Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 21

< November 20	November 22 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmål

This is complete gibberish, obviously incompletely translated by machine from the Swedish Wikipedia article "Dalmål"[1]. A specialized subject like this requires somebody to translate it manually who knows both languages and understands the linguistic terminology. There is no reason to keep this around until a proper translation is made. (There are other issues with the "edits" of the creator of the page. With contributions such as this or this, I am surprised he isn't banned already.) Olaus (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The English name for this dialect is Dalecarlian [2] and we should probably have a stub. But this is such a mangled partial translation it's worse than useless. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the redirect from Dalecarlian to Elfdalian. Elfdalian is a peculiar dialect spoken in Älvdalen, which is one, peripheral part of Dalecarlia, but there are other varieties of Dalecarlian. Olaus (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per both Olaus and Dhartung. Good work Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Create article on subject matter! ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or replace with a stub, if that can be done by someone who knows something about the subject (I certainly don't).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep and move to dalecarlian, notify translation desk Dalecarlian and Elfsdalian are rather separate dialects. I've been working on Claude François de Malet, that also was an article from French wiki that also was machine translated [3]. Bad translation from another wiki isn't a reason to delete but for tagging it {{copyedit}}. Consider that machines are increasingly getting better, and very soon they'll provide quite adequate translations --victor falk 09:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that the nominator's point is that it would be better to delete (or stubify) this poor effort unless there is someone who takes an interest in an article and has the skill to translate it accurately. I've buffed up machine translations of Spanish and Italian articles on subjects that I'm somwehat familiar with. Not only is the structure of Swedish more different froM English than French, the subject (linguistics) is specialized enough that most of us wouldn't know if we were doing the job correctly. I applaud you for translating the article on Malet, but there's no comparison. Even without a machine or knowledge of French, most of us can guess the meaning of: "Claude François de Malet, né à Dole (Jura) le 28 juin 1754 et mort le 29 octobre 1812, est un général d’Empire, auteur du coup d'État de 1812 contre Napoléon, durant la retraite de Russie." As far as a "translation desk", isn't that all of us? Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're perfectly right. Both about there are many more and better anglofrench than angloswedish machine translators and that Dalmål is a tougher challenge than de Malet. Dalmål is an article I might be interested in editing, I speak swedish as well as french and I am interested in linguistics. Though I'm much better at improving translations than making them. For another example, look at France in the American Revolutionary War. It has improved from being badly translated to poorly written from the original fr:Guerre d'indépendance des États-Unis d'Amérique. The first step is to translate the swedish words and clarifying the most abstruse parts. From there, non-swedish-speaking editors can join in. Since I talk the talk, I have to walk the walk[4]. What about involving Elfsdalian and other swedish dialects editors?--victor falk 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, that is what I'm saying. You can't really "copyedit" this mess. Unless you look at the original Swedish text, you won't even have any idea what this page is trying to say. It needs to be translated from the original from scratch (or, even better, rewritten from more up-to-date sources - this is originally from Nordisk familjebok, a valuable but often rather out-of-date Swedish encyclopaedia from the early 20th century). Why would you (Victor) want to give the credit for creating a page to someone who appears to be a habitual Wikipedia vandal, rather than to whoever actually makes the effort to write a proper article? Olaus (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think one can, see my comment above. As for its origin, I'd like to point that many articles are from Britannica 1911; some are little more than machine-translated and copypasted. This article is at a more advanced state than that, it has been wikified to some degree, categorised, it is sourced, and parts of it have been translated to wikipedia standard English. Whoever created this article is irrelevant, it is no longer theirs. Even if they've made thousands of vandal edits and only one legitimate contribution. Problems with vandals should be taken up at ANI or elsewhere, AfD is no place for requesting punishments against vandals. --victor falk 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of doing it this way, but if you are prepared to massage this text into something useful, I am not going to insist on it being deleted. The important point is just that it shouldn't be left in its current state. As for the vandal issue, he seems to have been warned already and has had other aspects of his edits questioned (judging from his talk page), so I don't think there is anything more I can do. Olaus (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And before anyone says, "It's not my job", yes, you're right, nobody is under any obligation to make this article readable. I don't think that Victor, or anyone else, actually has the time or the desire to make this article work, and that Olaus is 100% right that it's of no use in its current state. It's written in a bizarre Swenglish (Anglo-Svenskon?) pidgin that nobody understands. Maybe we can leave a stub that says, "And if you know Swedish, click here for more" Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The author of the page has now moved the entire content, except the deletion box, to Dalecarlian language. He has also posted Norrlandic language in Swedish. (It is a copy of Norrländska mål on the Swedish Wikipedia. At least, it is in Swedish rather than Swinglish, but I don't see why it needs to be here to be the basis for a translation when it is already available there.) Olaus (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A user had removed the AfD box on the page. -Yupik (talk) 20:08, 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 to Lobo (DC Comics). Spellcast (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bludhound

Extremely minor character, made only one appearance. Fails test for notability Konczewski (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. Searching for 'lobo' and 'bludhound' does return some coverage but nothing substantial.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 10:03, 22 November 2007 ( seriesUTC)
Delete as fails WP:FICT. It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a comic may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character from the comic. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Lobo. Appreciate the concerns above, but feel that a redirection works better for all, as a potential search term as well as preserving history per the GFDL and encouraging participation in Wikipedia. Failing WP:FICT is somewhat meaningless, as the guideline is not a test articles have to take in order to stay, or that being deleted is the punishment for not meeting rough standards. Hiding Talk 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Maire

Very minor character that hasn't appeared in prin in nearly 70 years. At best, this should be redirected to a list of minor characters. Fails notability test Konczewski (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There appears to be a painter of the same name by a Google search, who might be notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Deleted articles are not necessarily "salted", so an article on the painter could be created afterwards, if sources allow. If any user doesn't want to wait, build the page in your sandbox. Either move the article when it's ready or when the current one is deleted, whichever comes second. Jay32183 (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:FICT. It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a comic may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character from the comic. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:FICT. jj137 (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - merge if the merged list is notable. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ScreamingMonkey

Does this article meet our notability requirements? MoRsE (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or put something useful in it. As is, it is a waste of space. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - non-notable, could be a speedy at a push, but not sure which one it'd fit.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as fails WP:SPAM.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:39, 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. Spellcast (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Performance 3000

Motor tuning company written up by Performance-Dave. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Response by Performance-Dave:

I feel that our achievements are highly notable in the UK tuning market, while this is obviously not of interest to some or even a lot of people, our achievements are significant in the context of the area we specialise in. Therefore I don't believe that it is any less or more so notable than any other subject. There are plenty of topics and articles on Wikipedia that are of little or no interest to me and a lot of others but this does not make them any less notable or significant. We are featured in specialist car modifying and enthusiast magazines on a regular basis and are a media favourite within the field because of the unusual and sometimes pioneering work we carry out, this alone demonstrates that we are notable within the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Performance-Dave (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:CORP. WP:NN, WP:COI, has no WP:RS. WP:SPAM? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:36, 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. Spellcast (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic Layout Planning

WP:NOT#HOWTO. ELIMINATORJR 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as Wikipedia in not a how-to guide. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete but can be salvaged into a merge and redirect Deletable per WP is not a how to guide. However, if there is effort, the article can be salvaged. Certainly a lot of work has been put into it. Suggestions for salvage include an article of design processes and how SLP fits in or differs. Another salvage strategy is merging it into the article of Richard Muther (the creator) and summarising it further. I have insufficient technical background to do the former but may be able to help with the latter. If decided this way, leave a note on my user talk page as something to do. Archtransit (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Taemyr (talk) 13:40, 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 with some Salt --JForget 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tablexchange

Non-notable website written up by an spa therefore probably spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete-Purely promotional advertising.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider salting - been deleted five times already.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per above -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant copyvio and spam. Mushroom (Talk) 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essex Agricultural & Technical High School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Essex Agricultural & Technical High School

Copyvio of http://www.agtech.org, or spam for them. This article has at least twice before been trimmed down from a copy of http://www.agtech.org to a stub-and-external-pointer, and afterwards the copy came back. If the school wrote both http://www.agtech.org and this article, there is suspicion of spamming. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep-Rewrite article to tone down the sales pitch.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Copyvio, and uses a disgusting, advert-like tone (sentences beginning with "our") in the description - get this off of Wikipedia as quickly as possible and write a stub in its place if necessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I trimmed this article twice before to a stub-and-ext-link, and each time someone restored it to the full text. I have left messages in User talk:Patman1126 and User talk:65.96.159.39 about this. (I suppose that if both of them are members of the school's staff, then it may not be a copyvio, but it is still advertizing.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:36, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. TTN (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank West (Dead Rising)

