Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niia

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

Delete she won a $1,500 prize, which was a second class win, and no indication that she meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Artist meets WP:MUSIC criteria #2 as she presently has had a charted hit on national music charts: Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill). Artist meets criteria #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network: Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill). Artist also is features in a nationally airing music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PxBGHjABnU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability to come. I don't think that WP:MUSIC applies to "featured" singers on somebody else's song. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I think that if the artist's name is actually published on the Billboard charts WP:MUSIC certainly applies. Refer to November 2007 Billboard Hot 100 (current number 47) and you will see Niia listed: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+Hot+100&pageNumber=Top+11-50&g=Singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article is supplemental linked supporting content for at least three other Wikipedia articles. References include: Wyclef Jean, Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill), and The_Carnival_II:_Memoirs_of_an_Immigrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Of course she's notable. Even this old man has heard of her. Published on Billboards, band member of other notable acts, and half a Million Ghits. Clean it up, tag it, and fix it later. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Her three claims to fame are that she's one of three featured guest artists on a #44 song, won a nationwide high school award, and had a feature written about her as an up and coming high school level musician in the Boston Globe. The 1/2 million google hits are nearly all attributions of the hit song that list her in the tag line. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's notable. If you wait a week or two you might see what happens with her and the single. Anyway, I cleaned the article up some. It had a sentence lifted straight off a website so I fixed that. Wikidemo (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as meeting WP:BAND by touring throughout Europe. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drottnar

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

Delete article long on details short on sources, but nothing jumps out as meeting WP:BAND. If reliable sources can be found to show that they meet at least one or the criteria there, that's fine but nothing yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Yeah, I just looked at this page and all it needs is sources then in my opinion it would meet WP:BAND, but i'm not doing it, the author should of included sources that prove it went to those events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry teps (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Ok. I added sources for the events. Is it ok now? In my opinion the band meets the criterias #4 (has done international touring to surrort its album release and is backed with sources), #5 (has released 2 albums on indie labels, Plankton Records have been around since 1978 [1] and Endtime Productions began in 1999 [2] and brought Extol to fame and has Crimson Moonlight and Antestor in its roster, and both are difinitely notable indie labels), #7 (the article states that the band has earned a position in the elite of its scene, which is backed with a source.) --Azure Shrieker (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep . I reckon it has enough sources, plus your right, they met multiple WP:BAND without the sources anyway. Jerry'^teps 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment all 3 Keeps above were added by Jerry teps [3]. I'm sure Azure Shrieker meant to put Keep, but it's still not a good idea to make an addition to someone elses comments. And Jerry you can only express your desired outcome the once. RMHED (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Ok, thanks for the advice. Jerry^teps 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry teps (talk • contribs)

• Keep probably just passes WP:MUSIC. RMHED (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep --JForget 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall High School (New Jersey)

This school is not important, and I fail to see why anyone would want to know about it (from an encyclopedia that is).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalstuart (talk • contribs)

• — Goalstuart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: Sorry, but I am having a very hard time assuming good faith on this nomination. The nominator's account was created at 18:32 this evening, and the article was nominated for deletion also, at 18:32. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the accomplishments of the school and its alumni, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Perceived lack of importance or level of interest is not a valid excuse for deleting an article. This AfD was created as the first edit by a brand-new editor, with no edit history other than this AfD, justifiably raising issues of the lack of good faith. Whether the nominee is a sock puppet or a brand-new user, the fact that we allow this disruptive abuse to occur is unacceptable. Alansohn (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a good article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Per SNOW: Obviously a bad-faith nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hero (Warcraft)

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

While this was recently proposed for a merge, the content of this article still has various issues such as poor sourcing, lack of notability, and rich of gamecruft while reading like a game guide, giving little to nothing to merge to its target.

This article's references are all derived from a single source, Battle.net. With that, there are no third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and non-players of the Warcraft series.

It also has a large amount of game-related cruft which may have the tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting a proper source.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a guide, and this article appears to be nearly entirely nothing more than a game guide. IAmSasori (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Keeper | 76 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• It isn't notable, and we're not a game guide, so the article should be deleted. It could also then be redirected. I (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Just like Creep, the article is part definition and part non-notable fan information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All cruft. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalec (warcraft)

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

While this article is still a stub, it has been left alone with no sources and lack of notability for half a year.

There are no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and the unfamiliar readers of this article.

Along with that, it has some if not all of its content comprised of a plot summary, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nominator says it all. Keeper | 76 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Should be covered in Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy without a separate article. Pagrashtak 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No notability established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uldum

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

While this article was recently proposed for a merge, this article has several issues hindering a successful merge, such as no sources and lack of notability.

This article has no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and the readers who do not play the Warcraft series.

It appears to be comprised of fancruft that may attract original research to it, furthering itself from getting proper sources. IAmSasori (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, enough said. Keeper | 76 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Even though you misused "comprise", I agree with your asessment of the article and support its deletion, and which point it should be redirected to WOW. I (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No notability or referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, seems too specific to be covered in the parent article, so not worth merging as far as I can tell. Pagrashtak 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Aspect

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

This article is poorly sourced, unnotable fancruft with the majority comprising of plot summaries.

All the sources besides one were referenced from a Warcraft site Blizzplanet alone. The one source that isn't is referenced to a Wiki, which is not a suitable source to be used in the article.

Along with that, there are no third party sources to indicate its notability to the real world, implying that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would most likely have no interest in reading this article.

It appears to be rich in gamecruft which has a tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting proper from the right locations.

The article is entirely comprised of plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable.

Finally, a precedent could be established that four of the article's five sections have been nominated for Articles for deletion and resulted as Delete:

• Ysera
• Nozdormu
• Malygos
• Neltharion

Only Alexstrasza remains without having an individual article in the first place, and instead redirected to List of Warcraft characters. IAmSasori (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per precedent. Keeper | 76 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per precedent, topic is better covered at WoWWiki. --Stormie (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've played WoW, I'd say it's not even notable in-game unless you are into lore. --Voidvector (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, no out-of-universe perspective. I've removed the WOWwiki citation. Pagrashtak 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. You know what makes me annoyed about this. Why do you even keep a articles for request if you are just going to delete them. That's a waste of time. I pick what articles I create carefully, and try only creating ones out of article for requests, but they all get deleted anyway. It getting deleted doesn't frustrate me, because this is how wikipedia works. However, I pick one under article for requests, I triple check to make sure it hasn't been deleted before, I Create it and it still get's deleted.... --businessman332211 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  Aside from that I wasn't even notified of this afd. Which, is suppose to be standard practice (inform the original creator or any heavy heavy contributors of something like this. --businessman332211 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While working on AfC backlog is commendable, one should make sure that the requested article is an article that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Being requested does not guaruntee this. And yes, it's usually considered good form to notify the original author, but it is by no means a requirement. I (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like it'll end up being deleted. I put a bit of time into this. I guess it'll be a learning experience. Next time I will double check, and if I create a fictional article, I will write it differently. --businessman332211 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*Strong Keep - I vote keep. As the original author I am willing to put in whatever time is necessary to restructure the article to make it fall within policy if it does not already. I also vote keep because of the fact that the nominator has claimed there are hundreds he wants to nominate, and by looking at his history, i seems like a crusade to delete articles. Which I don't agree with. I believe article deletions should be few and far between and (based on the guidelines) only as a last resort (unless something is blantantly not proper). --businessman332211 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Perhaps it does need a delete. I do not agree with

1. The user didn't notify me
2. The user is mass targeting a large number of articles for deletion

But those are beside the point. The fact of the matters are

1. I was just beginning when I created this article, so I didn't interpet policy as well as I did today.
2. The article really isn't notable
3. and even if someone tried to rewrite it out of an in-universe perspective or with real world references, there is just not enough out there to form something solid. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Warcraft universe. The nom sums it up really; an unsourced article with no content other than a plot summary and gameguide. If there is actually any encyclopedic information available, merging to the parent article would be unexceptionable, though I suggest that writing such a section from scratch in a less in-universe manner would be preferable.ELIMINATORJR 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quel'Thalas

Quel'Thalas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While a merge has been recently proposed, there are still too many issues with this article such as no sources, lack of notability, and comprising mainly of gamecruft and plot summaries for any proper merging.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

With that, there are no third party sources to establish its notability to the real world, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

Half of this article appears to comprise of gamecruft which in turn would most likely attract original research, furthering itself from being properly sourced. There is even already hints of speculation in the article to prove such.

Finally, the other half of the article is nothing but a plot summary, which Wikipedia is not.

These issues, along with the fact that the article hardly has any attempts to rectify its problems for over a year, give little reason for the article to stand alone, let alone be merged to another target. IAmSasori (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

True, and it was only this one and Azeroth so I thought It'd be ok. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. Does not need its own article. Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Look, there is already a Warcraft Universe article, which covers all the fictional story elements of the Warcraft universe. Notice how it has NO REFERENCES? Does that not show very plainly the difficulty of making an article just about this fictional region/country when there isn't even enough creation information yet found for the whole of the Warcraft universe? I say, delete, and then focus on building up the Warcraft Universe article, and then if that article is bursting at the seams, we can start recreating articles like this one and making it good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge - listed at WP:VG/C User:Krator (t c) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to the appropriate location. Judgesurreal, try not to paste the same thing in multiple AfDs as it implies you are just voting and not actually presenting an argument. Jtrainor (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, people get all screamy when you mass nom, so he had to list separately, and there's no real purpose to writing something slightly different each time when the thrust of the argument is the same. I (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with/to Warcraft universe. In itself, this topic is not notable enough. The Warcraft universe article should deal with stuff like this. Note that I vote for an abbreviated version of the article to be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogeltje (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Warcraft universe. The nom sums it up really; an unsourced article with no content other than a plot summary and gameguide. If there is actually any encyclopedic information available, merging to the parent article would be unexceptionable, though I suggest that writing such a section from scratch in a less in-universe manner would be preferable. ELIMINATORJR 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azeroth (Warcraft)

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

Unsourced, unnotable cruft containing plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on the article.

With that, there are no third party sources to establish its notability to the real world, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article. Chances are, someone is going to argue in this AfD that this article is notable due to its connections with the Warcraft series, but notability is not inherited and should establish its notability on its own rather than relying on Warcraft's notability.

The article comprises mostly of cruft, something that has the tendency to attract original research and further its chances of being properly sourced.

Finally, with the cruft are the plot summaries, which is what Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable, along with the lack of sources and notability. IAmSasori (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Does not warrant its own article. Unsourceable gamecruft. Keeper | 76 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarren Mill, which was closed as delete, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caer Darrow. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Look, there is already a Warcraft Universe article, which covers all the fictional story elements of the Warcraft universe. Notice how it has NO REFERENCES? Does that not show very plainly the difficulty of making an article just about Azeroth when there isn't even enough creation information yet found for the whole of the Warcraft universe? I say, delete, and then focus on building up the Warcraft Universe article, and then if that article is bursting at the seams, we can start recreating articles like this one and making it good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect into Warcraft universe. A lot of the content of this article should really be in the Warcraft universe article, and retaining history is important for the GFDL. User:Krator (t c) 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Warcraft universe. Nothing in the article establishes notability to warrant a separate article. Pagrashtak 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Warcraft universe. I was going to support keeping it but Judgesurreal777's argument changed my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atamasama (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Heavily trim and merge per above and the fact that Wikipedia is not a place to describe the entire Warcraft universe in-depth. - Chardish (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Neuringer

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

This is more of a resume or CV than an article...very much a vanity page. Notability is also inquestion ++Arx Fortis (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Mr. Neuringer is not notable (yet) just because he is a candidate for local office, regardless of age. The sources that are cited do not establish notability, only mention him. Keeper | 76 —Preceding comment was added at 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the reasons of both contributors above. thisisace (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP, and for failing WP:BIO - article written in a very promotional tone. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Blake

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

Contested prod apparently by the subject of the article. I dunno where to begin...a guy "famous" for wanting to build a giant lava lamp. Note that he did not build a giant lava lamp, but the town was given one by Target. There was one article written in a local paper about him wanting to build said lava lamp. COI issues aside, actually building a giant lava lamp most likely doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not building one definitely does not. Smashville^BONK! 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete' per nom. How did this article survive for a year? Non notable, not sourceable, besides the WP:COI and WP:POV issues... Keeper | 76 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, NN civic booster, fails WP:BIO, WP:LOCAL. The lamp idea attracted lots of blog attention, but that isn't really transferable notability. When the Soap Lake lamp is up and running it will probably be worth an article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Balloonman (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migration india to suriname

