryu sei ken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability for 20 days, no assertion of notability, no references. Bradford44 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete not notable, minimal content --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. JJL 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overrated

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

The article is not encyclopedic, it is in fact a vanity page done as an homage to a former guild from World of Warcraft. The guild was banned for exploiting a bug, and a few articles were written about the exploit. Those articles are being used as a justification for the existence of this page even though the articles have little or nothing to say about the guild itself. The only information that might be arguably notable (if you consider the few sources for it) would be the exploit itself, but that would exist in a different article about the exploit specifically. -- Atamasama 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, Atamasama has been WP:CANVASsing: [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please explain how this is WP:CANVASsing. Fangz the Wolf 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(from WP:CANVAS "but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" (opening section) under "types of canvassing" it "says" that if a message is biased, it is considered disruptive canvassing. Atama's message implied that he needed a force of people to fight against the "fanboys" who will vote to keep it. So he was requesting people to come for a "delete" vote. McKay 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, he didn't purpose the article to be deleted, he just signed it up to be AFD. I purposed it. Fangz the Wolf 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mckay, by what you posted "canvassing" is composed of multiple postings trying to get people to influence the outcome. I posted one request in the WoW main article where a deletion for this page was discussed to let people know that this article was being put up for AfD. Why did I mention fanboys? Because I was informed that the polite request I'd put in to have this article reviewed by an admin was deleted by a former guildmember, and so I expected to have a biased response against the AfD. The irony is that the only multiple postings I've put about this article were on talk pages of people who have worked on this article to give them a chance to defend it out of courtesy. Including your talk page. -- Atamasama 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable group, no real assertions of notbility at ALL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Somewhat ironic that something named "overrated" is being removed for, well, just that. Subdolous 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  What would you call this or this or this? McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- [see below] I'm sure this has been up before. In any case, I am not a WoW player, I hate WoW for stealing all my friends, but this is notable. The guild recieved online coverage for their cheating, and sources are linked at the bottom, as well as copied out on the talk page in case the link goes dead. In accordance with WP:NOTNEWS, a case could be made for renaming this article to Overrated cheating controversy or something, but the article should certainly be kept. J Milburn 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Rename or Merge. As clear from the provided references, the exploit is what is notable - not the guild or group of players that carried it out. The article should either be renamed to reflect the exploit or merged into an appropriate article. --Sesameball^Talk 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing notable here. Its essentially a vanity page.The guild isn't notable, the exploit is not notable, the members are not notable, nor even the fact that some were banned. Wow members are banned everyday for a variety of reasons including exploiting. Even the exploit itself certainly is not notable even within the specialized realm of exploits, let alone a general encylopedia. If wiki were to have an article about every minor computer exploit, it would resemble a technical journal more so than an encylopedia. I don't even think this is worth a few sentences on the general World of Warcraft page. Dman727 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are sources. What are your notability criteria? J Milburn 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is the notability criteria.Dman727 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And it passes WP:N. If you think it doesn't maybe you should try explaining why you think it doesn't. McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it will help if I point out what part of WP:N would apply here. It states that Wikipedia is concerned with long-term notability. Something that seems notable on a short-term basis is suited better for Wikinews than Wikipedia. This is the criteria for an independent article. In other words, even if you only consider the exploit and not the guild it still lacks enough long-term notability to have its own page, but you might perhaps add the exploit information to a page about online game cheating. -- Atamasama 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I've still yet to see a notable, encyclopedic article on an online-game guild... and this isn't one either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's interesting how the deleters assume anything about a videogame can't be notable. "Let's delete Fragdolls too!" The topic clearly passes WP:N because it passes WP:N. It's got several independent articles about it. Sure, maybe they're all about one event. If you want, feel free to Rename the article to the event covering the banning. Maybe the article isn't written very well, maybe it needs some cleanup, removing vanity, sure. But there's nothing wrong with the presence of some of this content in Wikipedia. McKay 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article passes WP:N because it passes WP:N?? That is not a valid reasoning. Chris! _ct 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    I corrected Typo McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The Fragdolls aren't a WoW guild whose 5 seconds of fame were from getting banned and ending up with a brief mention on 3 gaming news sites. Please, assume good faith, don't start accusing the editors of trying to purge videogame information from Wikipedia when most of us are regular contributors to game pages (World of Warcraft in particular). -- Atamasama 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not sutiable for Wikipedia, seems unimportant. Fangz the Wolf 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the Overrated banning scandal was barely 15 minutes of fame even in the World of Warcraft, it's certainly not real-world notability suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:N, mostly a unreferenced vanity page. This does not belong in wikipedia. --Fogeltje 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Doctorfluffy 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment People keep saying things like "Delete per WP:N" and while such arguments should generally be avoided WP:VAGUEWAVE, there are people who have specifically mentioned that it does pass WP:N. I guess it needs to be explained in more detail. From WP:N:

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

  • "Presumed": It doesn't fail WP:NOT. No problems with that there. Maybe people are meaning something like this, but then, it wouldn't be a problem with WP:N, it would be a problem with some other guideline (like WP:NOT).
  • "Significant Coverage": Gamespot, softpedia, and WoW insider (aka joystiq) all give significant coverage to the event. Yes, it may just be the event that's notable. I'm admitting that. In such a case a Rename would be necessary.
  • "Reliable" Gamespot and Joystiq are considered excellently-reliable sources in the video game world. WoW insider, even more so in the WoW world. Admittedly, I haven't heard of softpedia, but I think the case is strong without it.
  • "Sources" There are multiple, secondary, high-quality sources
  • "independent" they are all objective, indepdendent sources, with no leaps of analysis.

  Basically, what I'm saying is that if someone says, "Delete, fails WP:N" they'd better have a good reason, because it seems very clear to me that it passes WP:N. McKay 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment You completely ignored my explanation above, Mckay. I suggest you read it. Essentially, an article must have long-term notability to justify its existence, all cited news sources for this article were published within 2 days of each other. Allow me to quote from WP:N:

A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

-- Atamasama 07:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Atama, I understand your perspective, but you must understand that the policy says that such events could be notable or not. There's nothing in WP:N that states that the topic isn't notable, but merely that it's possible it isn't notable. You can vote, state an opinion clearly that you think that because it was a short burst, it wasn't notable. Your opinion is valid, Stating "fails WP:N" is not entirely correct. McKay 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not just my opinion. Take a look at WP:NOT for further discussion:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.

There has to be something really special about this subject for it to be worth having its own article despite a lack of long-term notability. Nobody has demonstrated anything but the opposite in this discussion. -- Atamasama 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Change my 'vote' to delete. I'm convinced- there is no lasting notability, as far as I can see. Unless someone can find a mention of the guild from either before or a fair while after the banning, then this should go as having no lasting notability. J Milburn 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlton Dotson

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

He's a college kid who murdered someone and went to Jail. It was newsworthy, and we've got sources from newspapers, but I can't find evidence of any enduring significance beyond that. (If someone can fine). This isn't encyclopedic - we are not a database dump for yesterday's news. -Doc^g 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Would be notable per WP:BIO anyways as a "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Also, this wasn't an average murder case that got a few blurbs in local press. This was a situation that recieved COPIOUS coverage in national news and print media, including ESPN and other sources. While I would agree that most murders are not in-and-of-themselves notable, this single one appears to be. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how "highest level" includes a college team? And where are the secondary sources relating to his sports notability? --Doc^g 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Division I basketball is the highest level of amateur competition...there are already verifiable secondary sources in the article. But seriously...if that's the only thing you can come up with...Speedy Keep. This case was extremely notable, there are almost 4,000 google news hits for it from just about every media outlet you can name. Smashville 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Subject has some notability beyond a single event covered in the media (in this case, the murder). If coverage is limited to that murder, though, we need to cover the event - not the person - per WP:BLP1E. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of notability beyond the event?--Doc^g 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of a lack of notability? Why does he have to be notable outside of the event? Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey Dahmer and David Berkowitz weren't notable outside of their murders. JonBenet Ramsey is only notable for being murdered. He was the subject of major national press for at least 3 years. Smashville 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm willing to be convinced here. There are as it stands NO SOURCES in the article that show he'd be a notable athlete even if he'd not been murdering people. If they exist, I'll withdraw the nomination. Oswald etc are bad comparisons. They were and are continually discussed in serious literature decades later. The murders were notable not just for the murders but the ongoing impact, investigations, court cases, etc. All will be in books of significant murders for all eternity. Indeed any history of America will mention Oswald at least, and a history of crime likely to cite Manson. There's no evidence of that in this case. I'm willing to be convinced. Can you show some cultural impact, legal or investigative breakthrough, something to show this isn't just yesterday's news. As I say, I am truely willing to be convinced.--Doc^g 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he was a notable athlete is irrelevant. That's not the primary source of his notability...However, per WP:BIO, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" is generally notable. NCAA DI is the highest level of amateur basketball in the United States. Virtually all of the secondary sources refer to him as a "former Baylor basketball player". As for the murderers I used, I only used those as they were the most prominent. "Yesterday's news" is also known as history. The burden is on you to show why an article with significant coverage in at least 4,000 reliable secondary sources is not notable. Smashville 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)