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete; no need to have separate articles on each character, and if another article is needed then they should be all on one page, like with Characters of Kingdom Hearts and Organization XIII. The main article handles things sufficiently enough for now. And it's unsourced (the end bit is false I believe) and basically reiterates the plot, which is a big no-no for WP:FICT.Keep, my mistake in not Googling his name. The article as it is now shouldn't be up for deletion. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kybldmstr. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete as per all of the above. This article is currently covered in the main article Greg Jones II 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. No real-world context. Eusebeus (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Copied over to StrategyWiki:Dead Rising/Characters. -- Prod-You (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - This is a notable character, he is the main protagonist of a best selling critically acclaimed game link. Plus, he has become quite big in popular culture garnering 40,300 hits on Google link. Smile Lee (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as it concerns a notable character from a notable game for a notable system for which verifiable information clearly exists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This is a bad faith nom by TTN and unsuprisingly, his pals have shown up. He's the subject of an arbcom case related to his drive by redirecting, utter incivility and edit warring over such activity. He only nominated this article for deletion when I noticed he had redirested this article against consensus. He has not followed any of the steps on the main AfD page that should be taken prior to nominating the article for deletion so this nomination is out of order. AfD states: "Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content." Has he made any effort to request this article improved prior to deletion? Is there any discussion of his redirect that he's taken part of on the discussion page for the article? Of course not. This should be closed due to his attempt to WP:GAME the system. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- No sources is a problem that cannot be fixed by any amount of effort or tagging. TTN has done nothing wrong, as deletion is the only real option. It is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  - The amazing bad faith of TTN and his improper conduct throughout wikipedia has caused him to come up against an Arbcom panel and this cannot be denied away so easily. Circumventing the proper procedures IS a problem and one which I've noted in my original statement here, and you seem to have, conveniently, disregarded. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Looking at your own history, do you EVER vote keep? Seriously. Do you contribute to this encyclopedia or simply take part in deletions? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Note I've done some searching and have added more out of universe material to this article. I'm still hunting for more. Perhaps this will help overcome some of the deletionist arguments that it lacks out of universe material. I'm also strongly considering removing the huge chunk of "plot" detail from the center of the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    - The process was followed perfectly, and even if it weren't a perceived procedural error does not negate some one's point. "There are no sources, delete" is not a deletionist argument. If you actually read and understand policy and guideline then it is impossible for you to be either an inclusionist or a deletionist. In fact, those terms are very insulting when said to people who based their arguments on policies and guidelines. The deletion argument here is based on WP:PLOT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:N, WP:V (especially the WP:PROVEIT section), WP:RS, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. Deletionists make arguments like I don't like it or I've never heard of it, which aren't acceptable arguments at an AFD. Generally, I don't argue for keeping articles because well sourced articles almost never get nominated. If some one were to bring a article that actually showed significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic, I would be in favor of keeping that. Jay32183 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Then based on the sources that I've included today, will you change your "vote?" I've provided multiple independant sources which cover this character from multiple points. Thanks and I look forward to seeing your contributions to the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ (!vote changed below) Why the accusaions of bad faith? The nom has brought up a valid point and was reverted when he tried to redirect, so afd is a perfectly logical next step. This article doesn't even claim notability, let alone prove it, and if anyone really believes it's notable per Wikipedia's definition of the word, they need to prove that it's true rather than just insist that it's true. Miremare 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The bad faith accusations stem from the way the nominator deals with challenges to his one man drive by redirect crusade. If you want more information on this, please see the associated ArbCom case which is in progress dealing with the behavior and reaction to it by others. [5] In this case, his bold redirect was challenged and rather than trying to discuss this on the talk page, he decided to jump past all the guidelines on the afd page and decided to try to get the article deleted rather than work with others since the consensus on the discussion page was strongly against him and he felt this would be a more sympathetic outlet. See this link where one of the parties in the arbcom has provided evidence of him saying precisely that: [6] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Possibly TTN could stand to engage in a bit more discussion, but I don't believe (in the case of this article's nomination at least) that there's been any breech in procedure. You suggest using the cleanup, disputed, or other tags prior to afd, but it really comes down to what the editor in question believes it is possible to achieve with each individual article. If he believes a clean up or whatever other process wouldn't address his concerns, there would be little point in doing it. This would appear to be the case, or at least applicable, here. Miremare 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Since I've added real world context in an attempt to establish the notability you sought, I'd ask you to read over the article and consider changing your vote. I'll try to add to this, but I've limitted time since its a holiday weekend and all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as he is the main character of the game (which is quite popular) and there is in fact real-world context in the article about the creation of the character. If there is "no assertion for improvement", then the right way to fix that is to put a tag on the article. — brighterorange (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For the real world information to establish notability, it must be impossible to cover it in the main article. It looks like it'll fit in with the main article's development section just fine. TTN (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the hell you came up with that but it certainly shows you do not understand FICT at all. There is no such condition that it must be "impossible to cover" in the main article. "Impossible to cover in the main article", technically we'd have no character articles if we ignored stylistic and length concerns and just added huge blocks of text related to characters in the mai article, but this would make those articles unwieldy, unmanageable and unreadable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem here is really the lack of significant coverage in independent sources. For example the whole character development section is based on a couple of lines in an interview. Miremare 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, and? Its a quote from the bloody designer of the game on an notable independent site. It establishes that the character was noted by an independent source. I've added material where this character was the subject of a piece on MTV, was discussed in relation to the gay lifestyle on a LGBT focused news source, and now on IGN. The question that the character is noted by news sources is closed, he has been. This has always been a question of clean up not deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is, a quote from the designer of the game justifies the character design section, but doesn't provide notability. I don't know how much coverage the character receives in the MTV source, as it's viewable only in the US for apparent copyright reasons, but the innewsweekly.com and ign.com sources don't give him any more coverage than game reviews ever give the main character, and the gamespy interview never even actually mentions Frank by name. I think the info in the article would be better suited to a section on Frank in the Dead Rising article. Miremare 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"The main character". Sure it doesn't have his name, but there is only one main character, one protagonist. I'd love to be able to translate interviews with him from the Japanese, but that's not a skill I have... and without that I'm doing the best I can. The character receives significant coverage. It does not need to be exclusive coverage. The MTV.com segment certainly is all about Frank tho. :P Its too bad you can't see it, its mirrored on the gaygamer.net site so if you want to find it.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's referring to him as "the main character", I'm just questioning the significance of the character's coverage in an article that doesn't mention the character's name. Got a link for the mirror of that video? Miremare 18:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[7] Keep in mind, Dead Rising is terribly tongue in cheek and this video is very much in the same spirit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that one's all about him then. This is a close run thing, and I'm not really very sure, but I'm going to change to neutral verging on keep. Searching through the Google results reveals that while there are few reliable sources actually concentrating on him as the major theme, various reviews do seem to dwell rather more on him than the average game character. I suppose it all comes down to interpretation of significant coverage, and it's too close to call for me. IMO this uncertainty defaults to keeping the article and that, coupled with the sources previously mentioned, is the reason for my change of heart. I'd really like to see the article's referencing expanded as much as possible though. Miremare 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. :P I also snagged another dealing with his "clothes". Oh Capcom, why do you make such hilarious games! And thanks for changing your vote. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Information If you look at the history (linked above), you will see that TTN has taken the bold move of removing a reputable source from the article this morning. One wonders what his goal was? MTV.com is no joke, sorry. Comment He's done it again. If he removes it again, I will not revert, however I'd like everyone to note that he is removing content describing the character design, the motivations of the character design team and other real world perspective from an article he's claimed is lacking in such. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge content back to Dead Rising. The character development info can be added to that article's dev section; reception re: character can be added to reviews (though I don't think they strongly support the character). However, standalone, even if missing this MTV source, that's still not enough to support this article alone. --MASEM 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - there are enough sources for a well written and verifiable character article, with real-world context. User:Krator (t c) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw - This has stalled, so there is no reason to continue with it. TTN (talk) 01:49, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-County Scholastic Hockey League

Per WP:Notability (people) a player is notable if they played professionally or at the highest level of amateur competition. And it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are numerous precidents for highschool leagues to be deleted. Djsasso (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Fails to meet notbility requirements. At best this information would be a small paragraph on the state / county education article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and above. High school sports leagues are non-notable, and there are no reliable sources about the leagues; any references are nothing more than game summaries of teams playing in them, in local newspapers. RGTraynor 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found and added to satisfy WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: agree with all of the above. Couldn't find any suitable secondary sources. -- JD554 (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability policy - Non-notable league -Pparazorback (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question Not my subject really, but how is the guideline about notability of players relevant here? There are many cases where the individual members of a group are not separately notable, but the group is. This sort of thing in general in school-related articles seems a good place for summary articles.DGG (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just trying to show that the articles wouldn't have inherited notability from the players who play in it. It needs more than just the players to make it notable. The more important one is the organizations and companies guideline. --Djsasso (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:17, 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suburban High School Hockey League

Non-notable high school hockey league. Fails notablity guidlines Kaiser matias (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for oganizations. The players in them are not yet notable either. --Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. JJL (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, would incline for speedy. Non notable hockey league. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found and added to satisfy WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with Dennis The Tiger. An A7 Speedy for non-notable articles would be much quicker than having to have an AfD. You can always go for an AfD is a speedy fails, but you can't go for a speedy after an AfD. -- JD554 (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability policy - Non-notable league -Pparazorback (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:37, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Washington High School Hockey League

Non-notable league. As stated on page, not affiliated with Washington high schools. Google search only shows article page Kaiser matias (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if it was affiliated with the highschools we delete high school hockey leagues on a regular basis. --Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per policy. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that athletes are notable only if they have played in a "fully professional league" or the "highest level of amateur sports", neither of which would be applicable to any player in this league. As for the league itself, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states that it would be notable only if "it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources", and that has not been demonstrated in this article. Andrwsc (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Fails to meet notability requirements. Flibirigit (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable league, and according to the article, ice hockey isn't even a generally sanctioned sport in Washington state. Unreferenced, and beyond a few agates of type in local newspapers, there would be no reliable sources about the league. Ample precedent holds that high school sports leagues of any sort are non-notable. RGTraynor 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found and added -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability policy - Non-notable league -Pparazorback (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If you do delete this article, please continue to delete the articles on high school hockey in every other state. SJHAGoalie (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That would be the idea. Feel free to nominate any others you see. RGTraynor 13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:42, 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. John254 02:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultzama valley

The article has only had relevant content created by 1 person. The article has no sources. The article is written more like a tour guide than a geographic article Stewy⁵⁷¹⁴ talk 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

...which is more a reason for a rewrite than a deletion, no? Keep. Real place, real community of interest, real Wikipedia precedents, etc. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Grutness is correct. The problems with the article is style and tone, not notability. Real place and major geographical location. --Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep- Agree with above. Article needs complete rework but is very valid. Someone take a stab at this one! ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per everyone else, although sources really are required.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant keep The article doesn't meet deletion criteria [[8]]. Geographical articles are usually given much leeway as geographical sites are considered notable, even if only small towns. WP policy is to improve by editing, not delete. This is an article that needs to be rewritten. I will try to help or contact those who can help. Archtransit (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:03, 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. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members

Completely unsourced, non-notable, useless and fancrufty. I personally can't see any value in the list at all; there are full cast lists for every episode and the total cast list has no merit to anyone. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. By contrast a list of YM and YPM characters would be of some use, although there are only a few recurring ones who don't have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete-Liked the shows but this list must go. Nice work though.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundant list.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Yes, Minister. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a pointless unstructured list. The principal actors are named in the main article and other actors where relevant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 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. — Scientizzle 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothic

Monster lacks real world notability, cannot be cited with secondary reliable sources independent of the subject, no real world context can be established Pilotbob (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as stub has no primary or secondary sources. Dungeons & Dragons articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:15, 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 as inappropriate content fork per consensus. Jreferee t/c 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism: Allies