Migration india to suriname (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete this is an unsourced essay. The topic is probably notable, but this is not even a proper beginning of such an article, it reads like one person's view of the subject matter without any sources backing up the facts purported therein. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. It needs a lot of work, and probably expert attention. But it can be fixed it seems. In the worst case, keep a stubbed down version. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Once you remove the original research and the opinions and analysis, there's nothing left of the article to merge into a more appropriate title. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gut & stub per Martin Hoekstra & Carlossuarez. Rename to Indian migration to Surinam or something, also.--victor falk (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, per Hoekstra. It's a notable topic that might otherwise not get covered (and believe it or not, the immigration of people from India to Surinam to the Netherlands is notable). Hoekstra wants to give it a try on fixing it. Yes, there's a lack of sourcing, but that's not to say that it couldn't be sourced. It's a contribution by someone new to the rules, perhaps someone from the Netherlands or Surinam. I get tired of the "White American college-boy" bent to Wikipedia and under WP:BIAS, giving this contribution some room to grow wouldn't be improper. I think that, rather than killing this as soon as it's hatched, we should give this the same deference that we give to, say, SpongeBob Squarepants. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've welcomed and notified user:Migration india to suriname--victor falk (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fix this one per above. I've tagged it for resuce. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note I've moved it to Indian migration to Suriname, and tagged it {{essay}} and {{wikify}}--victor falk (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Four issues, a rescue, an AfD tag, and two unreferenced tags. I think it's sufficiently tagged now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 :D Nah, you really think so? Btw, what article is the current holder of the Overtagging Trophy Barnstar?--victor falk 00:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge information from Hindoestanen (a ridiculous heading as nobody is ever going to look for it) to this heading (deleting what is already here). The topic is notable, but at present this is all unsourced OR about Indian-Surinamese migration to the Netherlands, so the title isn't even accurate. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look what I've found: a rather fascinating (but longish) reportage about ethnic diversity in Suriname [4]--victor falk 02:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus but based on some of the comments here, this needs some significant cleanup soon to stay here. Mr.Z-man 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Kurt Cobain

Death of Kurt Cobain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

POV fork of Kurt Cobain. Doc^g 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean - article needs to be cleaned to maintain balance, of course. I think it is a necessary article, in my own opinion. Scarian^Talk 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and re-merge. That first sentence says everything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I think the evidence strongly supports that he simply committed suicide, I also think that there is enough information specifically about his death to warrant an article on the subject. Although their existence isn't a valid argument for the existence of this article, I nevertheless point out John F. Kennedy assassination and Death of Marilyn Monroe as precedents. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - that's what I was "fishing" [sic] (Sorry, couldn't help myself) for! I just couldn't remember other similiar articles. Thanks for pointing that out. Scarian^Talk 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge the pertinent information into the main article. No reason to feed the conspiracy theorists. Keeper | 76 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not familiar with the "the first sentence says everything" reason for deletion. Perhaps the first sentence needs to be changed? However, I agree that this needs to be cleaned up (the "work in progress" tag has been there for awhile). Mandsford (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge- The mention is valid; the article is overkill. ---Iconoclast Horizon 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

• Keep. This is categorically not a POV fork. Cobain's article is already overlong (and still has several missing holes). Editors have made efforts to expand this topic in Cobain's article, but are hamstrung by length restrictions. Additionally, we've had complaints from some that the section is already too long in the article, given their reservations about the topic's notability.

Cobain's death is a subject of significant public curiosity. Since his death, there have been at least five books, two movies (including Gus Van Sant's fictionalized Last Days), and several tv shows covering the subject. The intent of this article isn't to focus on the conspiracy theories - it's to discuss his death in more detail, with the conspiracy theories being an element of that.

This isn't an effort to strip the subject out of Cobain's article to please the people who think it isn't notable or an excuse to give true-believers the chance to work unfettered. It's to cover a notable topic in more depth than we can at present. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I 'voted' delete or merge above. I agree with you on the fact his death affected a lot of people and many question it but I really had to think about this one before I chimed in. In the end, I feel it should be merged and the page deleted. These are articles and not places for people to 'discuss' theories (keyword being discuss). There are lot's of places to have those kinds of discussions that can be linked to Cobain's page. His lyrics meant a lot to many people as well but I don't think the lyrics to all his songs should be listed either and all of the subsequent articles written about them. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge unless problems remedied - This page gives undue weight to a conspiracy theory, with paragraph after paragraph detailing every single claim of this wild accusation and just two short sentences explaining that it's been widely rejected by the rest of the world. Either slash and burn that, or this article must go. FCYTravis (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I further note that the page's creator has twice reverted my attempts at remedying the undue weight issue by condensing the uncritical and unrebutted regurgitation of a fringe conspiracy theory. FCYTravis (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unrebutted regurgitation"? Did you actually read the article? Nearly every element of the theory has an accompanying challenge, either by news outlets such as Dateline NBC or by other acquaintances of Cobain.

This article shouldn't be judged for its current content. The Work-in-Progress is there for a reason - IT IS NOT A FUNCTIONING ARTICLE. I left Wikipedia for two months, and mistakenly believed that those who wanted this article (as it has been COUNTLESS TIMES requested on Cobain's talk page) would join in to finish it.

The article should be judged for its subject - is Kurt Cobain's death notable enough (and/or controversial enough) to justify an article about it? -- ChrisB (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - Wait a minute... this is being debated because someone thinks it is taking up too much space? Because someone thinks that Kurt Cobain committed suicide and this information is just the "wild accusations" of "conspiracy theorists"? This is not a widely rejected conspiracy but a case where there are a lot of facts that have been ignored. There are a lot of useless pages here... why attack this one? If you did some research you would see that evidence did NOT strongly support that Kurt Cobain committed suicide and there are a lot more people who believe that than you would like to believe. I say, Proofread and reformat... This cannot be merged with the main page because there is too much information that needs to be included. Maybe the page needs a facelift and some condensing but it should not be deleted! Shelly 1979 (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean: I don't see this as a POV fork but rather an article more or less on the conspiracy theories surrounding a very famous musician's death, which is a note worth and encyclopedic article in and of itself. As per FisherQueen articles on conspiracy theories surrounding famous people's deaths are worth having. Tagging as needed is obviously a good first step to cleaning this article.Earthdirt (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit however appropriate. Even from the perspective of an otsider, the advantages of keeping this separate from the main article seem obvious. DGG (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE and re-merge back into the Cobain article. Too much conjecture.---Humanharmony2222 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.What good is it to have a site, that is deicated to spreading facts and information, when it can be deleted? There is no reason to delete this article. Just because some people have diferent opinions, on the matter, is no reason to delete that opinion. There are MANY things, people may not agree with, in this world but, if we went around deleting opinions, that we have problems with, then what good is it to argue or debate anything? Last time I check, freedom of speech was still a factor, in this country. This article and EVERYTHING on this very site, is a form of freedom of speech. If this article gets silenced, then what else? There are some who believe the holocaust didnt happen. So, are we going to request the WWII page be takend down? Some people dont believe in Jesus Christ, does that mean a page about him, must be deleted too? Where does it end? I request that this page, does NOT fall to the hammer of deletion. Just because we all cant agree, doesnt mean we should start deleting those very opinions, we dont agree with.~~Lance aKa MonkeyBone316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBone316 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above comment is the first edit of a brand new account. JodyB _talk 03:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Ah, that explains the overly-defensive rhetoric. Good notation JodyB.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - recommend striking. Scarian^Talk 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or rename to "Conspiracy theories about the death of Kurt Cobain" since that's what this article is. --Golbez (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -I don't see how, I being a first time edit, should make what I say, less then what anyone else has said here. When did giving an opinion and thought about something, become a seniority issue? What I said, is a valid argument, about this very subject. Yeah, myself does believe that Kurt was murdered and I could make a WHOLE list of facts here, to further my belief and argument about that but, I wont because this isn't the place for it, the article where talking about deleting is. I don't agree with people who say Kurt killed himself, that doesn't mean Im going to go to a page that talks against what I believe and ask it to be deleted. I've read the article, I see no reason for it to be deleted. The only reason I see, from some of you here, is because you feel Kurt's death wasn't a murder. Your entitled to believe that, so am I, to my belief and this article has a right to be up and not be deleted. And Im NOT a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe in UFO's, Elvis is dead, Tupak is dead, but based on the years of researching I have conducted, I do NOT believe Kurt committed suicide. This article should remain, if not to be a subjected opinion on what some of you think here. Its freedom of speech and like I said, if this gets deleted, what else? You cant go around and delete or silence, everything you don't like, because you have a subjected opinion of what's being said. You want your right to say, think, and feel what you want, I want that right too.~Lance aKa MonkeyBone316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBone316 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment-It doesn't really matter what anyone believes, per say, about the untimely death of Mr. Cobain. Was he murdered by someone else, or by himself? Doesn't matter. The real objective in this discussion is to decide if this article, as written, that is on Wikipedia, is in fact worthy of inclusion, beyond what is already stated at the Kurt Cobain main article. In my opinion, it is not. It is borderline WP:FRINGE, (and I realize that's only a guideline, not a policy). It is, for the most part, unsourced POV, with no real chance or ability to be anything more. Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment-Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, anyone can sign up and choose to edit and comment on an article. I am very disappointed to see any comments about how long someone has been a member because that should not matter. Everyone here was a new member at some point. The debate here is not whether Kurt Cobain was murdered it is whether the article should be deleted because someone decided that it was not necessary. Of course you can look through the Wikipedia guidelines and find reasons that many articles should be deleted but it is a fact that there is too much information here to be included on the Kurt Cobain page. This is no more a conspiracy theory than the Death of Marilyn Monroe or the Kennedy assassination theories which are not up for deletion. And I agree with the comment that Keeper and JodyB attacked. Everyone has a right to speak on this subject. Just because you have been a member longer does not give you the right act superior. Shelly 1979 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In 2004 two highly respected investigative journalists from Rolling Stone Magazine, Ian Halperin and Max Wallace published, Love & Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain. The book reached #18 on The New York Times Bestseller list [5] The topic of Cobain's death is a highly relevant topic as there is much controversy surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.167.29 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The subject of the article seems to meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, it has been covered my multiple reliable, independent sources and so is notable and there will be verifyable information out there to include in the article. There may be current original research and possible POV problems with the articles but these could be remidied and are not a reason for deletion in themselves. The article currently is a bit of a coatrack for conspiricy theroies but there is probably enough 'good' information out there for a reasonable article to be formed. Maybe the page should be merged back to Kurt Cobain but an AfD is not the place for that discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beever's Doubling Rule

Beever's Doubling Rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced article on an obscure variant of Bridge. A Google search yielded no results, not a good sign of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I concur; I also found nothing on Google. Additionally, Ben Beever doesn't even seem to do bridge, since the Wikipedia article says he's a juggler. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability through googling, and the article lacks sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Much as I hate to agree with deletion. This users articles on bridge seem to be all original research and so not NPOV. This would also apply to users other bridge article contributions. i.e. Juggler's Club. I started to do a cleanup too! Oh well. Sting_au Talk 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Flatworm. I copied the material over to what seemed like an appropriate section; editors with a better knowledge of the subject should review for accuracy. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haptor

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

Should be merged into flatworm article. Who signs articles? Avruch^Talk 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind to merge "Haptor" into "Flatworm", but why than is on Gyrodactylus salaris article a link "Haptor" to edit?! I reckon someone should have an eye on these "details" as well, instead only on new made articles because it is not the first time, where I do a job which is getting deleted shortly after! Please delete such "open-to-edit-links" in future. Xavierschmit^Talk 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a content expert here - if Haptor is something that is unique and interesting, or common across species or something, then you could potentially expand the article into something encyclopedic. As it stands, its just a stub about the anatomy of a flatworm. I'm not sure why it was redlinked, but we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you continue to contribute. Avruch^Talk 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can make a word a WP:REDLINK. Like this. Unfortunately, it is up to the editor following the redlink to start an article to make sure that the topic meets WP:N. I de-redlink terms when editing articles all the time (it used to be the case that people would make every person mentioned a redlink, for example), but there will always be articles that nobody has seen. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something called: the Veterinary medicine WikiProject. It might be interesting for this? But I'm not quite sure what it is, so it's probably not on me to make this judgment. Xavierschmit^Talk 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly WP:ANATOMY, less possibly WP:TREE (but there is no subproject for the flatworm phylum). --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is extensive documention on Google Books and Google Scholar, although I note that it isn't a feature common to all flatworms, but just to Class Monogenea. (And that "haptor" seems to be a common OCR error for "Chapter" ...) The redlinks prohaptor and opisthaptor probably should be redirected to this article. There is even such a thing as a pseudohaptor. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Since there's already some discussion of the topic on Monogenea, and since they're apparently the only beasts that have them, it seems logical to merge this into that article. Tim Ross·^talk 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Tim Ross. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per the two Tims above. Also, per Dhartung, prohaptor, opisthaptor and pseudohaptor should be redirects instead of redlinks (I can't imagine them ever becoming articles for anything else, for example band names). Keeper | 76 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the redirects for prohaptor and pseudohaptor (which is why they aren't red anymore in this discussion, hope that's not too confusing). Keeper | 76 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshi Tanaka (manga artist)

Hiroshi Tanaka (manga artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced blp, with no indication that this artist or his manga is notable, so nn that we don't know when or where he was born. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —DAJF (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't even find any evidence that the manga is notable, much less the artist. Of course, I don't read Japanese, so if any Japanese-speakers have access to sources that show notability, I'm open to changing my mind. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search in Japanese reveals no hits for a mangaka of this name, although there is an anime director of the same name. Non-notable if not an outright hoax. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax - unless those kanji are incorrect, there's no record of him actually existing. Amazon lists only one book with that named attached, and it's a design textbook. Doceirias (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I found a few sites referencing the manga, but only on blogs and forum posts (one calling it "little-known but mildly amusing"). If it or he truly was notable I'd expect to find more English language references. I did find a reference to somebody of the same name on the Anime News Netweork site [[6]] but most of those credits are as Director of Photography, so I'm not convinced this is the same person. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that this is not a hoax, as there was a 4-frame manga series called "Naku na! Tanaka-kun" written by "タナカヒロシ" (Tanaka Hiroshi in katakana) with a compilation book published in 1989. This is also mentioned on the Japanese Wiki "まんがライフ" (Manga Life) article[7] , but the writer does not have his own article. Still seems of extremely minor notability to me. --DAJF (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 'Delete Its not sourced and OR so there is no material to redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field Marshal Styre

Field Marshal Styre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete no evidence that this Dr. Who character is notable, no sources, and the way it is written, if you weren't familiar with Dr. Who you may even think that this "person" was real. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Sontaran, he was the main villain in the story but barely seems worth a mention in List of Doctor Who villains (and List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens already links out to Sontaran). Q: Field Marshal or Field Major? --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as notable, but several editors raised reasonable issues about the article, including tone and citation of some claims per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Whitehorn

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

Are criminals typically regarded as notable? I know that there is a 'major edit' tag on this page, but I think the community should decide based on what is here whether this person should be considered notable in and of herself. Perhaps, if she was a key member of any of the organisations of which she was supposedly a member, she should be mentioned in articles about those organisations. Avruch^Talk 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling Laura a criminal is really not the issue, since that statement itself doesn't conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Many, many "criminals" are featured in Wikipedia already because of their impact on society. Being labeled a criminal should never automatically disqualify an article from inclusion.

Laura was part of the Weathermen, a major underground organization that was involved in a number of "terrorist" activities that had a profound affect on the American psyche. If an organization was blowing up buildings today to protest the war in Iraq, you can be sure any of its members would be front page news. Wikipedia has already found her notable enough to include her on the Weatherman page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29. The FBI certainly found her quite notable since they have a large number of documents on her. Several movie makers found her notable enough since she was profiled in a couple of documentaries. I'm not sure how or why we should judge if she was notable enough. Who are we to decide that she's less notable than many other Weathermen members who are included in Wikipedia. This is the beauty of Wikipedia, that you can find out detailed information about subjects that you can't get anywhere else. Censoring this article does no one any good. Especially in this case when a new Wikipedia member has been working on this article for the last few weeks and has been at the computer for over 8 hours today alone trying to get this article published. I strongly believe this article should remain because it is useful, informative and notable. Ubothell1 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your hard work and I don't think it should be completely deleted - but I do think that perhaps the subject is not notable enough individually for a separate article. The FBI has documents on a lot of people, this is not a very strong argument for notability - particularly since most of them are classified, and the rest are confidential prior to a FOIA request. You should investigate the possibility of moving some of this information into the Weatherman article if she is notable enough to be included there (a topic of discussion for the editors of that article). Avruch^Talk 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a tricky one. I don't think just being one of the Weathermen automatically bequeaths notability. Some 50% of this article just recounts information that's in the group's article. Another bit is sort of her less-notable angle on the events. Then you have a WP:COATRACK-y bit of apologia obviously written by supporters, who have managed to keep her most notable activities out of the lead. I think I would prefer merger to a List of Weatherman members, where a paragraph profile might be appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup and merge into List of Weatherman members per Dhartung. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

With due consideration to those who have noted Whitehorn's connection to an organization for which there is already an article ("Weatherman(organization"), there is more to the biography of this living person than even that chapter of her life could convey. The entry as posted speaks to a still-unfolding life of activism, much of which postdates involvement in Weather. It's a phase of a life story that has been deemed substantial enough to warrant a full-length documentary film, among other things. Were this article to be subsumed under Weather, major content and relevance points would be forfeited. While there can always be improvements to an article, I favor giving this one a chance to realize those gains.--Historytrain (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Once very notable, though not as notable as some of her comrades--and thus still notable. for WP purposes. The tone of the article is absurdly hagiographic, with considerable elements of coatrack. Someone who doesn't worship her should edit. DGG (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While there may be POV work to be done on the article, I'd encourage a more welcoming approach to new posters than some of this language communicates. --Historytrain (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per both of Historytrain's comments. Don't bite the newcomers folks. And in addition, AfD is not really the place to talk about the tone of an article, that can be done on the article's talk page, or fixed oneself. Murderbike (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn Cody

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

Delete nn bit part actress, no reliable sources just imdb, youtube, myspace, and her personal website. So nn we don't even know when or where she was born, red flags of non-notability among modern biographies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No major roles, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as meeting WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary N. Meeker

Mary N. Meeker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual, or no evidence of notability beyond a professional career. Avruch^Talk 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I fail to understand "no evidence of notability beyond a professional career." she is notable presumably because of a notable professional career. DGG (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - She appears notable to me. Greater than 2 dozen publications in ERIC. Web of Science, which isn't really the place for this, includes "A Critique of 6 Measures for Assessing Creativity" by E. Cooper (1991) describing Meeker's test as "one of six popularly used measures of creativity". --Lquilter (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - she meets criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) --Paularblaster (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiel McNaughton

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

Disputed notability of this person. I am uninvolved and cast no vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - See these other articles by the same author, SeanMorleyRoxs (talk · contribs):

• Eve Torres (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lena Yada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Anastacia Rose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Liam Hemsworth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Harry McNaughton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Vicky-Lee McIntyre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Dominic Ona-Ariki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) … Note: Added to this AfD by UsaSatsui (talk · contribs) at 22:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Tim Schijf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Will Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lee Donoghue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Sarah Thomson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Some have dated PRODs, and others have already been WP:CSD#A7 deleted. —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And since when has that been a valid argument in AFD? We have a prolific author who doesn't know how to reference things properly. dramatic (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Jimfbleak (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. I'm not in favour of having articles on everyone who has ever appeared on Shortland St, but the actors in major roles do become celebrities in New Zealand. Most of the top 50 gHits are about him, and I could probably track down several magazine features too. dramatic (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If you can find them, then you're welcome to add them … but without WP:Reliable sources for the WP:Verifiability of claims that the subject meets the WP:BIO criteria (being a "national celebrity" notwithstanding), the article violates WP:NOR and should be deleted … one reason for the AfD process is to allow time for improvements. :-) —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, we now have independent references for his having a main cast role in a primetime TV show (I shouldn't have to justify the notability of Shortland Street here) and an independent feature film. That should be sufficient notability to retain the article. Yes, there is still some unreferenced material in there, but that is pretty much par for the course. If necessary, that material should be deleted, not the whole article.dramatic (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep/nomination withdrawn.

[edit] No Compromise (magazine)

No Compromise (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable magazine. I can't seem to find any independent reliable coverage about it, as seen here. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-known animal liberation online magazine. Around 10,000 Google hits when searched with "magazine" and "direct action," and several mentions in Google books and Google scholar e.g. [8] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That Scholar hit is probably enough, I think. Which Google search string got all those hits by the way? I couldn't find anything on news archive searches. • Lawrence Cohen 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I searched using — "no compromise" magazine "direct action". SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me, withdrawing nom. The article didn't mention the direct action bit, which is how I overlooked it. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Robert C Prenic (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of Truth locations

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

Fire Spring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hagen Woods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hawker's Trail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Horner's Mill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pendisan Reach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Skow Swamp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Southaven (Sword of Truth) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trunt Lake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ven Forest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Here are ten articles, all about locations mentioned in the fantasy novel Wizard's First Rule, the first book in The Sword of Truth series. All of them are trivial - I don't believe any of them are mentioned in the following books. In fact, most of them are only mentioned in passing in Wizard's First Rule. A number of them, such as Horner's Mill, quote directly and copiously from the novel without attribution: here's the source (pages 375-380 or so) for most of that article's text. Furthermore, all of these articles describe their topics from a fully in-universe standpoint; there's no consideration of what relevance these locations have to the real world, and there is unlikely to be any such improvement, primarily because these articles have no such relevance. Every single one of them describes a "throwaway" setting which is used once and discarded.

There are a lot more articles like this one, as observed by Pete.Hurd in this AfD. I'll be opening further AfDs as appropriate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete fiction cruft, no encyclopedic content in any of these. Note, that I came across one, or two articles in collecting the list I posted in the Confessor AfD which did attempt to make an encyclopedic analysis of the topic of the article (I excluded them from the list I posted), none of these did. IMHO, the articles which discuss themes and other aspects of a notable import within the body of fiction ought to be merged into a very small number of articles. I havn't checked to see how many of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sword_of_Truth are still active participants, but perhaps their involvement ought to be actively solicited once the extreme cruft has been trimmed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  Note also, there is a Sword of Truth wiki (with 939 articles!?!), it's not like the people fascinated by this fictional world have no other venue for their creative energy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the SoT WikiProject appears to be inactive, with no discussion activity since February or so. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  I've looked over the contributions of all users listed as members of the wikiproject on the project page, or members of Category:WikiProject Sword of Truth participants, see comments on talk page for this AfD for the non-exciting details if you're really bored. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Locations, weapons, or other plot elements receiving passing reference in a fictional work would need to satisfy WP:N for stand-alone articles to be justified. These appear to lack such substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. To take a fictional work and create separate articles for every thing and every event in it is an admirable show of devotion, but amounts to "fanspew." Edison (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Edison, these are not independently notable, therefore they should not exist in separate articles. As per the nomination, they are entirely in-universe and arguably copyvios - therefore they should not be merged, just deleted. Hal peridol (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as fail WP:NOT#PLOT, & WP:FICT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - All lack notability and referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all These articles belong on a site dedicated to the Sword of Truth universe; they do not belong on Wikipedia. They have no RL notability. The Sword of Truth wiki is the proper place for them. Also, there seems to be a serious copyvio problem with some of these entries. Freederick (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vernon Winfrey

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

Non-notable, other than being the father of Oprah Winfrey. Ckessler (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited, or reverse inherited. Keeper | 76 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• He might be notable, but there are no sources as of yet to show this. Unless some are provided, he can be redirected (and merged if need be) to the Oprah article. I don't see a particular need to keep the history. I (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent notability, and notability is not inherited. His only real claim might have been the tell-all he was planning to write, but that was cancelled. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/merge notable facts about his relationship with his daughter to Oprah Winfrey.Vice regent 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11 for blatant advertising. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custom Builder Management Solutions

Custom Builder Management Solutions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertisement-like article written by single issue COI account. No assertion of general notability. Avruch^Talk 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requiem for a Handbag

Requiem for a Handbag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article should either be merged to the series article or to an article about the actress. Avruch^Talk 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - with no merge. The idea that a particular episode of a TV series becomes notable because it happens to be the last TV appearance or role played by a particular actor is unsupportable. There is nothing here to merge into either a series article or the article on Dunne. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I removed cruft that was related to the actress because this article is supposed to be about the episode. No opinion on that, but we don't seem to have a category Category:Hill Street Blues episodes so I would guess that individual episodes are not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure Tomj (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SimSANs

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

Advertisement written by single issue COI account (user name same as company name), no assertion of notability or sources. Avruch^Talk 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Maxim per CSD G6. RMHED (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegalitarianism

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

Made up word  priyanath talk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom. This word receives one (1) Ghit from a message board where, surprise, someone made up the word.  priyanath talk 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. sidenote to Priyanath, there is no need to vote for something you nominated. Nominating it is, in itself, a "vote" for deletion. Keeper | 76 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I hear the screams of the vegetables, and they scream delete as neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net and a vegan. I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I am in the process of establishing www.vegalitarian.com to further make all of the past and current efforts in this regard well known. I also am in contact with Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, Peter Singer, the Vegan Society, and the Vegetarian Society and could bring these people and organizations into this discussion if needed. I would thoroughly appreciate if you would remove the tag suggesting the deletion of this article. Kind regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stig, the reason it's here is because it's seen as a non-notable neologism, if you'll forgive the alliteration. Please see WP:NEO and WP:N for details. An aside, if you'll forgive me for sounding rude, your status, beliefs, memberships and contacts have little to no weight here - an article must adhere to many things. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I should also note here that Wikipedia is not for the promotion of a new website. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dennis, I'm not intending to promote a website; I am also not using my position in order to convince you to keep my article. I was just identifying myself. What I am doing is giving a word to an already established idea. I can see from your earlier posts that you may disagree with the purpose of this article; is it possible that you may be biased against it, therewith compromising your ability to objectively judge its eligibility for inclusion on Wikipedia? Regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.160.33 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Making a personal accusation against "Dennis" will not further your cause, Stig. Please refrain from making comments and insinuations agianst another editor. You are welcome to contribute to wikipedia, however, "Vegalitarianism" is a word that you, admittedly, coined. By definition, that is a neologism and does not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you, Keeper | 76 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I believe my post to Dennis was objective, not subjective; certainly not an accusation. If I can not use 'Vegalitarianism,' I suggest the title be changed to 'Non-speciesist Egalitarianism' until the new word, which describes this concept, is getting more wide-spread. -- Regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk• contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Do you really believe that someone will actually type Non-speciesist Egalitarianism as a potential Wikipedea search? Really? Both "terms" are neologisms. It isn't personal. It does not detract from your personal beliefs. Let it go, is my suggeston. Keeper | 76 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis The Tiger here Mr. Harder. Please keep in mind that not being in Wikipedia does not mean that you, your cause, your connections, or you claims, are not important to you. It only means that Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, as pointed out to you. This discussion will likely stay open for a maximum of 5 days, so please feel free to expand the article if you wish. I'm not saying that it will be kept, (at best, it will be moved to Wiktionary since Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms) -- but really does that matter? Does being on Wikipedia validate your personal convictions somehow? Keeper | 76 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, veggies, but WP:NEO. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• This article deserves the light of day; as you see in the text, many enlightened individuals throughout our past and in our present have suggested the amendment of human rights to include non-human animals as well. (The concept is fairly simple: if you acknowledge that dogs have feelings and that they can suffer, you acknowledge that non-human animals have feelings and can suffer, for dogs clearly aren't human.) I propose "Animal Egalitarianism" -- not a neologistic term. Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I, Mr Which^???, not being the author of this "article", believe it should be speedy deleted, per an especially egregious violation of WP:NEO. Mr Which^??? 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Accordingly, I believe this should be speedily deleted per WP:SNOW, as the author himself has admitted that he made up the word. Mr Which^??? 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I have created a new article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Egalitarianism -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have put this up for AFD as well. A neologism by any other phrasing is still a neologism - we are not for these. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• It's not a notable term. So delete it. I (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fictional/made up. • Lawrence Cohen 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I really have a hard time understanding the apparent opposition here to going a step further, beyond sexism and racism, by proctecting the rights of dogs and cats and other non-human animals to live the free lives that we ourselves live. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Stig, you may want to rephrase that. Many of us have major qualms about being accused of racism, sexism, or not wanting to protect the rights of animals, and by playing that card, you will probably not win people to your side. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Please read WP:NEO. This will help you understand how the fact that you admit to having "coined the word" seals the doom of this AfD. Mr Which^??? 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mr Which, I have read WP:NEO. You could make an exception; the word is new, but the concept is several centuries old. It just needed a term. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. WP:NEO is very clear. And this AfD should be speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Mr Which^??? 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • note to closing admin. If the result of this discussion is delete, please note that a duplicate copy of this exact article exists and was created by the same SPAuthor. Keeper | 76 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO Chris! _ct 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this neologism. Axl (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete I don't buy that every channel is notable - there has to be some reliable sourcing and it needs to be more than it exists. I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in and this [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.] recent AFD appears relevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This deletion was overturned to no consensus at deletion review: [9]. Splash - tk 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Screen Classics

Silver Screen Classics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I could not find a specific guideline about the notability of TV channels, but unless every TV channel automatically gets an article, there needs to be more than an announcement on broadcastermagazine.com about it. I couldn't find anything in google news which hints at this channel being notable, so I think it should be deleted. Minimaki (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: This is ridiculous, there's no reason whatsoever why this article should be deleted. This article has the right to be kept just like any other similar television channel article. Just because it is owned by a smaller company doesn't mean it is not notable. This article clearly explains what the channel is about and what it airs, it is widely available across Canada on most major cable companies systems, and there are references given by two separate companys discussing the channel. And just because it isn't mentioned within google news doesn't mean it's not notable, google doesn't pick up every web page out there. MusiMax (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep...but.... Um, google generally picks up every article out there. And then some. I returned 1.8 million. But besides that, per WP:OUTCOMES, I'm weak about this one. The guidelines don't specifically address cable channels, but precedent seems to be to keep these. For example, Turner Classic Movies, and Turner Classic Movies (UK), not that I'm trying to evoke an other stuff exists argument. The station has been around for 4+ years, I suppose that can be accounted for as far as notability? Keeper | 76 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mini and Max mean, I gather, to refer to returns from Google News, which, as a news aggregator, serves a function (and operates in a fashion) a bit different from that of the traditional Google search engine (that is not, to be sure, to suggest that one should draw any grand conclusions about the notability of this topic from the quantity of its G-news hits, but, instead, only to address a bit of confusion). Joe 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no reason to delete it. It's a TV channel, what's non-notable about that? Ben W Bell talk 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• We are talking about notability as described on the WP:N page. Merely being a TV channel is not enough, as should also get clear from WP:NOT. --Minimaki (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about a tv channel which there are already many many articles about tv channels that already exist, the article clearly explains what the channel is with a very objective view, there is no bias, it gives references from reliable and independent sources, the channel has been around for 4+ years, it's available across the country on most major cable systems. As you can see it is notable and there is no reason to delete it. MusiMax (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:OTHERSTUFF - and what the article is missing currently is any hints why it is notable - I have not yet seen reliable and independent sources suggesting that. Basically, what I'm wondering is, how can the article get longer than its current 2 lines? What are the notable things one could possibly add to it? --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It has reliable and independent sources... that's one of the reasons why it's notable... the fact that independent companies take the time to write an article about it makes it notable, they don't have to but they choose to because they find it notable themselves. What makes CMT Pure Country any more notable then this channel, it doesn't have any sources and it is about the same length? It's not hurting anyone to have this article stay, it's only helping, allowing readers to learn about this existing channel. If you take it away, then that's one less way for readers to learn about it, not to mention all the other web sites out there that take their info from Wikipedia. MusiMax (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, WP doesn't necessarily try to list every possible useful information - there's much better places in the net to have a list of each and every TV channel - and not deleting them may be harmful in more subtle ways. We also don't have an article on each business or each athlete or each character in each TV show... So to justify this article, in my opinion there needs to be sources on more than merely being yet another TV channel showing old movies. --Minimaki (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm convinced by the arguments to keep. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable television channel. Nothing states that TV channels are inherently notable in any way, and this is no exception. WP:OUTCOMES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are neither policy nor guidelines - the existence of an article on one subject does not mean every other related subject has a "right" to an article. --Coredesat 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as no reliable cites exist that support notability. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are cites from Broadcaster and Mediacaster Magazines... both independent and reliable sources. MusiMax (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actar

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

Appears to be a non-notable biomedical/pharmaceutical sales company. Thay have a lack of external coverage, and therefore don't appear to be meeting our present notability standards. If you click on "Timeline" on that search, you'll see virtually all the press they have is stock reports, in a generic and repeating format, and no other independent coverage. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per good nomination. No assertion of notability, no sources, no reason to be here. Actar does not improve Wikipedia, therefore, Wikipedia should not improve Actar Keeper | 76 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Keeper76. NN company; no real cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CypherScript (programming language)

CypherScript (programming language) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable scripting language. 7 ghits of which only 4 relate to the language, 2 of which are WP articles. Author delete prod with no reason given. -- WebHamster 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to JavaScript syntax. The article states that CypherScript is another name for JavaScript, so the redirect is fitting. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources show that this neologism is notable or deserving of a redirect to Javascript, let alone an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An alternate name for a variant of Javascript that... uh, doesn't exist. In fact, none of the Google hits (which should be numerous for a computer-related topic!) are relevant except the on-Wikipedia results - the French forum appears to be discussing an unrelated mIRC addon called "Cypherscript". Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J.M. Patrick

J.M. Patrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A writer that seems to be accepted at various small process publications (such as the listed "50 Word Contests" for a hotel chain), but doesn't seem to receive any wide coverage or notability. the relevant searches on this name and various phrases like "writer" attached all seem to come up with older stories, such as those related to gold prospecting in the 1800s. Patrick, the modern writer, doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Recommend delete. Additionally, COI concerns: the article was created by User:Jessempatrick, and a WHOIS of jmpatrick.com shows that JM Patrick the writer apparently is this Wikipedia editor; so it was an article created by the subject as well. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, per WP:COI, per WP:NN, and I'm sure others. Keeper | 76 21:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

{

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mochizuki Okushin

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

I was editing this article for a general cleanup, when I noticed that everything that apparently makes this person notable has been taken from Yuu Shirota. Couldn't find anything from searching the name 'Mochizuki Okushin', so I get the feeling this is just someone trying to look good. A^RendedWinter 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Concur. It looks like someone took the text from the Yuu Shirota page and shifted it around under their name with their data. Delete as probable hoax, unless someone turns something rather significant up. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mochizuki was actually a class mate of Yuu Shirota, Yuu Shirota went toward his musical dream, mochizuki was more a bussiness major and he was part of all those musicals but was not a big celeb, Mochizuki was just a back up, just in case something happens to the main acts, you have to be a ture "otaku" to know this stuff.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mochizuki_Okushin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.224.1 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete apparently non-notable guy, no references, possibly a hoax. Karanacs (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination + NN + BLP + Wikipedia:Verifiability. I wonder whether this article would have qualified for a speedy delete? Anyhow, this should do.True theory (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable; lack of sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. I'm not sold on any of this. "Mochizuki"? That sounds more like a food than a name. JuJube (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. One of the keep votes was Useful information not available anywhere else. says it all really. Please see WP:ATA and WP:USEFUL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar controller compatibility