This article was created by a user trying to justify his revert war on another page. It is pure POV, factually incorrect and unsourced. The only references (that don't even show up) are to other Wikipedia articles that don't even assert what Top Gun is trying to assert in this article. Most of the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" do not acknowledge the fact and Top Gun is trying to POV-push his way into making it seem that the whole world is supporting the American campaign. In any case Verifiability not truth says it all and this article is not verifiable. Sir Anon (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my vote to delete this page, please refer to the Move proposal by Victor falk below--Sir Anon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
KEEP I do not see what's the problem here, all of the things stated in the article are true. I never said the whole world supports the campaign, only those who fight al-Qaeda and it's allies. Also all of the things stated in the article have been checked and sourced, they are linked to other wikipedia articles that support this one, also you should read the War on Terrorism article as well, it is all stated there. You say it is factually incorrect then the whole War on Terrorism up until now for the last 6 years should be factually incorrect. I didn't start any revert war, I have given up trying to explain to you Sir Anon the core of what WoT is about because you obviously can not understand it. I stoped reverting your removal of the list of allies from the WoT infobox. But you yourself wanted a source for the list of WoT Allies so I gave it to you, just did what you wanted. According to you we can not use other SOURCED Wikipedia articles as a source here. Why? Do you think that Wikipedia is totaly factually incorrect. The USA president himself has stated Lebanon is a front in the war on Terror, as well as Somalia, the Phillipines, etc. Don't even try to say Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are not participients in this war. You said the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" do not acknowledge the fact, well excuse me then what is the "coalition of the willing" or the NATO (ISAF) force. Verifiability you say? Where is the verifiability in what you say? The truth? You should firstly have to know what the truth is about WoT before you make such statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk • contribs)
- "the whole War on Terrorism up until now for the last 6 years should be factually incorrect" that's right
- "According to you we can not use other SOURCED Wikipedia articles as a source here" that's right, we can only use reliable sources and Wikipedia is very much unreliable.
- "Where is the verifiability in what you say?" I am not putting material into an article, you are. Please have a look at the following, this is official policy of Wikipedia and applies to all articles: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed".--Sir Anon (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, OR and POV. Punkmorten (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, OR, POV, non-V. It duplicates information in the War on Terrorism article yet adds in un-cited OR. And, judging by comments made above by TopGun (I presume), the main architect of the article appears not to understand WP:V. AJKGORDON «» 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete pure POV, war on terrorism is a POV term. Who decides what a terrorist organization is? The US President? that <BLP attack redacted>, don't make me laugh. RMHED (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NOR --Strothra (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete it then Delete it again just to be sure. Overly subjective, don't just buy the party line ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as content fork.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary and out of context. Countries involved in terrorist related operations should be detailed on that relevant article. A list completely removes context, which is so important in this complex issue. Chwyatt (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - completely unfounded research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 11:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - because there wasn't previous discussion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true. But this is really only an extension of discussions on the Talk:War on Terrorism page around the inclusion of a list of combatants. I don't believe that editors would want to have a facsimile of the same argument! We could C&P the relevant bits to the Talk:War on Terrorism: Allies page however... AJKGORDON «» 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

scroll down. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now It's hard to see how a list of blue-links is POV. I'm more concerned with the inclusion criteria since the WOT is only loosely defined, and what would be a RS for this. But since these issues have not been discussed on the talk page, an AfD discussion is premature without some basis for deciding. The first discussion of this should not be occurring here. I'm not opposed to deleting this later if it is supported by talk page discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is a discussion right here, we have a week or so to discuss it here. I don't see why it should be discussed on the talk page instead, especially since this article was created by one editor to justify his revert war (for which he is currently blocked).--Sir Anon (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. What do say about my vote?--victor falk 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants, having such a one-sided list is rather wp:undue and wp:npov. The GWOT is a complex and much controversial subject, both as a war(s) and as a concept. With War on Terrorism:Combatants, one would know who fights who where and why.--victor falk 19:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think this could be a good idea, clearly the countries that are currently listed as allies do not support USA on all their campaigns, yet your proposal would allow this information to be presented in a more unbiased manner. I would support the Move.--Sir Anon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Even combatant is a debatable concept. Some people say nations involved in ISAF in northern Afghanistan, not heavily engaged against the Taliban/al-Qaeda, are not combatants. If they are not fighting, they are not combatants. Others might say that military forces in a state in conflict are combatants. Again, a list has no context. And imo, a more vague list has even less value. Chwyatt (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Changing vote to Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants. Seems fair enough. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also changing vote to Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants.(Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as violating WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:POV. Not sure how changing the name changes the violations per WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If this article were to be moved and renamed as suggested above, the suggested title of "War on Terrorism: Combatants" doesn't follow style guidelines. A more appropriate title would be something along the lines of List of countries involved in the War on Terrorism. With that said, is such a list that useful? Most of the information here seems to duplicate what's already listed in either War on Terrorism or the content in more specific articles on individual theaters of operation. I don't entirely agree that this article violates POV - it's just a list, although the intro sentence needs a change - and if the duplicate information drawn out of the above-mentioned articles is the same, WP:V and WP:OR aren't deletion-worthy concerns to me either (so long as those articles are free from error). In any case, I have yet to see (in this AfD) much toward specific examples of POV, OR, RS, and so on. If it's to exist as just a supplemental list, keep it and cut out any loaded statements. If it's trying to fork off as a new article, which I don't see a need for, delete it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - moving the article to a new title does not rectify any of the policy breaches as stated by Bearian. There is no inclusion criteria (the country says they are fighting terrorism? The US says so?, NATO says so?, the UN says so?). There are some curious omissions - I would include the UK for its struggle against terrorism in The Troubles, for example. Moreover, some participants are regarded by their opponents as terrorists and by their allies as freedom fighters. Inclusion in this list/exclusion from it is highly POV. TerriersFan (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blazing Ptarmigans

Looks like a decent article, so I didn't prod it. I'm having trouble seeing the notability here, and it would fail WP:SPORTS, which is the closest thing we have to notability guideline on sports teams like this one. Montchav 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - per nom, it does look like a decent article. I just say we keep and cleanup. jj137 (Talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The primary claim to notability seems to be the third-place finish in the 2005 USA Broomball championship, but I can't seem to verify that claim; USA Broomball doesn't have full tournament results for 2005 on its website and only lists the champion and runner-up. Google searching also doesn't yield any reliable third-party sources that have written about the Ptarmigans; most of the search results are for directories of broomball teams. GJ (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. henrik•talk 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Llamatron

This game is not very important for an encylcopedia, so please delete it. - Drafting Steve

Keep. A reasonably famous game; Jeff Minter is a notable game designer and all that, and being a commercially released game, it's probably covered in several game magazines of the era, so I don't think this gets glitched on verifiability. I'd like to hear some more elaboration on why this game isn't "very important for an encyclopaedia". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep nominator has put forward no reason for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The nominator put forward "non-notability", just no phrased as such. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable company, notable writer, notable game. Added a few links to the article, but there is tons of material. Probably needs a bit of a rewrite though. ELIMINATORJR 23:44, 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 keep without a strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human search engine

Disputed PROD. Original concern was

"Human search engine" is a neologism that lacks justification. ChaCha Search, the only mentioned example that has a WP article, calls itself social search not human search. Jatalla was speedy-deleted and MyShopPal and Search Amigo do not have articles. The mention of so many non-notable web sites in one article raises spam concerns.

There are now claims that this term really is used and a talk-page debate regarding notability vs neologism vs synonym with another topic arose that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep has gotten a lot of press recently due to Jumbo Wales discussing starting such a search engine. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. The term may be in use, but the thing itself does not seem different from Social search. Maybe between the two of them, we can get a decently-cited page describing this "guided search" thing? DMacks (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I would welcome any evidence from reliable sources that this term is in actual use. I originally proposed the deletion of Human Search Engine because an IP editor tried to create a new section over at List of search engines called Human Search Engines, and took it upon himself to move ChaCha Search into that section. If this is a term lacking any industry recognition, then such a change is unwarranted. http://searchamigo.net describe themselves in their marketing materials as a 'human search engine', and I believe this IP was trying to publicize Search Amigo. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Both sides have valid points, but I don't see any harm in keeping it.68.163.110.9 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan73 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC) — Wikifan73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge and redirect to social search. At best this is a subset without independent notability as of this time. --Dhartung | Talk 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep My stance on this is well documented. All you have to do is read the Human Search Engine discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I have heard the term used and seen it in industry articles. I am moving the article so the second and third words are lowercase. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This article does not have any notable keeping. Unless it's rewritten majorly and not wrote like a news site it will be better. If it is kept, it requires major cleanup. Jac _roe^Blank 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I seem to recall alot of press on human searches... IIRC AskJeeves had that feature. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep- It is a very new subject, information is coming up soon. Let us see what is coming up. Randomxa (talk) 14:31, 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 merge and redirect. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mía Colucci

There is plenty of room for this in the main Rebel's Way . Do we really need an article about the show, a list of characters, and then ever character has their own article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete The lack of substance to this article indicates that although it may be of great importance in Argentinian pop culture there may not be much to say about this character that can't be better covered in the articles mentioned by the no nominator.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Rebel's Way. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The rationale given by the nominator seems to me to be a good argument for a merge and redirect, especially since a redirect here would be cheap and harmless. JYolkowski // talk 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marizza Pía Andrade

There is plenty of room for this in the main Rebel's Way . Do we really need an article about the show, a list of characters, and then ever character has their own article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

delte per nom--Nick Y. (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Rebel's Way. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The rationale given by the nominator seems to me to be a good argument for merge and redirect, especially given that such a redirect would be cheap and harmless. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 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 merge and redirect into Rebelde Way.. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rebelde Way characters

There is more then enough room for this in the main Rebel's Way article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

delete this information is pretty much already covered in the main article. Redirects perhaps?--Nick Y. (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Rebel's Way. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:49, 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. User:Chrisabraham did a good job of removing some of the spam / advert material, but the core issue of verification of the subject's notability hasn't been met - references were either from Marlo websites or a furniture-related online magazine. If some reliable sources can be found to verify the subject's notability, this article may be restored. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marlo Furniture

Delete nn company fails WP:CORP, lots of charities listed but no indication how much is given to each - if I give a buck to each of them do I get a page here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I removed all of that information. There was no proof. You were right. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although I prefer small businesses in my own dealings this one is too small to pass notability.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Marlo is not that small. Four super-stores and over 350 employees. "Over one million Washingtonians have purchased their furniture from Marlo Furniture."^[1] Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree that the copy was lame but I have tried to fix it for balance, etc. It was too "SPAMMY" but I have tried to make it more balanced and neutral. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete non notable small business. Chris! _ct 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Marlo has been in DC for over 50-years and has never been bought or gone out of business. It is private and family-owned. Non-notable according to whom? Joe's Diner, maybe, but not Marlo. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I tried to edit the article a heck of a lot because you're right -- it was seriously spammy and all of the words were "marketing" words and so forth. Please consider it again. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep The edits help, and from personal knowledge I know this place is very well-known in the Washington DC metro area, but its notability to the entire English Wikipedia community is questionable at best. I'm inclined to give the article a chance since it's been less than 24 hours since it was created, but it definitely needs sourcing. Xymmax (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment May I please have a stay of deletion through the weekend, please, so that I can bone up on my protocol before you delete it, please? It is a holiday weekend. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment You only need to say "keep" once, otherwise it can look like you're trying to vote more than once. Xymmax (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep As audacious as it sounds, I would suggest that Marlo furniture is a sort of cultural touchstone for generations of ex-Washingtonians who passed through as poor students/interns/non-profit slaves/etc in DC's pre-Ikea days - who have subsequently spread out into the world. Almost everyone of the ex-DC student/intern/slave ilk over 40 that I have met had some sort of Marlo furniture experience (generally of mixed emotions, frankly). In fact, just this week here on Mauritius, I met a French/Danish couple who met while in DC - he studying, she interning. Their Marlo bed collapsed under them in the vigor of their first week of romance. Great story (better than mine, which concerned the customer service department, but they laughed politely anyway). Great shared cultural touchstone of the international ex-DC crowd - and frankly, no less culturally relevant than the "you remember that Scooby-Doo episode..." conversations that 30-something Americans have as cultural-bonding experiences at ex-pat bars around the world every night. Mark (my real name - I don't have a username yet) 13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.192.81.96 (talk)