Guitar controller compatibility (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not an article or a list. Wikipedia is not a video game controller comparison guide. This is what gaming websites are for. Mr.Z-man 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per z-man and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information that is not really compiled elseware, merger into any one article makes no sense as multiple articles reference this information. Deletion of this would just end up embedding this large table into each article about each game, or a lengthy paragraph in each article re-explaining the same thing. Qapf (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: since when is being an article/list the criterion for keeping or deletion? This information has been covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources and this therefore notable. Furthermore, there's not really a reasonable place for it to go. Oren0 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "This is what gaming websites are for." I did not mention notability. That is not the only inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As a notable subject, I don't see any reason for it not to be included. I don't see how this could be considered game guide material by any stretch of the imagination. It's factual info related to hardware peripherals. I don't see any Wikipedia policy that this violates, therefore it should stay. Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Let's not kid ourselves. This isn't an article, it's a table, and it's less about the concept of guitar controller compatibility in general and more a quick check sheet for guitar controller compatibility within the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series. While the information is indeed very useful to the enthusiasts of these series, the content is too brief and vague for a subject that's so specific. It all could very well be implemented into other articles. Pele Merengue (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And I should add, the information in this article is almost exclusively useful to enthusiasts. Nowhere in the article does it mention what companies manufacture which controllers and which guitars were developed for which games. And as it is now, there are large, unoccupied sections of the table where savvy gamers could just use common sense to determine compatibility -- there's no reason why an Xbox 360 controller should work with a PlayStation 2. But all of this unspecified information lost on a casual consumer who wouldn't know any better. This sort of information only makes sense to a very select group of people; no attempt is made at making the chart's purpose or content clear and understandable to a large variety of readers. Pele Merengue (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • These are valid arguments for the table needing to be cleaned up and improved, but deleting it doesn't do either of these things. Instead, why not think of a way to convey the information, which is valuable, in a context which meshes with your designation of value in an article Qapf (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis that it's not a proper article. But I think it's a neat and very handy table, and should go somewhere. Maybe on the Guitar Hero or Rock Band page? `Zozart ^.chat 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a comparison of game controllers, this can actually be useful. But, we could use some prose to make it a bit more understandable, and maybe add the fact that you can't use GH controllers with GF either. ViperSnake151 14:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It does need more actual text added to clarify what it is discussing, but this is definitely not "just something for enthusiasts." KaneRobot 12:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it relevant for anyone not planning on playing one of the games? Mr.Z-man 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How is [10] relevant for anyone without a strong background in math and science? Since when is specialized knowledge a criteria for keeping vs deleting? Kuronue | Talk 07:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Firstly, the sensible thing according to Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT#INFO would be to delete. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. Worse is, however, that it is not even useful. It tells the reader that the PS guitars are usable with the PS, the Wii guitar with the Wii and the 360 guitars with the 360. How is this useful? The very few exceptions that are listed could easily be covered in the prose in the articles about the relevant games. User:Krator (t c) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The information in this cumbersome table could very easily be conveyed with one sentence in the respective articles for the games. KyuzoGator (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article deals with more than one game and more than one type of controller. There are seperate articles just for other peripherals of games, like the PS3 SIXAXIS controller. Also, it is notable because it is part of one of the most popular games and uprising portion of the gaming industry in the US. Ryn2me (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, not only did I make no mention of notability as a deletion reason here but that is not the only inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-man 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. What controllers do and do not work with Rock Band is a confusing subject in and of itself; the table helps clarify that as well as other potentially confusing bits. I think it should be expanded, in fact, to cover beat-game controllers of all kinds; for instance, the Singstar microphones don't work with Rock Band (I'm told) and that might be useful someplace. Kuronue | Talk 07:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an important source of information. Wikipedia is a form of encyclopedia that allows users to gather information on any topic. A table with information regarding the compatability of guitar controllers is information that will be used more and more as this technology advances but if anyone disagrees with the facts that it should be kept then they do not understand the true meaning of or the concept behind wikipedia and also all encyclopedias. Tommo7 | Talk 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I wanted to know this information so I came to Wikipedia to find it. This is the sort of data one expects to find, so it should be provided. Though it should probably be either merged into a existing article or fleshed out into a full article. Technical information regarding why one controller is incompatible or not is relevant to the development history of this product. If this tabular data was turned into a template, it could be hidden/shown as part of more relevant article. -Dr Haggis - Talk 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I stand corrected, KEEP...if we add information that you obviously can't use Guitar Hero controllers with Guitar Freaks for the PS2. Okay? ViperSnake151 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Compatibility of one game's controller with another game is certainly notable information, but I don't think every game's article needs an entire section on what does and doesn't work. Breaking the info off like this works for me. -- Norvy (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Tabor (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The information needs some reformatting to make it more user friendly. The question of merger is problematic as it incorporates information from several different games and looks to inform regarding all those games as well, indicating that the chart would be worthy of equal space in any Guitar Hero or Rock Band Article regardless of system. It is useful information to anyone who is not an enthusiast, but would want to know the compatibility of their equipment. Having sold millions of copies of the games mentioned, it seems to have a general appeal. --CKJ (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's a section on PS3 controller compatability in the Guitar Hero (series) article that could be pared down and moved here. That would boost the prose content. The table could be pared down by, for example, removing Wii controllers from the table and replacing it with prose describing that because the Wii guitar interfaces with the Wii controllers, it is not compatible with any other game system. The article needs improvements, yes, but it isn't unsalvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This was not only informative, it was really useful. Although you can find some of this info in other sites, it was a relief finding it in one section. I agree that the article should be reformatted and somewhat cleaned out, but in no way deleted. — HitokiriGaijin 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful information not available anywhere else. --72.202.150.92 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a useful table, although it needs some more context. There are countless other examples on Wikipedia where the compatibilities and features of competing programs are depicted in a table. Search for "comparison of" for similar tables. Kyouryuu (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a useful reference that can't be easily found elsewhere on the internet that can help potential Guitar Hero players decide which guitar or version to get. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree that this is useful reference information, not likely to be found elsewhere in a concise format. Assuming that the folks who contribute this data do so honestly from actual experience, this is a much better way to obtain the information than reading endless appends to various individual gaming forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.128.208 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is highly useful and I found it only here. It's another example of the "new guard" of editors who seem eager to convert Wikipedia into their version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. We built Wikipedia to include not exclude. "Not an article or a list." Nope. It's a big, fat, easy to read table. Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.176.6.111 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Normanby house

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

This is a non-notable article about a specific on-campus residential house. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, non-notable. What else is there to say? Keeper | 76 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Not a notable house, and isn't verified, so the article should be deleted. I (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G11; article was created by company's marketing manager. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEUX Corporation Limited

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

Probable spamvert UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete with sentences like "Long aware that for many people it is no more than a consumer electronics producer, it has dedicated itself to projecting a new and more representative image that reflects the products we offer in the areas of lifestyle and technology." it qualifies for speedy as spam, if anyone else agrees with me. DGG (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• SPAM spam spam spam SPAM spam spam spam... Speedy delete, wonderful spam... (bloody vikings) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFC Fight Night 12

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

Speedy delete - deleted at AFD two days ago and almost immediately recreated. The only difference is that a non-reliable source has been added that announces a fight for which no contracts have been signed because the date and venue remain unconfirmed. An admin inexplicably declined the speedy so here we are again. Still violates WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Unlike last time, there is verifiable information about a confirmed date and matchup from a reliable source (Dann Stupp is an expert in the field, and a sportswriter for Yahoo! Sports, the Dayton Daily News, MLB.com, and the San Francisco Chronicle). WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply anymore since the event is notable and guaranteed to take place. east.718 at 20:07, November 20, 2007
• Weakest Possible Keep Agree w/East718 that MMAJunkie is a reliable source, but I'm not jazzed about the cited source specifically saying "contracts are not signed" and "no venue has been decided." Either way, we'll probably debate this out for a week or so and then the page will get re-created with newer verifiable information. Probably should keep it at this point, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it gets deleted again. Tuckdogg (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a notable event. If you are unhappy with the amount of "references" it'll only take a few minutes to add some. --businessman332211 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a televised event sponsored by arguably the most prominent MMA institution in the world and the article has references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Tuckdogg, the lack of a place and time also bother me, but east718 is right when he says the event is inevitable and that Stupp is a reliable source. hateless 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Frank

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

Does not appear to be a notable individual; nominating for deletion. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete per above, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete For reasons above--Areashands (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Galo Injairu

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

Does not appear to be a notable individual; nominating for deletion. I originally tagged it as a speedy, but I think it may be better for a wider review. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - a good guy, but not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wp:rs. The website "cited", wwww.cips.org, does not mention Mr. Injairu in a search of their webpage. (not that they are necessarily a reliable source themselves, being a paid membership organization) Most likely, he's a paying member, which obviously does not equal notability. Keeper | 76 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, most people I know could have similar articles written about them.Earthdirt (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .zr

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

The country-code top level domain of a country that changed its name, and only ever had a handful of domain name registrations before being phased out. Wikipedia is not a directory, and I can't see any non self-published sources (i.e. anything but the IANA website) reporting on this. If it leaves a gap in a series, that's unfortunate, but necessary as I don't see the multiple non-trivial reliable published sources for standalone notability. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ccTLD's are a pretty rare thing. There are a limited number and there have been changes have ususally meant a drastic event has occurred. For historical purposes I think it should be kept. If a deletion occurs, I would suggest a redirect to .cd and an expanded note there. spryde | talk 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to .cd, which has wholly superseded it. (Contrast with .su, the TLD for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Remember them? still out there! --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this just because it is no longer in use. Keep for historical purposes, although I realize it probably will never achieve much more than stub class. Keeper | 76 22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the stub, in concurrence with Keeper76. If anything, it comes up as historical interest, much like .su - even if .su had significantly more domains in the TLD. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Keeper76. And, if for nothing else, for consistency's sake; recognizing that .zr was technically separate from .cd is important for historical context and aids in navigation from the ccTLD template. -- Keith Lehwald (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'd merge the information into .cd, and redirect it. I (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just because something no longer is named as such or exists is not a good reason for deletion. I think that all country TLDs are notable. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't object to a keep, I just felt there wasn't really enough information to make a separate article warranted, unless .zr had some separate notability I wasn't aware of (along the lines of .to or .cx). --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - notable, but could easily be covered in the .cd article. Snigbrook (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough.   jj137 (Talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not temporary, "if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." This guideline applies, in a way. ♠TomasBat 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Aguilar

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

Delete - fails WP:BIO as an actor as he does not have significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions (six episodes on Rules of Engagement as "Busboy" or an appearance as "Willow's friend" in an episode of Buffy notwithstanding). Prod removed with a reference to building an article from his IMDB listing but in the absence of reliable sources of notability his article should go. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as violating WP:BLP in lacking reliable sources, but the guy has over 2,000 Ghits. Rescue? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are four different Andrew Aguilars on IMDB alone. Ghits are for everything from musicians to chiropractors to high school football players to dead guys. Amazingly "Andrew Aguilar" seems to be a fairly common name. Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tang Yuhan

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

Article on a Chinese doctor. nominated previously for deletion on the basis of notability, lack of reliable sources, and verifiability. The original discussion attracted little attention, and the closing admin thought that sources added in Chinese weren't reliable. After discussion at DRV, he remembered that foreign language sources can be reliable and agreed to relisting. We need to evaluate the Chinese sources (and any that can be found in English) to determine if this individual is notable and whether the specific sources are reliable. No opinion from me; I don't read Chinese. GRBerry 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) As requested at DRV, I have specifically solicited input at the talk page for the wikiprojects on China and Hong Kong. GRBerry 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - My Chinese is only intermediate level, but the sources seem to confirm what is in the article, and are from reliable sources like the People's Daily (the main newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party). I'd say that his accomplishments are enough to establish notability.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Tang is the Honorary Dean of Ningbo University Medical School, and received two honorary titles from Ningbo Municipality Government and Zhejiang Province Government for his contributions to Ningbo education. These facts have proved his notability as a benefactor. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Chinese sources confirm what the article says. His claim to notability is tenuous, but I'm inclined to go with a weak keep for the combination of him having been president of the Hong Kong Chinese Medical Association and then having a hospital named after him. The article needs to get rid of its peacock words though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep though a poorly written article, President of the Hong Kong Chinese Medical Association is notable. That the source is confirmed by those who know the language is therefore sufficient. DGG (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Attributed to reputable sources. Eurozone AA (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and full of POV.--JForget 02:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penn-Trafford Drumline

Penn-Trafford Drumline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable, possibly violates WP:BLP Eatcacti (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A sourced mention might be appropriate in Penn-Trafford School District. --Dhartung | Talk 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as WP:BLP. It's unencyclopedic, and unsourced. I concur that a mention may be worthwhile under the district's article. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for violations of WP:BLP and failure to show verifiability of the content. If a reference is found, it could be mentioned in the article on the school or school district. Edison (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete It's both an A7 AND an attack page... on minors no less. No reason to host this for another second. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Press Malayalam

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

Removed prod, notability concerns + verifiability of the article. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for sourcing reasons. I'm not convinced that this was a non-notable group, but it needs sources sources sources. If this is kept, please remove the ridiculous list of obscure names at the end of the article. Keeper | 76 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Balloonman (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome

Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a non notable neologism or protologism, created and used in a narrow area of popular culture. As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on neologisms unless widely adopted. See WP:NEO _→AzaToth 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an interesting TV trope (see Chuck Cunningham Syndrome), and has probably been written about under different terminology, but with the one source provided it's an unnotable protologism. We need better sourcing about the topic itself to have an article, not just one person's idea of what to call it. The CCS article was changed into something more encyclopedic, so there's a possibility for a restructuring here, too. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - term looks to be in wide use and in fairly scholarly circles, like MIT for instance. It's weak but the phenomenon is well known enough to warrant an article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if the title is great, but I think that the phenomenon is worthy of note. Since it doesn't only apply to soap operas, and not only rapidly aging, maybe rename it to something more neutral about age modification in television. I'm not creative enough to put forth a suggestion though. I (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed - it's in wide use and a notable television phenomenon - remarks about soap and sitcom kids going from crayons to a bustline are as widespread as remarks about the Darrin Stephens and Chuck Cunningham events. PMA (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Leandro High School