Keep. I'm a decorative arts historian weighing in. I study the history of objects, including furniture. There are entire organizations and museums devoted today to the study of regional furniture (and other decorative arts) so the argument that it is non-notable because it is regional simply does not stand up when looked at from a historical point of view. It "regionalness" is what will help people to date it in 50 years and may actually make it worth something. There is a Wiki page for Raymour&Flannigan - a regional store in the Northeast that sells very similar products. Seems like the Marlo page should stand for the same reasons. --Soydcw (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I've lived in the DC area for close to 25 years and have seen many old mainstays die off. Marlo is one of the largest and longest run family companies in the nation's 8th largest metropolitan area. This area is also very transient, so maintaining a loyal customer base can be quite difficult. Larger, national chains have not squashed it like some many others. I would hope Wikipedia doesn't become solely a place for megastore entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptrenn (talk • contribs) 04:14, 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 merge summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

[edit] Stalfos

This article is an in universe repetition of the various appearances of this enemy from the various Legend of Zelda games. As such, it is just a duplication of that information with nothing encyclopedic added because of the articles lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence has been provided that it is notable beyond its own universe. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, it has appeared in almost every game in the series Knowitall (talk) 05:20, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dayna delux

Non-notable model, only ref is her own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable model, per nom Chris! _ct 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:43, 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 merge summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

[edit] Poe (The Legend of Zelda)

This article is just an in universe repetition of elements of the character and gameplay sections of various Legend of Zelda game articles. Since this topic has no notability of its own, the article is entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What is this a duplicate of? — brighterorange (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete basically just a large gameguide/plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge no reason not to put it into the Enemies in the Legend of Zelda series article. Knowitall (talk) 04:53, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of Mind (Music Magazine)

Delete no indication that this free magazine is notable WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Brewcrewer (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete. Article has additional edits and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McKinley211 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non notable magazine. The single references from the magazine's own site doesn't indicate notability. Chris! _ct 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please describe "Notable" - as indicated before, more references to follow. See Relix or Filter Magazines...

Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:44, 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 merge summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

[edit] Wizzrobe

This article is just repetition of plot and character elements of various Legend of Zelda game articles. It has no notability on its own, and will not be able to develop into an article of its own. As such, its just duplication in an in-universe way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - I agree with the nominator that it "will not be able to develop into an article of its own" and is not notable outside of the games from which it came, therefore the reasonable thing seems to be to put it (back?) into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series in a much reduced form. A simple deletion looks like it would leave a blank spot in that more comprehensive article. ◄Zahakiel► 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, per above. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete since this all OR and nothing is sourced there will be nothing to merge. Ridernyc (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The original game manuals could be used as a reliable source, as could official Nintendo websites on the game series. Some longstanding fan sites might rise to the level of reliable sources as well. 76.97.163.77 (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Transwikied and Delete moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --Cs california (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge - As per Zahakiel. .:Alex:. 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. - Koweja (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge - As per Zahakiel. Knowitall (talk) 04:51, 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 Moved to user space for creating user, and resulting redirect was speedy deleted G6. Hopefully this can be created per our standards. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Egalitarianism

This article - a defined neologism - is a near exact duplicate of Vegalitarianism, which itself is up in AFD as a neologism at the time of this posting. Opened up separately in another AFD as a result, but I'm open to a speedy if the parent AFD doesn't hold out. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and per re-creation of an article already in an AfD. WP:NEO alll the way. The author of both of these articles has explicitly stated in the Vegalitarianism AfD that he made these words up. Keeper | 76 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was all set to argue, but when you read WP:NEO it really is clear. Off to Wiktionary for this one. Xymmax (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

comment. Um, no. Wiktionary doesn't want unverified, unused, made up words either. Did you see "Stig's" comments in the other AfD? He made them up. See what Wiktionary has to say about it in either of these places. Keeper | 76 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually was referring to the term in this Afd, which does pull hits under Google, and appears to be a term used in discourse in the vegan/animal rights community. "Vegalitarianism" of course, is another matter. Xymmax (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Dennis and Keeper: I did indeed coin 'vegalitarianism' but 'animal egalitarianism' is not a combination of words made by myself, they already exist as you will see if you search. I am attempting to find a suitable title for my article; rather than trying to find reasons to delete it altogether I would be grateful if you could let me find a solution to this issue. I don't expect your help, naturally, because you seem to be opposed to the content of the article, even it it seeks to make the voices of philosophers past and present, who have and are suggesting that the rights of humans and non-human animals be merged, heard by vegans and carnivores alike. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- What gives you the idea that I'm against the content? I don't care about the content to that capacity, and no doubt the concept exists. It is still a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the content of the article, and your suggestion here that I'm somehow against animals is absurd, and borders on incivility. I want Wikipedia to have articles that are of real topics. Not words you made up. Sorry, you won't sway me on this one, it's pretty much cut and dry. Whether I eat turkey tomorrow or Tofurkey is irrelevant to this discussion. Keeper | 76 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, and potentially block this user if they keep intentionally reintroducing neologisms, against consensus. Blocks are preventative, and were designed for just this type of SPA. Mr Which ^??? 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources can be found that this term is in use, and the article is cleaned up. Right now, it reads like an essay, not an encyclopedic article. If the outcome will be deleted, stig might request userfication to work on the article, and move it to mainspace once it is ready. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keeper: Thanks for your reply; please take no offense though -- you have my respect. In your and Dennis' case it was the lack of support and lack of help that made me suppose the motivation for asking for the article to be deleted was more than simply adhering to the policies of Wikipedia. Compounding this impression is the AfD for 'Vegalitarianism;' it contains an abundance of evidence most participating editors are against the ideas expressed in the article. I refer to "hear the screams of the vegetables, and they scream delete as neologism" and "sorry, veggies," et cetera. If there would be any support, I would expect to see some help in re-phrasing the title rather than suggesting the deletion of the article altogether. Further, the article is not about the word but about a well-established concept. Also, I did not make up 'Animal Egalitarianism,' that is an existing combination of words, and I put this article up in a good-willed attempt (I also announced it on the AfD for 'Vegalitarianism') to find an acceptable title for the article should 'Vegalitarianism' turn out not to be suitable. Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk)
- ...ah, now it's clear. Many times, we use humor in an AFD when we feel a bit snarky - it doesn't mean we're against the ideals, though, it means we're just having a fit of silly. It would be hard to explain here, but if you look for a song called "Carrot Juice is Murder", you'll understand the joke. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Stig, I'll reply on your talk page so that this discussion doesn't get to clogged with distractions. Keeper | 76 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Which: please do not think I am trying to evade the policies of Wikipedia; I am, as I told Keeper above, trying to find a suitable title for a legitimate article on non-speciesist egalitarianism that is a non-neologistic term. I had just started on the article when it was labeled for deletion; me, as well as other, more prominent philosophers and writers, will be working on it over time to offer a complete insight on the subject. -- Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete the article clearly violates WP:NEO Chris! _ct 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I suggest stig blanks the page, making it an eligable candidate for G7, and then have it userfied to his page for further work, and possible reintroduction. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 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. east.718 at 02:12, November 27, 2007

[edit] CAOS Calgary Animated Objects Society

Unverifiable article about a non-notable organization. The 55 unique ghits don't help. MER-C 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. There are lots of small organisations and societies out there but they're not all notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Organization, which was incorporated in 2003, has received national coverage for its activities consistently since 2005. The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's most respected national daily newspaper accredited CAOS with putting "Calgary in the pop-culture vanguard" for its International Festival of Animated Objects, the same Globe & Mail article also drew attention to how "Calgary...has become one of the most fertile spots in North America for ground-breaking puppetry" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20050127.PUPPETS27%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Dchris%2Bturner%2Bpuppet&ord=2147520&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true.

CAOS and the festival propel a very active local mask and puppetry tradition into an international arena, all the while bringing international attention to the city of Calgary. Extensive coverage for the organization can be found in FFWD magazine-Calgary's weekly arts & culture publication: "Calgary is a hotbed of original, unorthodox puppet work" (quote from an article written to cover CAOS's festival) http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2005/0120/cover.htm, http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2007/0118/fest3.htm.

The organizations' activities receive consistent attention from CBC Radio http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/features/artscalgary/eccentric.html, CKUA Radio, CTV, and CityTV, CJSW Radio, The Calgary Herald http://www.canada.com/topics/travel/canada/AB/story.html?id=8839e51e-6bf3-45ca-a3db-e513a8fb48b6, Legacy Magazine http://www.legacymagazine.ab.ca/current_issue.html?IK=303&Step=2&Story=3, This Magazine http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2007/11/pullingstrings.php, The Gauntlet http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/10894, Metro News http://www.metronews.ca/uploadedFiles/PDFs/20070706_calgary.pdf, BeatRoute Magazine http://www.metronews.ca/uploadedFiles/PDFs/20070706_calgary.pdf, and numerous community-level publications http://parade.calgarystampede.com/entrants/Winner_Circle_2007.html, http://arusha.org/news/arushaevents, http://www.highperformancerodeo.ca/rodeo_past/2005/caos.html, http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6ukKPLB8Dq4J:www.ramsaycommunity.ab.ca/newsletter/RCA_Newsletter_2007-10_scrn.pdf+xstine+cook+ramsay&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari.