San Leandro High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nothing is asserted (let alone sourced) about the notability of this school. Goochelaar (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We treat secondary schools as notable usually (See WP:OUTCOMES). I have also found additional material concerning this school and semi-recent racial tensions. I am trying to find a better URL than the one I have. spryde | talk 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keeep more reliable sources Better sourced now Keeper | 76 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC). On a demographic note, the dems listed only add up to 70%. Are the other 30% Klingon? Martian? Ukrainian? My point is, it needs cleanup, not deletion Fixed this myself Keeper | 76 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC) . Keeper
  • Thanks for the update on demographics. Personally, I was hoping that it was a large percentage of illegal Klingon aliens that someone was trying to hide, but your numbers work just as well. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable alumni and other school accomplishments, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I will get on the demographic data soon. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The school is notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by the nominator I appreciate the effort in sourcing and adding data, but I fail to understand how a school is notable because of its alumni (as notability is not inherited) or because it had some internal problems (every apartment building has them, now and again). As for WP:OUTCOMES, it nowhere says that school, secondary or otherwise, are inherently notable (they have to comply with general notability guidelines); it just gives some data about deletion debates. Goochelaar (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I must agree with you on inherited notability. The notable alumni are notable in large part due to their attendance at San Leandro High School. Obviously, not all students are notable simply because they attended SLHS, but these are just some of the students where there is evidence of their accomplishments. As with places, politicians and highways, WP:OUTCOMES simply reflects the massive weight of evidence that all such schools are notable and seeks to avoid wasting time of all involved trying to argue a case that seems to be long settled. the results of this AfD will only add to that body of evidence on high school notability. I don't have any reason to believer that your nomination was in anything other than good faith; however, the longstanding precedent on high school notability and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Sigh. Like army surplus spam from the Spanish-American war, I see the same High School AfD debates arguments endlessly rehashed. So I'll once again reiterate my own. As there is no consensus on High School notability, I use my personal criteria. I find this High School sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Answer to Alansohn and RJHall Ok, apparently, being an European, there is a special relevance high schools have in American culture I am not able to gauge or judge (and I am not meaning this ironically). In my opinion, a particular high school might be notable because it has been cited as giving rise to a particular didactic method, as having been the place of some known occurrence, or even as being housed in a very peculiar building (or because most pupils are Klingon!). I stand my opinion, but I acknowledge that the consensus seems to be contrary to my interpretation, so I am somewhat grudgingly inclined to withdraw my nomination. Goochelaar (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per improvements in article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short Pump Elementary School

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

This was deleted once previously by proposed deletion, re-created, and proposed for deletion again. Since prodding twice is invalid, we go to AfD. The prod reason given this time was "no evidence of notability"; similar notability concerns were raised the previous time, too. Although this is mostly a procedural nomination, these concerns seem valid to me, barring evidence to the contrary. — TKD::Talk 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - no reliabe sources for establishement of notability in a verifiable manner. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't a notable elementary school. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable enough for me. Zginder (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why? I (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The authors have improved the article since it was nominated and is now undeniably notable. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. does not assert notability besides saying "we're great." (more or less). Keeper | 76 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC) changing position to Keep based on recent additions to article, that IMO, assert notability per WP:OUTCOMES, specifically educational institutions that have won academic awards in their respective field, (albeit Elementary, still notable). Keeper | 76 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Can you please hold on because it is still ghetting work. Im trying to work on it as hard as is can. Please help me on it thanks Rox^mysoxo::Talk To Me —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This nomination will last for at least 5 days (November 25). — TKD::Talk 06:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary of wine terms

Glossary of wine terms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These terms belong in a category, and "List of wine terms" would be the same thing as it is now. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- there are 79 glossaries listed at Special:Prefixindex/Glossary, plus more where "Glossary" is not the first term. Let's make a guideline first, then apply it evenly to all glossaries, rather than make an ad hoc decision on an arbitary one of them. Matchups (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. My understanding is that we already have an official policy for this - WP:NOT#DICDEF: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This seems pretty clear to me.--Michig (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - You must be joking. The saying you quote: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" WP:NOT#DICT refers to policy about short articles which define a single word or indiscriminate collections of information, this clearly is neither. This is an excellent example of a list WP:LIST which can be used for navigation and information. Please see WP:SAL, below is an excerpt from the guideline:

"There are a number of formats currently used on Wikipedia, both generalized and specialized, for articles that are lists. (...) Formats for specialized lists include: (...) 2. glossaries, a type of annotated list, where the annotations are definitions of the list's entries, such as Glossary of philosophical isms"

Why would there be a guideline for glossaries if there was not a place for them on Wikipedia?:--Earthdirt (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. No I wasn't joking, and please try to keep your comments civil. WP:DICT stated until recently that lists of definitions of words (as opposed to lists of related articles) are against guidelines, but someone has recently changed that. Someone should really sort the guidelines out so that we can simply apply them consistently in these discussions rather than having to debate them - maybe acceptable articles would then not be nominated. Many of the entries in this glossary are dictionary definitions that are not links to other articles, but I've removed my vote of delete, as I'm not that bothered either way.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you Michig, I was actually referring to the deletion nomination for this article in general, rather than your comment in particular, the order just got a bit messed up. I am not familiar with the past wording of WP:DICT, esspecially since that would so clearly contradict WP:LIST and WP:SAL, there does seem to be some be a widespread misunderstanding of lists on Wikipedia.Earthdirt (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Consuelo D'Guiche (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Earthdirt. Also, note on WP:NOT#DICT: Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. --Enhanceddownloadbird (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A "descriptive article" is not the same as a list of word definitions.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Useful per WP:LIST. Have not similar cases been transwikied to Wiktionary and now exist twofold? MURGH ^disc. 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As Matchups has noted Wikipedia has many valid and useful glossary articles. Feel free to peruse the Portal:List of glossaries for more examples. As a member of the Wine Project I refer to this list often for aid in linking terms like blending, dégorgement, legs, etc that don't have an article because they would be nothing more than a dicdef. Having this article saves us easily from needing 15-20 dicdef stub articles and that is a benefit that you simply can not get from a category. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SAL under the heading glossaries "being used primarily for navigational purposes or for developing Wikipedia content (redlinks), and whether readers are mostly looking for a specific topic, a group of related topics, or just browsing." Also some terms wouldn't be fit for a category such as "Young", "Extra dry" or "Split" nor having the terms placed in Wiktionary.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Fortified keep A good example of how a list should look like to fullfill wp:list & wp:sal--victor falk (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sirex98 and Agne27. Keeper | 76 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep valuable collection of information useful as an adjunct to Wine and related articles. Fg2 (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Viriyayuthakorn

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

Fails WP:BIO, the article is about a poker player with no significance tournament results, has only one World Series of Poker money finish, 9th in the 2004 WSOP $1,500 No-Limit Hold'em ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is also an orphan and has no references other than the Hendon Mob player database. --kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - poker players have been treated as athletes previously for purposes of WP:BIO and this guy appears to qualify as a competitor who has "played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." While his TV time has been negligible he's been playing at a relatively high level for several years, including winning an event ata major tournament series as far back as 2001. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Viriy weak keep, just barely on the basis of the tournament win Otto4711 found. Delete. Small 1st prize indicates that the field in his one win wasn't that large. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• even weaker keep See comment below /because I don't personally think of poker as sport and I hate when ESPN puts poker games on television. But I digress, the link found by Otto4711 shows him victorious as a pro, which helps establish his notability. Not that anyone is going to know how to spell Viriyayuthakorn for a search. Is "Jason V" a redirect? ... Oh! I just checked! It is! It is! Amazing.... Keeper | 76 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly poker players are not athletes and never have been treated as such here, for obvious reasons: "played in..." is a totally ludicrous criteria as anyone can enter a WSOP event. We didn't make thousands of stubs for everyone who entered the WSOP main event last year! So the fact he has played means nothing. His one victory and dozen middling finishes do get him close to notability, but his simply fails WP:BIO. There are not multiple published works dedicated to him. There appears to be one write-up on Pokerpages regarding his 2001 win. That just isn't enough to merit an article at this point -- though he certainly could merit one in the future. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is suggesting that every person who played in the main event warrants a stub article. But, not to pull a WP:WAX, if a football player with one pro game under his belt is considered notable then a professional poker player (for whom the "athlete" section of WP:BIO is the closest we have to a formalized standard) who's been playing at top levels for several years probably ought to be considered notable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• You did just suggest that. The criteria in WP:BIO for the athletes plainly is not relevant here. Entering a poker tournament is in no way similar to playing even one down in a pro football game. A fan can't just come down from the stands an play football, but anybody can enter an event. So simply playing is no criteria at all. Athletes does not apply. The "Entertainers" section of BIO is better, though still flawed... "With significant roles... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions... Has a large fan base." But still that isn't appropriate since "fans" don't matter in poker, and neither does innovation particularly. The two criteria that primarily matter are success/winning/make money, and non-trivial focus of third party media. This is why some less successful players who get lots of media coverage will merit an article sometimes when anonymous/plodder type folks who make money sometimes won't. In this case, he has enough success to clearly not be a dilettante, but he simply doesn't have third party media coverage. Thus the operative part of WP:BIO is very clear: "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material... If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability... Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." This person has much trivial coverage (statistic sites), but he has not been the subject of MULTIPLE published material. He has ONE significant article that focuses largely on him (but even that is covering an event he won, rather than a profile of him). It seems to me that while he does fall just a bit short of BIO, he clearly does fall short (until someone can find at least two significant published things about him). 2005 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no, I didn't actually suggest starting several thousand stubs, but I guess if it makes you feel better to say I did I really don't care enough about this guy to keep correcting you. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind theoretical notability... where's the reliable sources? --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I did start a discussion at the Wikipedia Poker project about this, with aim to codify poker bios a bit better since they aren't covered more spcifically in WP:BIO, even though the general criteria does cover the situation pretty well. 2005 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete His victory isn't at a major poker tournament. Binions World Poker Open is simply a $1000 buy in--not a major event (ala those events identified by the project at Template:Major Poker Tournaments.) I would compare this guy not to a professional athlete, but rather to a non-notable actor who had a decent role in a non-notable movie.Balloonman (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I certainly view the WPO win as a "major tournament". That template is a poor one, as the this WPO event is about ten times more "major" than the Ultimate Poker Challenge, which has no business on a "major" list. It is the same status as the US Poker Championship, and actually probably more "major" than that. Still, a major tournament win alone doesn't merit an article, or put another way, we certainly should not make an article for every Ultimate Poker Challenge winner. 2005 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, I haven't really looked at that template that closely, but UPC definately isnt a major tournament. A major tournament, IMHO, by definition is one where the major poker superstars might ask, "Are you going to XXX." If the tournament is a weekly event or some such, then it isn't a major tournament. It is a reoccuring tournament.Balloonman (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I know this doesn't make us the arbitors of poker nobility, but 2005, Sirex98 and I are the three most active voices at the Wikiproject Poker... and all three of us fail to see this guy as notable.Balloonman (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment and change position. You're right. Being an active voice anywhere on WP does not make you an arbitor of nobility, or notability, or knowability. Maybe you are "active" there to clean it out with loads of AfD nominations. (I know that isn't true though, I checked). Needless to say, you discussion here has swayed me from a teetering weak keep to Delete., especially the case made by 2005. Happy editing, (and for you Americans, you know who you are, Happy Thanksgiving. Keeper | 76 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we do a pretty good job of voting what we believe to be notable---which includes arguing for the inclusion of many articles brought to AFD and the deletion of some articles brought to AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stompy

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

Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Can't find a definition for this word anywhere. Even if it were a real definition, it certainly doesn't belong in wikipedia A^RendedWinter 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If sourced, it would be {{Copy to Wiktionary}} then Delete. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we'll just go with WP:DICDEF, although there's lot's of other things to support deletion of the article. I (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very entertaining, but delete none the less. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sameh El-Shahat

Sameh El-Shahat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not established: the links are not by independent sources, or if they are, they do not assert any notability of the subject (e.g. an editorial piece where he is quoted as dining with the editor ?!) Raistlin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Raistlin, I believe that Time Out and NYT are unbiased sources and the fact that the author had dinner where the subject was present does not make that article biased. As for notability, I believe we can assume that the fact Thomas Friedman (whether or not we agree with his views) is a respectable and notable journalist and knows of the importance of the subject Sameh El-Shahat and respects him and his opinion to the point writing an entire editorial about it. It is notable that he wasn't lauding El-Shahat's work, please do bear that in mind.

I did take out the NYT quote if that is the reason for deletion

I live in London and I can tell you that this guy is very respected amongst art collectors (who collect his pieces as art). On the net, he seems to be googled a lot, not only for his furniture, but for his views as well.

It would be a shame if there wasn't some information about him on Wiki.