CAOS was recently awarded the "Innovative Business Practices Award" from the Rozsa Foundation for Arts Management, indicating a level of recognition from Calgary's business community. http://calsun.canoe.ca/Showbiz/2007/10/28/pf-4611665.html

It may be possible to merge the article with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Festival_of_Animated_Objects as a way to include the information with another page, instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppet flogger (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per given refs. But put the refs in the article --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC) '
Keep. refs above show it meets WP:ORG. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per Brewcrewer and DoubleBlue. jj137 (Talk) 02:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:44, 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. east.718 at 02:12, November 27, 2007

[edit] UAB Montgomery Internal Medicine Residency Program

Delete not every program of every school in every university is notable and this is no exception - a merge with the university's article would be fine too Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete UAB has 84 residency programs, and "the only internal medicine residency program in Central Alabama" isn't enough for notability--not even if it were the only one in all of Alabama. And, in fact, it isn't even the main medical campus--the main UA internal medicine residency program is in Birmingham--this is a sort of secondary program. quite apart of the lack of notability of this program among internal medicine programs, it would take quite a lot to convince me t hat any individual such program is notable, just as for individual university departments. The UA medical school is certainly notable; perhaps even the branch of the UA medical school in Montgomery might be notable, but not one individual program there. The article is directory-type and public-relations information entirely, and I think I would have called it as speedy-delete for blatant advertising, G11.DGG (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:COI problems are apparent; mostly self-citation.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lack of notability. Tim Ross·^talk 19:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, could be merged/redirected if fixed WP guidelines allow for a company's product to have an article in some cases. Though UAB is not a company, if rewritten, the article could be merged into University of Alabama Montgomery (similar to the parent company). In fact, the history section of the article seems like a good start for a UAM article. Deciding admin should consider creating a new article with the history section of this article and redirect. If so, I am willing to help with writing, just let me know on my user talk page. Archtransit (talk) 22:31, 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 by East718. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otters ASC

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dual Blades

Delete no sources to indicate that this video game is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Sources available on Game Rankings at [9], including [10] GameSpy, [11] IGN and [12] GameSpot. Please, fire up a game review database if you're concerned about a game's notability, if it's on a modern major console then 9 times out of 10 you'll get reliable sources in seconds.Someone another (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above and publisher. User:Krator (t c) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, ~~but in need of cleanup~~. I cleaned it up and removed the copyvio, now it needs expansion. Pagra shtak 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:45, 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 merge summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

[edit] Lizalfos

This article is a regurgitation of the character and gameplay sections of various Legend of Zelda articles, and has no notability to speak of. As such, it is pure duplication and has no potential for any encyclopedic coverage. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge or Transwiki depending on if it qualifies as a "Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:36, 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 merge summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

[edit] Gohma

The article is just a regurgitation of the character and gameplay sections of several Legend of Zelda game articles. Since the creature in question has no notability, the article is just an in-universe duplication of elements of other articles and provides no encyclopedic coverage. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, however do significant cutting. Knowitall (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MONTH

Reason Mr.whiskers (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close The article doesn't exist and this is messing up articles such as this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not fair, it is a good list and a good thing to have. PS3 gamers should fight this with all their might. Anyway if this is deleted someone else will just remake it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.179.47 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close Per Mattythewhite. Inexplicable AfD nom given that no such page exists. And (per note) is causing some linking issues where the MONTH template is used. Guliolopez (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close I removed the AFD message from the Template:MONTH page because it was ruining every article that uses Template:dts2. MONTH is a template, not an article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:03, 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 No Concensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hat

PROD Deletion contested at DRV and restored. But the reasons for the PROD deletion still stand. The only source is the company web-site. So without independant sourcing, there's no evidence that this passed WP:CORP. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Company is notable, it passes the google test with 65,300 ghits. It has citations from credible newspapers, and other sources. --evrik ^(talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. To start, 65,000+ Ghits does not necessarily prove notability. Most of the hits are blogs/directory type hits. I did the same search in News and received significantly fewer hits, not that that in itself necessarily disproves notability, I'll admit. Without reliable sourcing though, I still say delete. The information is probably more suitable for Wikitravel. Keeper | 76 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I found quite a few independent sources with little difficulty, but then again that didn't surprise me since this is definitely iconic, it has a reputation far beyond LA (as an aside,I seem to recall seeing a segment about The Hat on Food Tv or Travel Channel). I think this is just a forgotten stub about a quite famous eatery, hopefully someone will flesh it out a bit.Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Care to share any of these "independent sources" that were so easy to find? I found, also with "little difficulty", a multitude of blog posts, which are not reliable sources but merely opinions. I would be happy to change my position in this discussion with reliable sources. Again, it needs to cite sources that establish notability, not that merely state that it exists, or that so and so likes eating there and thinks its iconic. Keeper | 76 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you please document the policy that syas that blog posts can't be counted as reliable sources, or is this your opinion? --evrik ^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not "policy", but a general summary of how the project views weblogs can be found here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TexasAndroid, I just found that reference and came here to post it, you beat me to it! Keeper | 76 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the note below, there are a number of newspaper articles that can be cited. When I get a chance i will add them in. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

comment, my position of delete is getting weaker (but it's still delete) per additions made to the article by evrik. However, all but the first reference ~~(LA times)~~(sorry, LA Daily News) are not reliable. Chubbypanda: blog for a food critic - by definitioin , opinion. Temple City Chamber of Commerce: reads like a promo, which it is (trust me, my company has been "written up" by a CoC newsletter - it's all adspeak. Not reliable) Campuscircle. Non notable source, mostly paid ads. Manta - business profile, however - it has a wiki portion. I was able to go in and change the business profile with a username. I know nothing about the Hat, but I was able to update info. (don't worry, I didn't save anything). The last two are blogspots. The only ref that's decent is the first (~~LA times~~LA Daily News), but really it isn't much more than a press release with a brief bio of the origins. I like it as a source, but the article still needs more to establish notability. Keeper | 76 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article now appears to be well-sourced, which shows that it is a notable topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which of the blog posts and chamber of commerce advertisements do you believe make this well sourced? Yes, "the Hat" exists, and people like eating there. (Personally, I love pastrami.) However, that doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Still need sources to prove, reliably, that it is worthy of this project, as opposed to Wikitravel or my/you/space/tube. Keeper | 76 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see that since the accusatory (or perhaps just snarky) challenge to show sources, they have been revealed. Granted newspaper sources in this case are either reviews or business items about the chain. Reviews are indeed just opinions...about the food. Reviews also give context to the restaurant beyond how tasty the food is (or isn't). Reviews speak to The Hat being more than just a burger joint, but indeed part of the landscape of LA. I know that in this missionary zeal to delete (or "obliterate") its easy to dismiss reviews, or Ghits as having no weight, but I think thats a mistake (WP in fact allows for editors to think outside of the box). We should try to see the context of 35000 ghits and dozens of reviews, that there might be something there. The fact that the orignal editors did not cite this properly does not mean it can't be done. Jacksinterweb (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Blogs and Flickr as references? No way. Sounds delicious, but fails notability. Jmlk 1 7 04:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Jmlk17! Sounds great but isn't wikiable!---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Jmlk17: {{flickr}} is an external link and not a reference. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Appears notable and sourceable. In general, popular 10-outlet chain restaurants that are expanding aggressively usually turn out to fit notability guidelines - you just have to look for the articles. There's some significant independent coverage from reliable sources somewhere in this list [13] - Orange County Register and a few others have stories about them as opposed to just restaurant reviews.Wikidemo (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete As the article says," locally iconic". That's not enough for notability. small restaurant chain. If LA has a local-interest wikia, that would be the place for this article. DGG (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So then, by that standard we should AfD Carnegie Deli? The article is referenced in Cuisine of California. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to make your case. The Hat may very well be notable, it may not be, that's what we're here to decide. I'm sorry if some of the editors think I'm coming off "snarky", it's truly not my intent. Articles require sources though. Full stop. The proof of notability is its appearance in established, independent, reliable (read: fact-checked) sources. Not blogs, not food critc reviews (they review every restaurant eventually, its called finding work and getting paid to eat your food.) Being reviewde by someone that is paid to go eat at a restaurant doesn't make every restaurant notable beyond Wikitravel entries. We are not here to compare its article to other articles that could just as easily be nominated for AfD and maybe just haven't yet. Keep improving the article, Evrik (and others), its looking much better. But calling another editor's opinions "accustory" (Jacksinterweb), is just, well, accusatory. Keeper | 76 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ... When I said, "So then, by that standard we should AfD Carnegie Deli?" I was posing a rhetorical question in response to DGG's comment, "locally iconic. That's not enough for notability." I don't think that the size of the chain has any impact on notability, and using that as a reason to say it should be deleted is not valid. --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the size of the chain - a long chain of restaurants doesn't make you automatically notable, nor does being a single storefront (mom&pop or otherwise) make you nonnotable. The key is in the sourcing. Thank you for clarifying your rhetorical question (that I obviously took too literally.) Sorry about the "WP:____" spam. I've looked through the sources that have been added recently (I believe mostly by evrik) and hope the trend continues to make this a quality article, if it in fact stays. Keeper | 76 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a few more references, and an image. With more time, I thik the article copuld grow in terms of its history and its relationship to SoCal culture. To red some of the refernces, you may need a subscripiton to a news service. --evrik ^(talk) 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep We have room for "locally iconic" restaurants as long as we have multiple sources to prove that they're iconic. I think the current refs are sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well sourced and is notable in the San Gabriel Valley area. It is the flagship restaurant of a well-known regional franchise. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's a good article for a chain local to millions of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenFrantzDale (talk • contribs) 19:42, 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

[edit] Between the Lines (Xena episode)

Non-notable episode of Xena. The article consists basically nothing more then a short plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Most episodes of Xena are non-notable episodes of Xena. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect anything worthwhile to List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes per WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing to merge that a fan couldn't come up with in 30 seconds. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn; make a single plot summaries page for all eps if desired. JJL (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete but be very careful about merging. This article was created by the sock (now blocked) of a user I blocked for persistent copyvios. This user has been posting Xena material copied from various fan websites. The user does not appear to be a native speaker of English, as his/her few apparently original contributions have been poorly written. Any text posted by this user is likely a copyvio, particularly if it is well written. -- But|seriously|folks 09:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Relevant summary info can be added to the episode list per WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus (talk) 22:50, 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

[edit] Sarah Schwartz

I am not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added links , but they were not independent reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If not, the article sure needs a substantial amount of copyediting to correct the wikilinks, but she isn't even mentioned as part of the staff on the Ain't It Cool News article. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
delete per notability guidelines, meaning, she's not. Keeper | 76 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable and most of the sources cited don't mention her at all, the "ain't that cool news" link for example. AngelOfSadness talk 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'Delete- Wannabe.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Pili cal (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:45, 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. Despite the SPAs, the notability concerns have been addressed with sources. Spellcast (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manuela Darling-Gansser

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present, and also finding more sources, for which see the DRV. Still, delete, given continued notability concerns, and pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per Notability Marlith ^T/C 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unless major improvements in the sourcing of these assertions (where on TV, ISBN #'s for published works, third party bios of her?) show up during this discussion. Keeper | 76 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nix it- post haste.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep See sources added, ISBN # provided as well as other users now contributing to the article.--Birri85 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
DON'T DELETE!she is a celebrity cook in her own country and fast becoming a figure head of the slow food movement. plus she has 2 more books at the publishers to be released this year! please!--Viv G (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
KeepI'm finding it difficult to understand why the article is under question. I'm under the impression that wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia that features and presents relevant information from the masses to the masses. I understand the need to maintain tight screening but Manuela seems to have more than enough supportive material to confirm her credibility.--Greg Devine (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

note to closing admin; the three "keep" votes so far have been added by SPA accounts. The article is improving through these accounts though. Keeper | 76 15:49, 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. Davewild (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids

Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination)

Notability concerns (from speedy/prod tags) + factuality + possible hoax Kwsn (Ni!) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Apparent multitude of external links seems to boil down to just one story. Notability as an "urban myth" not established. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable whether as myth or fact.Xymmax (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable within the field of urban myths. Universal notability is irrelevant as most pop culture artifacts would fail it (EG: All US football stars and teams would fail notability if global notability were had to be proven) - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Non notable and all info could be put on other pages or is already covered by other pages.YVNP (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment This isn't a hoax - at least, this is an actual urban legend. However, the article has been deleted before. Zagalejo^^^ 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Failed for three times. Unreliable (few) sources. Zerokitsune (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete it and hunt down the user who submitted it. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid deletion rationale, please try to take this seriously. - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Strange article. I have no objections to its deletion, the sources aren't great.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep BEKs is modern day folklore which granted not too widely known about at the momment but it IS known and as new people find out about it the more they'll wanna do some research on it therefore deserves a wiki reference just as well as vampires, ghosts, aliens, and other myths and urban legends. Many incident reports have been made and a wiki-reference to where more information and research on these creatures or myths should be accepted. Hoax or not, BEKs have become Folklore if not modern day urban legends. This article dosnt state that any of it is FACT because just like vampires, goblins, ghost, ghouls, and what not its never considered fact.. hence what makes it PARAnormal! Although there have already been many reported incidents about this and there have been alot of people interested in the subject as shown in many forums and websites and should be allowed a spot on wiki for these reports and other people researching to have a place of reference to find all the information they may need - hence what wikipedia is all about. Cybermewtwo (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: my original article has been changed completly pretty much. <_< 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermewtwo (talk • contribs)

Keep, but needs improvement. BEK are a verifiable urban myth that has been doing the rounds on the internet since 1998 and is still going. Its age alone allows it to pass notability and that's not even counting the huge proflegation of reports and sighting, it's only Wikipedia's own regs against using message board posts that prevent literally thousands of reports and discussions being listed here as sources confirming their notability. Frankly, this page is a stub with half a dozen firm citations of this as a notable and existing myth, that's more than half of the full articles on Wikipedia have. Let's be serious, this is a urban myth so it's not going to get coverage in peer reviewed journals, it's nearly 10 years old and is still going so it's got staying power and has a clear place in the public consciousness, and it's covering the myth as a myth and not POV pushing to say that it's about a real creature or creatures so it passes on all accounts. - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. BEKs are internet hoax (since 1998 and internet only? It's 100% hoax). Not forget: this article was delete two times. Lumina Montecarlo (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're argument would only make sense if the entry claimed that they were real, but it clearly states that they are a odern urban myth, and where the first account of the myth came from, and by your own admission the myth has survived nearly 10 years which clearly makes it notable on duration alone. perfectblue (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable and nonsensical. Even those arguing keep admin " granted not too widely known about at the moment" -- that's an admission of non notability if there ever was one, and WP does not exist for the purpose of making non-notable things notable. DGG (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't "admit" that it's non-notable, I say that it is notable based on its age and its spread. How many other urban myths not only survive for 9 year, but also spread widely outside of their original geographic location? That's like saying ET is non-notable because it wasn't a hit in Iceland. - perfectblue (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This article has same problems of former deleted article. Age is not synonymous of quality or notability. Message boards are not reliable sources, anyway. Give us good references. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by quality, but if you read the changes that I've made to the page it makes it abundantly clear that it is dealing with the myth of BEK, not BEK as a reality of science/nature so the fact that there is no tangible evidence of BEK as a real life creature is pretty much irrelevant as this entry isn't about them as a creature, only as an element of a myth. I also have to point out that in the case of an urban myth, age actually is an indicator of notability. A myth isn't like a physical object. It must be perpetuated by popular culture in order to continue to exist and it is this perpetuation in culture that makes it notable. Let me put it this way, the myth began in 1998 and attracted sufficient notability/notoriety that versions of the myth continue to form to this day and it continues to be discussed and debated, too. If the myth formed in 1998 and existed only as a footnote in web-lore today then it wouldn't be notable, but that is not the case as people are still reporting BEK (real or fake) and are still actively discussing the original sighting. This is a clear indicator of its notability.

As for reliability, I'm afraid that you have fallen into a common trap, you've read through WP:RS and have remembered the end but have forgotten the beginning. WP:RS clearly states that a source must be appropriate for the claim being made. In this case, the claim being made is that an urban myth exists, and that the contents are ...... While a message board would not be a sufficient source to say that BEK exist and that X saw one, they are reliable enough to demonstrate that BEK exist as an element of pop-culture. I can't stress this enough, the citations are proof of existence in pop-culture, not proof of facts in history or science. They serve only to show that the myth is verifiable as a real myth, not that the events in the myth really happened.

For example, If I were to write an entry about a campfire-tale horror story I could legitimately cite any website, book or message board that carried a representative version of that story. It wouldn't matter who the author was, who what the story was, or how academically credible the story was, all that would matter was I could demonstrate that the myth is recounted in popular culture and what it's contents were as per WP:V and PW:NOR. 99% of WP:RS is not applicable as the page is dealing with fiction, not fact. In fact, the primary application of WP:RS would be to ensure that the source is representative of the myth, and is not a fringe or original version.

It's not really relevant in any case as this page isn't actually reallying on message boards as sources they're a tertiary source at best. The entry's primary sources are actually pre-existing text "discussing a topic that first appeared on a message board", which fully complies with WP:RS and WP:V. Message board sources serve only to show that the myth "exists on message boards" which is perfectly allowable as WP:RS states that the source must be appropriate for the claim and since the claim is that "the myth appears on message boards" then message boards are perfectly OK as tertiary sources (WP:V that the topic appears on message boards, while media discussing message board entries are actually demanded by WP:V and WP:RS as they are third party sources. Take the citation for Barry Napier. He's a third party WP:V source discussing BEK as a myth from a skeptical perspective. Frankly, that's enough to WP:RS this page on its own.

perfectblue (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There are sources but none seem to be reliable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously people, this is an entry about an urban myth not about some new found species. WP:RS is a sliding scale, the more extraordinary the claim the more reliable the source and vice versa, and there's certainly nothing extraordinary about an entry stating that BEK are an urban myth (Take a look above, nobody on this page is disputing this fact, not one person). Maybe if the page was claiming that BEK were living breathing creature.... but no such claim is being made. The sources are entirely appropriate for the topic.

What about Napier? He ticks all of the boxes. He's a reliable third part reporting on the story as an urban myth from a skeptical perspective. He can stand 70-80% of the entry up by himself.

If this entry is deleted on reliability grounds it sets a bad precedent: that urban myths need to be sourced as if they were talking about real topics, which in itself is POV pushing as it could imply that the contents of an urban myth are real. Let's get a grip, only a fraction of notable myths will ever get peer review attention or be detailed by big name authors, the sources are perfectly OK for the entry.

Let's look at the facts.

9 years old and still going
Approaches the topic as "a real myth" not "a myth about real things"
Source to a reliable skeptical third party

There are no serious grounds for deletion here. It passes all of the criteria set for it in policy and in guidelines. - perfectblue (talk) 14:40, 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. Insufficient independent reliable source material and WP:V. Jreferee t/c 02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flowform

The article is written with lots of claims about the benefits of flowform that seem overhyped and undersupported (... the angle of the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen is at the ideal state for water to hold its greatest energetic potential...) The tone resembles that of a book review or infomercial, rather than an encyclopedic article. I can't find enough information about the topic to make me think that the subject itself is notable, even if the tone was adjusted Joyous! | Talk 16:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

comment this article has already been deleted once, at least according to the edit summary for the creation of the present article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

comment A different version of the same article was speedied in May 2007 with the summary "Pseudoscience. Lacks reliable sources. No indication of notability. Advertising?" by User:Premeditated Chaos. --Joyous! | Talk 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) thanks! I was just about to ask if it was CSDG4, but since it was speedy, the answer is no... Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete without major revisions. There is clearly an artform, perhaps even a notable one, involved in this article. The science that is discussed, though, is at best, very poorly expressed, and parts of it seem exceedingly implausible. This might make a usable art entry with modifications. More references would certainly help. Tim Ross·^talk 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
delete It sure is pseudoscience, the question is whether it's notable pseudoscience. IMHO, the books provided are published by the Rudolf Steiner Press are not independent of the subject as required by WP:N. I think the Wilkes book is clearly not independent, and am inclined to view the Schwenk book similarly (it's not clear to me that it serves as a secondary source for the topic anyway). Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, So I wrote the article- and I would ask that this not get deleted just because some of the scientific parts are not clearly understood by someone who does not have the full understanding of what is going on.

I understand your concerns over the "psudoscience". But perhaps before dismissing it you might actually do some research to find out what its all about.

The parts about the angle between the atoms of the molecule- I got that directly from a well known physisist- Nassim Haramein- though there is more for me to learn on that subject. But I understand its not refrencable material- so we'll take it out. Soon we'll be able to refrence it. I'm still working on figuring out how to refrence material within the wiki medium- its not the most user friendly thing.

All that aside- the flowform is a well established art medium and worthy of attention with a history and international acclaim. Many of the benefits are qualitative experiences- and of course we live in a society that understands very little about quality- a thing that is very difficult to measure and quantify.

So I will amend it, if it helps, so that it doesn't claim anything that can't be backed up. Again, this is something that is a part of a much larger movement- the Waldorf and Biodynamic movements- which have a lot of things in them that can't be explained by conventional thinking- and yet they have proved themselves remarkably. The flowform is right there with them.

PatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Patrick P HawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PatrickPHawk, In order to avoid deletion, you don't have to argue that the claims presented in the article are true, you just have to provide evidence that the subject of the article is widely talked about. That criterion alone is supposed to decide which topics are included. For a full explanation see this explanation of the WP:N#General notability guideline. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep-For now under this condition, Patrick, clean the article. I am not concerned that it is tagged pseudoscience by some but that is all the more reason to be clear about the scientific principles at work in the art. There is plenty out there on water vortices that could support the effects you are trying to express. Maybe you could define the art and others may contribute with more technical knowledge of the effects.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is notability being claimed as pseudoscience, as homeopathic medicine, as oxygenated water, or as an art form? I don't see enough of any of them, or even in combination. All I see is the title of one book, published by a private press. DGG (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep! So I will be ammending this very shortly- Holiday is upon us so not much time at the moment. For those who percieve it as a "psudoscience"- I would challange you to broaden your horizons, and lift your minds out of the materialistic, compartmentalized reality that is ever-so pervasive these days. There is some deep ecological science at work in this invention/art form- and I can pull information from other sources to back it up, it just takes more time. The combination of science and art in a single invention is rather rare and worthy of attention- the two fields don't have to be mutually exclusive. The philosophy that flowforms are based on is the same that birthed Waldorf education and Biodynamic agriculture- and there are well documented articles here that speak to the success both of these have had in the world. (By the way DGG- there are two books, and several websites. The notability is based in its presence as international phenomenon with over 30 years of applications and research, not the book that the inventor wrote to tell the world about what he discovered and how he came to it- like most inventors do). PatrickPHawk (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)PatrickPHawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Nov, 23, 8:00pm

Delete The article pretty much needs to be purged and rewritten anyways. Mikemill (talk) 02:42, 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 keep. John254 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paola Cavalieri

~~no assertion of notability.~~ Philosopher/author has written some rather obscure titles, but all in all, I feel that author fails WP:BIO standards Keeper | 76 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights because I thought they might have informed opinions on the person. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure about this person not being notable. Google gives 694 hits (condensed from about 23,000) for "Paola Cavalieri", giving sites in many different countires. This all seems to concern this particular person. This appears to indicate notability. Any reaason why these Google hits should not be taken as an indication that the article needs expansion, not deletion? --Crusio (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A Google scholar search shows that she has often been cited. Definitely notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
comment. ~~Sorry, I still don't see notability~~. Reading the guidelines of WP:BIO, a person is notable if they have been given independent, reliable works/writeups/biographies about them. I did a google scholar search too (before this nomination). What I returned were excerpts from her book(s), which I do not dispute are in existence, although obscure (read the nomination). No one has written about her, though. Her contributions (ie, books) do not contribute significantly to {her} field. If those doing searchs (ie, Phil Bridger), would be kind enough to actually add the sources to the article that assert (reliably) that she has "often been cited", I would be happy to withdraw this nomination. Keeper | 76 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. From WP:PROF: "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". If you did a Google Scholar search you should have noticed, under the very first entry, a link to 94 citations. I'll put a link to the list of citations in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

- Comment. A Google News search may be more relevant than Google scholar for this particular case. I'm seeing attention to her work in The New York Times, Taipei Times, US News & World Report, Salon, Guardian, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add here that I did a google news search also, and returned less than 40 hits (similar to what you've linked above.). IMO, none of them assert notability specifically. Please though, add them to the article. An AfD is good for drawing attention to unsourced, non-notable articles. Prove me wrong here - improve the article! Keeper | 76 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "none of them assert notability specifically"? Citing to scholars and theorists is occasionally done as "the notable doctor so-and-so" but more usually, simply discussing someone's work is in itself the sign of notability to be sought. Remember that unlike celebrities, scholars are not notable because of their biographies or their personalities but because of their scholarly contributions. Thus, we look to discussions of their work, just as we look to discussions of the particulars of a celebrities' celebrated life. --Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the book with Singer is a very famous and important book indeed, probably well worth an article by itself. Google News in not like Google--its not the count that matters, but the material found there. finding 2 significant stories there in major sources about somebody is fully sufficient for establishing the notability--of an academic or anyone else. David E, please add them, so we dont have to indiviudally repeat the search. 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)
- Here you go. Oh, and keep. The fact that her name seems to be current in such a wide selection of international sources convinces me that she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep-This one needs a chance. It is valid.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - sourceable. Activists, scholars, writers, etc., are known by their works, not their personal details. WP:BIO has to be applied carefully. Wikidemo (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
'comment the review sources I asked for have now been supplied, and the notability is clear. snow close, perhaps.DGG (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination based on vastly improved article. Thanks for fixing this and finding what I apparently couldn't find with several google (and news and scholar) searches. Please let me assert that I attempted to fix this article with citations before nominating and simply wasn't finding what other editors apparently found quite easily. 40 lashes for Keeper. My apologies for dragging this out, the article asserts notability just fine now, IMO. Changing my position to keep. Keeper | 76 15:41, 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

[edit] Mike Shamus

Autobiography with no claim of meeting WP:BIO in article. Gsearch for Mike Shamus, both alone and with either of his companies does not turn up evidence of notability, no sources in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I did find some stuff on Google, my biggest concern here is that this is just an advert for a DRM product masqerading as a bio. So even if it's kept it certainly needs the sales pitch removed. Pedro : Chat 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nix It-Just a advert.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete appears to lack notability. Article is not written very well. I have no suggestions for improvement such as highlighting the notable areas (and I favor improvement rather than deletion). Archtransit (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - smacks of WP:COI as well as good points per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Struggling to find evidence of notability. Also note that the subject of the article blanked all text save the AfD notice. [14] (has since been restored) nancy 20:35, 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

[edit] Digital Dreamgirls

It's written like an advertisement and has no sources except the website itself. In addition, it's not even close to meeting WP:Notability (web). Assertions of notability are made, but no sources are listed and Google turns up nothing except various incarnations of the same website. Eatcacti (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Assertions of notability in the article neither qualify logically, nor they are supported by sources. --Futurano (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:47, 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 no action, closed by nominator. The article will instead be edited to remove the links which fail the relevant policies. Mind matrix 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software that uses Subversion

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Software that uses Subversion

Articles for deletion/Software that uses Subversion (second nomination)

Delete spamlink article. The previous AfD was closed citing WP:OUTCOMES, which is incorrect in my opinion. There has never been any consensus through AfD to keep an article that is a list of external links; in fact, quite the opposite is true (an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international travel guides and web sites). The proper recourse for such links is to place them in the relevant listing at dmoz (in this case, most likely this one), and link that listing from the external links section of the article Subversion (software). Note that claiming the information is useful or it was in the subversion article for two years does not validate a keep for any external link. See the relevant policies at WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Mind matrix 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and close as out of process. The previous AfD was ONE MONTH AGO. If you don't agree with the process by which the result was chosen then take it to deletion review but don't clutter up the AfD list with a rerun. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Procedural Keep renomination is too soon after last one. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'll take it to deletion review, but note that there are no procedural time limits for re-nomination in any of the deletion guides (at least, none that I could find). Mind matrix 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This material was part of the Subversion (software) article for more than 2 years before it got moved out into it's own article. It is very useful and includes references to internal Wikipedia pages along with the external ones. Cshay (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-perpetuation. This article is never going to get better because nobody has any interest in making it so. I assume that it'll be on its 25th AfD in 2046, it still won't be any better, and people will be saying "well, it survived for forty years already..." Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:11, 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 under CSD G4 by Bencherlite. Pagra shtak 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Template Construct

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Standard Template Construct

Articles for deletion/Standard Template Construct (2nd nomination)

non-notable, in universe aspect of warhammer. Fails WP:WAF, WP:Plot, WP:FICT, alsoe wonder how many reliable secondary sources could be found for this. Ridernyc (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

never mind this should be CSD since it's a recreation. Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Bourassa

Resume; no indication of notability per WP:BIO. 89 unique Google results, most of them blog postings. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete concur, no indication of notability whatsoever. From all that I can determine, his Google history is due to his setting up or posting on a number of blogs. Xymmax (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. A resume, with no assertion of notability. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 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 Koopsta Knicca. Spellcast (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Inevitable

Merge and Redirect. NN album. Appears to fail WP:N. No references either. Endless Dan 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Koopsta Knicca Album itself is not notable, but artist appears to be - numerous Google hits as both a solo performer and as a member of Three 6 Mafia(Oops, forgot to sign.) Xymmax (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. The artist is/was notable. --Endless Dan 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - per Xymmax. jj137 (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 Speedy delete WP:CSD;G1, complete nonsense. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semblances of Sovereignty

Delete as either nonsense or original research. I cannot tell what the author of this page intends; it appears to be a collection of text snippets copied out of other articles, with no apparent connection among them. If nothing else, the article should be deleted for using both "rootless cosmopolitan" and "jetset" in the introductory paragraph to describe Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Russ (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G1. It may be long, but it is still unsalvageable nonsense. --DAJF (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete appears to be grammatically correct sentences that don't actually mean anything, as if the nouns were just dropped in at random. Very weird. I could just be misunderstanding what's going on here so I won't speedy delete personally. --W.marsh 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Donna Air as already actioned by Bearian. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crush (pop band)

According to the article, this band produced just two singles and no albums. No references are given. Thus, it fails WP:BAND. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Merge info into Donna Air's page because the band is not notable^[2] by WP:BAND but it's notable enough in her life to be mentioned on her imdb page^[3]Red Fiona (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and Merged them. Another admin closure needed. 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under CSD G4 and salt. Pagra shtak 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kats (video game)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kats (video game)

Articles for deletion/Kats (video game) (second nomination)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, potential hoax. A Google search for Kats "Insomniac Games" returns <1000 hits, the first of which is this article itself; no news releases, websites or even discussion forums the likes of which you normally find for any video game in development. --Stratadrake (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: Speedy G4 and salt to prevent recreation. --Stratadrake (talk) 14:03, 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 keep - there are plenty of valid references here. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quack.com

Delete Not notable. If someone could cite this article then maybe it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsein (talk • contribs) 2007/11/21 00:58:16

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move to AOLbyPhone, its current name.[15] It's quite notable with plenty of reliable source coverage[16][17], or AOL Voice Services, the division name which incorporates a few other minor products. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

[edit] Space Marrine BaneBlade

Part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe without any notability on its own. Not a useful redirect due to misspelling. Pak21 (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - poorly written (and spelt!), covered elsewhere and has minimal involvement with Space Marines (or Space Marrines for that matter). Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Also misspelt and badly written. Axl (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. OR - move, and big cleanup, and do a lot of work trying to find notability references, and end up relisting this AfD. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:48, 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

[edit] Billboard Hot 100 Christmas Number One Single

A "Christmas-Number-One" is a pop culture event in the UK, not the U.S. And for some strange reason this page begins in 1985. There are plenty of other Billboard-related pages with chart info; this one offers nothing new. - eo (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete This proclaims it has "all" songs to be at #1 on Christmas Day, giving the false interpretation that the Billboard charts started in 1985. Also this is unnotable. Doc Strange (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Kind of a strange intersection, perhaps intended as a "slice of life" thing about what happened to be popular the same time each year since 1985. However, this has nothing to do with Christmas. None of these would be considered a "Christmas song" except perhaps for "Every Rose Has Its Thorn". Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the first sentence of the nom. In the U.S., there is no particular significance to having the #1 single on Christmas, making this indiscriminate information. Adding the Christmas #1's back to 1958, when the chart began, would not change that fact. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruff. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:49, 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. Consensus is that there is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material to support the article. There also is consensus that the material is original research.Jreferee t/c 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kolbrin Bible

Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article Kolbrin was deleted through ProD previously. Fram (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Defense: this is no theory, but a classical text book which is an essential part of the christian heritage. Fringe theory of people talking about this book should not be confused with the book itself. The text indeed is widely discussed these days in publications of several fringe science interest groups. The text itself though is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entries (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression calling old debatable texts 'theory' rpba (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source that could serve as evidence that it is a) a classical text (and not a recent fraud) and b) recognised and discussed as such by something even barely reliable? Compare this article to Gospel of Judas, for which we have adequate sources and discussion... Fram (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer:The Ph.D. Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University, and lecturer and writer of more studies on King Arthur, archeology, Egyptology, Anthropology and Quantum Physics, has surfaced this book quite recently in his research. He is the most prominent authority in the field concerning this book. The documents were written during the intertestamental period, Kimball explained, and its final form was intact by the beginning of the second century A.D. This is the outcome of his research. I consider it valid. The Knights Templar eventually took possession of these documents (to protect them from the likes of King Edward I of England) and redacted The Kolbrin to reflect their point of view, Kimball noted. A typical example of an expert scientist involved with the book is James Mc Canney, who as an astrofysicist left mainstream science because of his opinions on the electomagnetic nature of celestial mechanics. The book is part of the discussion on the possible existence of a planet X also called Nibiru that would return once in a three thousand years or so. It is a paradigmatic discussion these days, and this book is relevant to this discussion because it seems to deliver historical proof for the case. rpba (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is Glenn Kimball, the Ph.D. in Communications?[18] Not really a relevant Ph.D. for this kind of studies (or for astrophysics, for that matter). It is unclear whether he really is a Ph.D. and a lecturer[19]. Have you any evidence of him ever contributing anything to some scholarly journal about these subjects (ancient manuscripts)? As far as I can see, I have no reason to consider his "research" as valid at all...