Best

Artisticcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisticcc (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let us see point by point the citations used to claim notability:

1. [11] an article on "Time Out", which is not exactly a premier art magazine, which interviews him and another person
2. [12] Biography on a gallery of arts
3. [13] Editorial by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times where he is deemed "One guest, Sameh El-Shahat, a furniture designer".
4. [14] his own website
5. [15] Letter he wrote to the Times Newspaper

Google searching turns out a handful of results. So, please, substantiate, modify the article, or this is a snowball delete in my opinion. --Raistlin (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; with a total of 25 unique Google hits, only one that I could remotely refer to as notable and non-trivial (the Time Out Dubai article), I don't think he meets WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent reliable sources are found substantively treating the subject. Google news and books return no results whatever. I also checked various London based newspapers including The Times of London, The Telegraph and The Guardian. The burden is, of course, on the creator. We cannot "assume" anything Artisticcc. We must have proper sourcing verifying the content and sufficient to show notability of the subject, or an article should not exist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys,

Point taken. He is an artist of growing repute and as such there are not as many sources available about him as Newson or Le Corbusier for example. I did find an article which is mostly dedicated to him in the Gulf News newspaper, which is the most respected English Language publication of the Gulf which I added (http://archive.gulfnews.com/weekend/arts/10153407.html ). I believe it shows notability. I took away the bit about his painting as the artist himself does not want to publicise it. I also altered the shape pf the article.

As for the comments by Thomas Friedman, I believe that a good reason why he did not say "world famous furniture designer Sameh El-Shahat" is because it is really beyond the scope of the article. However, it shows the furniture designer to be pre-eminent enough to have his opinion taken on subjects outside his speciality by one of the most respected journalists in the world today.

Let me know what you think and I thank you both for highlighting these points. I hope you will not delete it after the changes.

Best

Artisticcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisticcc (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Artisticcc (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I am sorry, it seems that i did not sign my last 2 previous entries for which i apologise. I truly hope that the article on El-Shahat will be removed from the Articles for Deletion category today. Artisticcc Artisticcc (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentium Nine

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

Not notable. db-nn tag was removed by an IP editor who added some possible justification of notability, but I'm not convinced Matchups (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 (db-band). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Crown of Stars (series). In regards to Jay's comment, my own practice is to delete an article and recreate it as a redirect, which helps prevent reverts. If there's a need to access a deleted article's history in the future, there are people who can provide it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liathano

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

Fictional character with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION in article. I had redirected this article to the one on the series, as per WP:FICTION, but this was reverted by another editor. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like a consensus on what to do. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. I've recently redirected Prince of Dogs and King's Dragon to the same article, it might be worth covering them in the same nom. they're all the creation of one user. I've left a talk page message explaining the various guidance on fictional works, concepts and characters. They're useful search terms, stick a {{R from related word}} on them once redirected. Hiding Talk 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• The redirection was an appropriate action for the article, and I support redirecting it again. I (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Reverting is the main reason why I think an AFD should never close as redirect. If we aren't keeping any content the only reason to keep the history is to allow some one to revert, which we don't want. Jay32183 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I can think of a couple of reasons why we would want the history. Consensus can change and the GFDL. Reversion can be dealt with by people watching the pages, deletion should not be punishment, we aren't typically preventative on Wikipedia, and these are useful search terms. The issue of reversion, more to the point, isn't settled by deletion, which can be reverted through recreation. The solution to that is typically protection, which can also be applied to redirects. So I don't see any value in that argument for deletion. Hiding Talk 10:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability and a complete lack of real world information as required by WP:FICT. The article is essentially an extended plot summary - which Wikipedia is not.[[Guest9999 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]]

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

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

The result was Redirect all to List of Daria episodes and possibly merge by interested editors. I'll leave a note for this AFD on the respective talk pages, which would also be the first place to bring up sources and a case for recreating specific episode articles. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esteemsters

Esteemsters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

The Invitation (Daria episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

College Bored (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cafe Disaffecto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Too Cute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Road Worrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Misery Chick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Arts 'N' Crass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Daria Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

That Was Then, This Is Dumb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ill (Daria episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fair Enough (Daria episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Write Where it Hurts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Daria! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lane Miserables (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jake of Hearts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Murder, She Snored (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Legends of the Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lucky Strike (Daria episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Art Burn (Daria episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

One J at a Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Night at Daria's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Boxing Daria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Every single episode of this television show does not need its own article. None have established notability or real world relevance outside of show and are mostly fancruft and unnecessary trivia items. The only outside links for each episode are the TV.com and IMDB links, and then multiple links to a van site. The basic info for the episodes is covered by List of Daria episodes. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any sepcific information that would flesh the list out but not overload it, and then redirect to all to List of Daria episodes, adding {{R from merge}} to redirects as well. Useful search terms, in keeping with guidance and prevents recreation. Hiding Talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The question of notablitity has been rendered subjective by those who seek to delete and redirect articles on television episodes, so that they can't be upgraded. Tagging them all for deletion is nothing more than a spiteful effort against those of us who want to save and improve the articles. ----DanTD (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bunk There is virtually NOTHING subjective about the notability guidelines, and there is no justification at all for you to call the nomination spiteful. If you can honestly say you have read and understood the entirety of the relevant notability guidelines (which are at WP:NOTABLE, WP:FILM and WP:FICTION, unless someone's come up with one specifically for television shows without my noticing it), then and only then do you have any foundation for arguing with this nomination. If you haven't you are unable to debate knowledgeably and are nothing but the howling voice of ignorance. Save and improve the articles on wikia [16] or some similar service; they have no place here. Deltopia

Reply "Bunk," NOTHING! The people who've been crusading to delete articles often change their mind about what makes them notable, and how to prevent them from being deleted, and frequently call for MORE obstacles to writing them. I added something from the real world to one episode of Daria, but it never phased the deletionists. They couldn't care less, because deleting articles is just something for them to do. As for saving and improving the articles on Wikia, that has proven to be a dismal failure. ----DanTD (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Daria episodes per Hiding because of (non-established and therefore perceived) non-notability, but leave a note on the talk page to encourage merging as an editorial process. I'm open to recreation of these articles if significant real-world information are added (which can be very hard for cartoon series and would therefore seem unlikely). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to List of Daria episodes per WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep =CJK= 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by =CJK= (talk • contribs)

• Care to provide any sort of rationale? I (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• The articles are not notable. Therefore, under WP:EPISODE, the first attempt should be redirecting them, and only as a last resort AfD. Therefore, they should all be redirected to List of Daria episodes, and editors should merge as they see fit. I would make an exception for the pilot however, as that is usually able to be sourced much more easily than others. I (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Soleil, Do you even realize that the pilot episode is the unaired black & white film short Sealed With a Kick? In any case, the articles are notable. Esteemsters is the first episode. Boxing Daria is the last episode. Others set the tone for the rest of the series. And furthermore, before Collectonian tagged them all for deletion, I added a real world note to one of them. It's getting to the point where you can't even mention a TV show without some snob tagging all the articles connected to it for deletion, redirection, or merging. ----DanTD (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I usually associate pilot with the first episode. So in this case, the first episode would be kept. And no, the articles are not notable. They need significant coverage on each article by independant sources. These articles do not have it. I (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fansites are independent sources, even if they're biased. Somebody else who supports the deletion of articles mentioned to me that articles on episodes of The Simpsons were saved from deletion by the fans a few years back. If they faced today's standards back then, those articles would be gone too. And what's sad is that I'm fully aware that many of them have to be improved, but deleting and/or redirecting them will take that opportunity away. ----DanTD (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverage by fan sites does not make something notable. That wouldn't even make sense. I could set up a fansite for a play I perform at the local park to the squirrels, but that wouldn't make it notable. I (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't hand me that crap. I didn't say anything about notablity this time. I was talking about the independence of a source. Fans of The Simpsons were able to improve the articles because they had an opportunity, which is being taken away now. Fansites should be considered vaild sources. Before you decide whether an episode article is valid or not, you should get your facts straight about which episode is which. ----DanTD (talk)

A fansite, whether or not you believe it is independant, does not grant something notability, which is the criteria for inclusion that these articles fail. And most of the Simpsons episodes have enough real world information (all of the ones in season 8 are GA or Featured) to show that there is a great possibility that there will be more. None of this have it. Show some sources that indicate improvement is possible, otherwise there is no reason to suspect it it. I (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I honestly think that if a little bit of effort was put in, the episodes of Daria there are currently articles for, (and ones there aren't) could be created and could become what alot perceive as "notable", along with "real world references" included in the article. Alot of the episode titles of Daria are puns on movies and TV show titles, so these titles could be determined and put under appropriate headings and such, along with other gathered information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, after all? To provide free encyclopedic information to anyone who wants to read it? We shouldn't look for ways to delete articles, unless they're just terrible, unanimously considered as non-notable and have little to no relevant or simple information in them at all. I think, as I have mentioned, that if effort was put in to improve the quality of these episode articles, they could then be considered worth keeping and notable, and cover information the List of Daria episodes page would be unfit to cover due to general summarisation of what the episode is about, and not in-depth information that such episode pages could actually provide. User:Ss112 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see every Sopranos episode has an article, most would fail WP:EPISODE also most of the Lost episodes fail WP:EPISODE is anybody going to tag them for AfD? RMHED (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you believe that any Sopranos or Lost episode should be redirected or deleted, please feel free to nominate them. Saying that a crappy article should be kept because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• No you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that these Daria episode articles shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying there are much bigger more prominent violators of WP:EPISODE. Strange how nobody goes after them isn't it. RMHED (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Both Lost and The Sopranos have been the subject of critical attention of several orders of magnitude greater than that focused on Daria. It is more likely, although not guaranteed, that episodes of the former two are going to have sourcing that attests to their individual notability. Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• So EVERY episode of Lost and The Sopranos is likely to meet WP:EPISODE? Somehow I doubt it, a few of them might, but that's all. RMHED (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if every episode of those series meets WP:EPISODE. Nor do I care if every episode of those series meets WP:EPISODE, because it is not relevant to this dicussion, which is whether or not these episodes meet WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Daria episodes unless and until episodes satisfy WP:EPISODE. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true I've mentioned the real world information here, but I overlooked the fact that there's also some in the episode College Bored, like the fact that there really is a Manatee College. You people are all saboteurs, plain and simple! ----DanTD (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't real world context. There needs to be information about the development and the reception. Making reference to something real does not determine notability. Jay32183 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That lie has been given by TTN with a Supernatural episode. He deleted it anyway. In any case, you can't tell me that the existance of a real "Manatee College" in College Bored and Daria quoting William Tecumseh Sherman in Boxing Daria isn't "real world context." ----DanTD (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN is 100% correct in assessing episode articles. There needs to be significant coverage beyond plot, that's what real world context means. A show referencing the real world is part of the plot, therefore can't be real world context. We need the real world talking about the episode, not the episode talking about the real world. Jay32183 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all per WP:EPISODE guidelines. I see no need for complete removal of material that can be merged to a 'list of' article. I shall further not that a lack of sources and references is NOT a reason for deletion-- it is a reason to add cleanup tags. Jtrainor (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean up tags are not magical, if there are no sources out there, no sources will be found. It is not the responsibility of those wishing to delete material to demonstrate a lack of sources, but the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources, WP:PROVEIT. A lack of sources is the ultimate reason to delete an article because no amount of effort can ever fix the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all per WP:EPISODE. Will ^(talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blaze's Dimension

Blaze's_Dimension (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete and restart over Very shoddy looking article, in reality shouldn't this article be about the southern island in sonic rush adventure?Wolly da wanderer (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and don't start over - non-notable fictional dimension that according to the character's article is disputed within canon coupled with WP:OR about characters from the dimension whose existence is speculated. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and Otto4711. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A fictional world that by the article's own admission may not exist? Double non-notable! Pagrashtak 14:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayme McLean

Jayme_McLean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

strong/speedy delete - WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM - 20 yr old star with no non-wiki google references? Several related articles that were speedy deleted or are currently under afd include Grasscutters (see User_talk:Dankeat), Grasscutters FC. Found this page due to vandalism to Heat pump. User A1 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced bio. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sad Clown Bad Dub II

Sad Clown Bad Dub II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sad Clown Bad Dub 3

Sad Clown Bad Dub 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sad Clown Bad Dub 4

Sad Clown Bad Dub 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Grave Escape

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

Prod'd a week ago the prod was removed. Nothing to establish notabilty. Article is nothing more then a long plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete only plot summary plus trivia. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PLOT. No evidence of any real-world significance. shoeofdeath (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, but clean up. Davewild (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnational Radical Party

Transnational Radical Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not cite references to back up its assertion of notability or its claims of membership, does not cite official participation in any governing body, provide any verification of 'affiliation' with the United Nations and on the talk page is an allegation that the article is lifted largely intact from the website of the organisation. Problem tags are generally old, no active discussion on the talk page indicating likelihood of revision/improvement. Avruch^Talk 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have just added the information for its ECOSOC status which is legitimate (note that (only) 139 organizations have such a status). Moreover I would advocate keeping this article, the history of Radicalism in Italy is very confusing and this article is necessary to explain the difference between the Radical Party, TRP and the current Italian Radicals. C mon (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a transnational party with elected members in several European parliaments, as well as the continuation of the Italian Radical Party and a non governamental organization. It is strange to delete the article of TRP some days after it succeded in its major goal: the moratorium of capital punishment through the UN Assembly. --Checco (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide citations to either assertion? i.e. evidence that elected MPs list this as their party affilitation, articles by news organizations attributing a resolution in the UNGA to efforts by TRP? Note that the UN can't create a world moratorium and doesn't itself execute criminals (aside from the ICC, potentially), its resolutions in this area are generally non-binding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not binding, but that was the major goal of PRT, which is represented in the Italian government by Minister Emma Bonino and in Parliament by many MPs (there is a list on the TRP website somewhere, including those not from Italy, see for instance this), among which those organized in the Italian Radicals. Maybe you are not aware of the history of the Radical Party in Italy, which was transformed in PRT in 1989. Then Italian Radicals organized themselves in several lists (Lista Pannella, Lista Bonino...) and finally in the Italian Radicals. As the PRT is a transnational party functioning as a NGO, also members of other parties, such as Forza Italia, the Democratic Party, the Greens... --Checco (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is a mess, but this does not mean that PRT does not deserve an article. --Checco (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per C_mon, certainly a notable subject. Refs have been fixed. —Nightstallion 13:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson Z520

Sony Ericsson Z520 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable phone. Wikipedia is not a Sony/Ericsson catalog. An article for this phone will find few substantial secondary references; all that's available are reviews. Mikeblas (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of all currently available commercial products. A model of phone or any other technology which had a significant influence on society would likely have received substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources and would have satisfied WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom--Quek157 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator has changed his stance because the numerous sources and changes made since the initial nomination that clearly establish notability using reliable sources. This is a non-admin closure. spryde | talk 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pig jig

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

Non-notable barbeque, referenced by a non-internet link to an unknown local paper, and a 404-link to a supposed history page. Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non Notable event that is verging on just being an advert. Pedro :  Chat  14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment This Google News archive search is actually pretty promising. Article needs a lot of cleanup, however. JavaTenor (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue with the majority of the results with the archive search are they are pay-to-view articles, and thus, can't be used unless there is an excerpt that can sufficiently cover the article's content. Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is incorrect; all we need for a valid source is the correct publication information for the article. The link is just a convenience to the reader, who may have access to the archive through Lexis-Nexis, a library, or some other similar service (or else we could never cite books, scientific journals, or newspaper articles more than a year old!) JavaTenor (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment ArielGold is mistaken in asserting that newspaper archive items may not be used as referenced if payment is required. They are perfectly valid. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:SOURCES. Scientific journals also require payment to view, and they are the gold standard as references. Edison (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I meant by my statement. I meant that they couldn't be used to verify some of the content. Such as the quotation given by a competitor, or the statement that "everyone knows each other's name", things like that, those statements can't be sourced by the list of archived news results. I apologize if I did not word it carefully enough to convey my intent. I'm fully aware that non-online sources can be used, I use them often myself, I just said the archive list couldn't reference all the content in the article. Ariel♥Gold 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your statement. I agree that the snips viewable free do not verify many of the details. Edison (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment It is not an advert. As far as the sources go, someone removed the sources that were in place when the article was first posted. When my student called me to first look at the page, prior to the deletion request, there were no less than five sources, including both primary (two interviews) and secondary sources. Something reeks here. So, I request that the administrators give the student until this afternoon to repair his article. I ask that you put some kind of restriction on the article and allow only the original poster to make changes.--Folk smith (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • responseThe "references" that were removed were not WP:V or WP:RS. The creator of the article doesn't WP:OWN it, so no to allowing only the creator to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)

The issue is not so much that this is an advertisement, but that it does not appear to be an event that has received widespread coverage, and thus, the information given in the article cannot be verified. Verifiability is one of the core pillars here at Wikipedia. As to the sources, there were no reliable, third party sources given. The sources given upon page creation were: Mitchell, Mike. Personal Interview. 11-15-07; Crane, Billie Ruth. Personal interview. 11-16-07; the invalid URL, and Jimesnes, John. Pig Jig Time. Cordele Dispatch. Retrieved November 15, 2007. As I mentioned in the talk page, personal interviews that have not been documented anywhere are considered original research, and not verifiable. This is why they were removed, because they cannot be confirmed, and they were not reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment Well, I've had my student repost his secondary sources. I hope they are to your liking. I would also like to add that by not including primary sources you are greatly limiting good information about important subjects. As you have noted that you "don't care" who I am or my title, I should remind you that the secondary sources that you covet so much are written by folks like me - if my position as a professional, degreed scholar doesn't matter to you, why should the articles written by my colleagues matter. --Folk smith (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• response I guess that you missed out on the bit that explains about primary and secondary sources too. Mayalld (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This event satisfies WP:N on the basis of substantial coverage in numerous articles in a variety of newspapers over a period of many years, as shown by the Google News archive search referenced above by JavaTenor. Edison (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 2: If we do keep this article, we should unsalt Big Pig Jig and move it there as the correct title. JavaTenor (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response Yes, we should "unsalt" that entry name. That was the name my student originally posted his article under. In regard to primary v/s secondary sources, yes I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies; however, I think that more discussion on this topic is necessary in the future. There are a number of subjects that rely heavily on primary sources and these should not be prohibited based on this. I think you will find that many disciplines are now seeing the benefits of such resources in scholarship. As a folklorist I can tell you that my discipline relies almost entirely on primary sources for much of our research. Just a suggestion to the Wikipedia admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since posting my initial comments, I've been scouring for verifiable sources, and while I cannot verify much of the article, I have verified enough to keep it. It was noted by The Travel Channel as being #6 on the top 10 barbecue competitions in the world. It was covered by The Food Network as one of the top barbecue competitions in the country. These should satisfy notability, the rest will need to be cited with proper sources, especially the quotations given, but I have added 7 reliable sources, and I'd agree that the page should be moved to Big Pig Jig, as that is indeed, the full name (although not the "official" name, which is the "Slosheye Trail Big Pig Jig" ). I hope this is helpful. Ariel♥Gold 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• response I appreciate your help. The student is going to continue developing this entry. As for the quotes, those come from personal interviews. So, unless wikipedia is willing to allow for primary sources, I guess those will have to be removed. Again, thank you. This is a learning experience for my students and myself. However, I take issue with the implications of some of those above who insist on labeling me as someone who did not research the rules and regulations of this site. I assure you that I did. However, I am no wikipedia expert and I would appreciate a bit of understanding in the future. There is no need for a Spanish Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reply The evidence is against you on this. The article as originally written failed on WP:V and [[WP:RS]. Either you were unaware of these policies or you were disingenuous in the discussion that followed. Mayalld (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just enough notability seems to have been established, as per JavaTenor's comment Big Pig Jig needs to be unsalted and the page moved to there. RMHED (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Big Pig Jig, which is the name of the event. This is a notable event, with the above mentioned coverage by various TV and print media. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are now quite a few reliable sources establishing the notability of this event. spryde | talk 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just realized that I hadn't formalized my position on it - given the sources we've been able to find, this event appears to be notable. It's the official Georgia state pork barbecue championship cookoff! ;) I'll start the DRV for Big Pig Jig (or should it be Slosheye Trail Big Pig Jig?) once this AFD completes, if Keep is the result. JavaTenor (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (and move) Now that notability appears to have been verified. --DAJF (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (changed to keep) per the hard work above to establish notability. Good work. Pedro :  Chat  12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability now established Mayalld (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Anti-Americanism. GlassCobra 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yankee go home

Yankee go home (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Transwikied dictionary defenition. Post-transwiki PRODing removed. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect at Yankee. The "Yankee go home" slogan is familiar enough to warrant some kind of coverage, and the picture would also add to that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anti-Americanism 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anti-Americanism per 132, or to something similar, but not to Yankee. Yankee can mean an American (outside of America), or a Northerner (in the South), or a New Englander (in the North) or a rural resident of New England (in New England). And sometimes it refers to a baseball player. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make a mountain out of a molehill

Make a mountain out of a molehill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Transwikied dictionary defenition. Post-transwiki PRODing removed. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep:This article is short now, but there is always room for expansion. That is what Wikipedia's stub concept is all about. There is plenty of information that can be added in the future, and it does not have to be added today. This article is in a category called "English idoims," which has many similar articles. Hellno2 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. We have quite a few articles on similar phrases at Category:English idioms, and this is likely as subject to expansion as the ones we have articles on already. I am curious now as to where this phrase comes from. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems perfectly reasonable to me, useful information. RMHED (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have created similar style articles on English idioms. After similar concerns were addressed (but without a proposal for deletion), I managed to expand them by adding sections on origin, examples, popular culture, and more. I may be able to do the same for this article through research, should it be kept. As Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön suggested, it would be a good idea to write about the origin. I am curious too. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: This article has already had something added to it since I last checked yesterday Hellno2 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES as a notable idiom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutaling

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

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. These is no need for an article on every unit type, nor how to use them. Improbcat (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: A strategy for Starcraft. Delete per nom. Burzmali (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per nom Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagrashtak 13:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. A1octopus (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as leftovers from AfD about the artist. Also deleting A Walk in the Park (Jordan) and A Walk In The Park (Jordan), a redirect. GlassCobra 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Young for a Girlfriend

Too Young for a Girlfriend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. No sources given. Unable to find any reliable sources. Also see Tom_Jordan_(singer) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I forgot to suggest this and the album be added to the original AFD yesterday. Delete as non-notable single from currently non-notable artist. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Young for a Girlfriend. GlassCobra 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Walk in the Park (Jordan)

A Walk in the Park (Jordan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. No sources given. Unable to find any reliable sources. Also see Tom_Jordan_(singer) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete since author of work is also not notable at present. A1octopus (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and the Jordan AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kid's club house

Kid's club house (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is very little content and a notability tag has been in place since about August. Brollachan (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete; non-notable band with no releases at all, much less on a notable label. GlassCobra 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uglor

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

Procedural nom, fixing malformed AFD from User:Sukiari. No vote. shoy (^words _words) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable band, record never released... JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete How many billions of bands have 'almost' released an album? Sukiari (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacrosse Deathball

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

Appears to be one author who deleted a proposed deletion [17], and previously a notable tag [18], without comment. This article is not verifiable. The game looks fun, but I suspect that this article is a hoax. and should be deleted as it is not encyclopedic. Mitico (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:NFT in spades. --Pak21 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Absolutely nothing to reflect notability. Xymmax (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like nonsense. RMHED (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Don't think it's a hoax, but I doubt it's played by anyone but the author and his friends. No mention of any notability outside of Pleasanton Amaryllis25 ^{"Talk to me"} 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No references, no verifiable claim to notability. Delete per policies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and this article falls into that category. Useight (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I thought lacrosse could be described as "deathball" without any fancy rules... Delete, WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Pescetarianism. GlassCobra 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pesci-vegetarianism

Pesci-vegetarianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Based on the 8 ghits, it seems that this definition can't be expanded into a verifiable article. MER-C 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Pescetarianism. --DAJF (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems unlikely to be useful as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pescetarianism. It nips the neologism in the caviar(; Serioulsy, it would actually be useful to the people that type just that and get to the article that is about what they want to know. Note from the lede of "pescetarianism": Terms like pescevegetarianism[1] and pesco-vegetarianism are sometimes used to describe pescetarianism, to emphasize that most pescetarians eat vegetables in addition to seafood...--victor falk (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Victor Falk. Looking at this term and I wonder if it's some offshot of vegism based on some obscure belief of Joe Pesci. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niagara Falls Cyclones

Niagara Falls Cyclones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable article on a non-notable baseball team. 5 ghits. TLDR also applies to this extensive diary of events. MER-C 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Caknuck (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Currently unsourced; no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Xoloz (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. There's no violation at all, so I am closing this nomination. About the nominator, I assume good faith, he looks like a novice here. --Angelo (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor (US TV series)

Survivor (US TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete GFDL violation from Survivor (TV series).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

--As3x (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly speedily: I don't see what the GFDL violation is here, and we can fix up copy-and-paste problems if necessary. Not a reason for deletion. --Pak21 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, apart from the delete claim having no basis this account existed for ten minutes before making this which seems well... odd. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand the violation that is being cited at all; perhaps As3x can elaborate? Xymmax (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, I split off text from Survivor (TV series) to this to address WP:SIZE issues, and I've seen most of what's been added to that and this page, and I really don't understand where there's even a GFDL violation, or where even such information would have already been found in GDFL. --MASEM 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is that, given only the Survivor (US TV series) page, how am I supposed to find out who the major authors were, as is required by the GFDL? --Pak21 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Looks like a bad faith nomination I'm afraid to say. Pedro :  Chat  14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Where is the violation? KnightLago (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep violation not clarified. Bad faith nom Doc Strange (talk)