(edit conflicted) And Mc Canney is about as fringe as they come (as is Nibiru). So a communcations expert and an astrophysicist have concluded that these books are indeed over 3,000 years old... Fram (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: it is a subject of discussion, and the scientists involved are who they are. It is not to me to judge the quality of this or that scientist or translation. Of relevance is whether there is a discussion among scientists. Not the issue is whether it is an immediate success in the sense of being published in this or that prominent magazine. To me the fact of these discussions is enough proof that the book is authentic. Why else would it be mentioned at the religious texts page? It wasn't debated there. Now you have a dead link there again if you deny information about that indeed possibly theologically dubious text. It is not the duty of scientists to judge this or that scientist themself, but to agree about resources and facts. And there is no doubt cast by anyone on the authenticity and historical truth of this book. So I give it the advantage of doubt. Also gnostics discuss about the validity of translations of the Nag Hammadi. That doesn't disqualify the book itself. To my opinion it would be socially destructive repression to deny the existence of this historical book. There is enough proof for the historical reality and actual relevance of the book in my opinion. That justifies this entry. Also looking at the content of the book itself leaves me no doubt. You don't have to agree with something to tolerate something. Mein Kampf by mr A. Hitler is also discussed in the Wikipedia, even though that content is far more dangerous and dubious than the Kolbrin text! The question is, has your doubt been resolved Fram?rpba (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They aren't recognised scientists in this field of study, so their opinion of these books is rather irrelevant. The fact that they both are known fringe scientists makes it of course even worse. There is not one good indication that these are truly old books, that they have attracted any serious interest, and that they are not the prefect examples of what WP:FRINGE describes. The contents of the books are quite irrelevant to all this. Fram (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article as it stands now is quite confusing. The article (improbably) asserts the antiquity of these manuscripts, while including it among modern pseudepigraphia. A factual article on the history, the claims made by these texts, and who promotes them, may well pass muster; the article I read doesn't seem to have this information ready. No opinion yet on whether this fringe theory has sufficient circulation to be notable, whether on the Mormon level, the Scientology level, or even on the Oahspe level. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is welcome to improve on this stub of course. I again insist that deleting this page and denying the historical reality of this book does harm to the interest of the public, more than the possible fringe theory about it. I close my argument with this reminding you of the fact that it is not logical to link this book e.g. up under Modern pseudepigrapha and not didplay it here. But do as you like. Your argument is valid in as far as you deleting this are not a scientist yourself apparently. At least you have no respect in that sense. The page is also submitted to the Game of Order Wiki. I'll attach the label, 'repressed' to it as you like, including a copy of this discussion. It's your honor after all. So you can't really kill it. I have more of these 'martyr pages'. rpba (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I would be in favour of keeping the article in existence. However, I would more specifically be in favour of an article of similar structure to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - giving an overview of the contents of the book, some historical context, views on its (in)authenticity, etc. At present the article assumes legitimacy with no context given. --Black Butterfly (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I can't find a reliable source that will attest to this book's (ancient) existence. I actually agree with Black Butterfly above, and ultimately I think this may well end up with a page. However, I can't find any sources that WP considers reliable to use here. Per WP:FRINGE we shouldn't be the validating source to make a fringe idea mainstream. Once this topic has been addressed by a mainstream source, a page like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Face on Mars is appropriate. Xymmax (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment regarding the claim above that "Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University" see here (section titled "A New Twist (update 1/2002)") for an investigation into his identity following another suspected hoax, "Burrows Cave") and is not googleable at the Southern Illinois University website. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can see no secondary sources that meet wikipedia's criterion of reliable sources that are independent of the subject (this website does a nicer job than the wikipedia article, but is a totally unreferenced website). There's lots of website action, on UFO and planet-X websites discussing the book, and there's Glenn Kimball's book, but I don't see the reliable sources required to meet the WP:FRINGE content guideline. I too would be all for keeping if it's brought up to a standard of quality approaching that of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I observe that this is a new article nominated for deletion almost as soon as it was created, so that essentilally it has no history. My reaction to the whole thing is that it is an elaborate hoax. It is claimed to be heretical Christian (or Judaeo-Christian) literature, and claims a history for the book up to 1184, when suppressed by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307), an obvious anachronism! It was allegedly preserved by 'religious druids', but Druidism (whatever it was) was a pre-Roman religion in Britain. Any pagan religion had been extinct in Britain for hundreds of years by 1184. It was preserved 'on bronze tablets', not a usual medium for literary documents in Britain - parchment was the usual one. The parent website [20] refers to the destruction of Glastonbury Abbey as an arson attack, but the WP article mere mentions a great fire. That website refers to this as 'the time of history when there was a great suppression of monasterys'. The greater monasteries (such as Glastonbury) were dissolved in 1539 and lesser ones a few years earlier. The name 'Culdian Trust' (a sponsoring organisation) reminds me of a word applied to the survivals of the Celtic Church in Scotland (as something distinct from the official Catholic Church). If this recollection is correct, they are seeking to apply somthing they have heard about Scottish Gaelic Christianity, to an area remote from Scotland that had been under English (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) control for hundreds of years. It is claimed that the book is in 'Biblical English', but what is that? There are virtually no English texts of the 12th and 13th centuries, indeed little between the Old English of the Anglo-Saxons and Middle English of Chaucer, but the language used is neither. It is not even the English of Shakespeare and the King James Bible, since the first person singular is 'you' not 'thou'. The orthography of the text is modern, from the period after Samuel Johnson's dictionary modernised English spelling (or at least I think that was when spelling changed). Everything about this subject says HOAX. The question is then what to do about it. Straight deletion may lead to re-creation, and a repetition of this debate, no doubt following amendment of the parent website to remove the gross anachronisms pointed out above. If a book has actually been published, so that the thing is a real existing hoax publication, and not a mere invention of the creator of a website, I think the best solution will be to add a rebuttal of the claims to the article to counter the WP:POV that this is a genuine survival. In order to persuade me that this is not an elaborate hoax, I would need to see an image of the manuscript. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that it is obviously a hoax, the rebuttal you propose would be original research. That is the basic reason of WP:FRINGE: if you have things that are obviously nonsense, but which haven't received any mainstream attention (not even for debunking it), then it shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right that some of my arguments above are techically WP:OR, but do we have to await an academic rebuttal, before we can say that the article is about a load of trash? I would prefer deletion, but am afraid of re-creation, and us having to go through all this again. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have adapted the text of the entry to reflect more the contents of this discussion and maintain meanwhile that deletion is not wanted since it is part of indeed an elaborate movement of related sites and YouTube video's on the web. To keep silent on this while maintaining links to the book at other pages is an unwise policy. Either delete all traces in Wikipedia of reference to this book, ot honestly say what it is we think it is and let everyone then be his own judge on this. The latter is science in my respect, the former is repression. rpba (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if this article is deleted, all links to it should either be removed or unlinked (depending on the context). That is standard practice with deletions. Fram (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that didn't happen the last time it was deleted. That was why i resumed the discussion and entry of this subject. I found the Wikipedia in respect of the subject and the existence of this text. rpba (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Reading WP:FRINGE, I agree that whether the book is ancient or a hoax or that's debated doesn't matter so much - other reliable sources besides Wikipedia need to worry about it before an article (based on those) can be kept here. --Minimaki (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not considered reliable beause you're hiding behind another authority than your own power of reason. Wikipedia should have a character and intelligence of its own too! I consider that inevitable.rpba (talk)13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's actually the other way around - one of the base policies (Wikipedia:No_original_research) is for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia which should not contain original thought. --Minimaki (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. What? If no reliable sources are available, it needs to be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on modern druid forgery to further clarify the social and scientific status of this book. rpba (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is not your whole argument about Iolo Morganwg and recent Druidism as a source for the alleged text also an example of WP:OR? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you consider linking something up to what is on another Wikipage Original Research...(o dread!) That is all I did. The argument of druidism is not mine, I just checked it out at that page and found thus a connection to the illuminati scheme. rpba (talk) 07:19, 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. east.718 at 02:03, November 27, 2007

[edit] Certified of New York

Asserts notability (I guess, as it uses the word "notable" twice), but fails to show it. It's unreferenced unless you count the four primary source links. The article's wording, pictures, links, and main contributors' history lead me to believe it's merely promotional. Rocket000 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I do not see much notability in the Notable Projects section. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:50, 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. Spellcast (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelsey Chow

Fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines: Wiki and Google reseach show that she performed a supporting role/guest role in only one barely notable TV show. Neither she nor the show received any awards. The article is also an unreferenced and orphaned sub-stub. Contested ProD. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. Futurano (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep - Here's what boggles. If Gigi Silveri (the fictional character she exclusively plays) is notable enough for an article, . . . . Of course, 50 years from now no one will remember a TV show called One Tree Hill, much less one of the characters. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for tipping of. Already marked as unnotable, for the very same reasom. --Futurano (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep- She has done more legit stuff than many posers that have articles.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there is no evident notability for this particular actress asserted with outside references. Additionally, the lack o f any other content in the article other than her (unreferenced) ethnicity, current school and one known acting role makes me think that even if improved with a reference, the info should go somewhere else. Epthorn (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are no references given for the subject and a very limited body of work when one goes looking. Non notable by my reckoning. --Stormbay (talk) 02:46, 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. Neil ☎ 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anastasia Tubanos

This article fails WP:BIO. The subject is an unnotable blogger and the article is only supported by primary sources. I looked for reliable secondary sources, but couldn't find them, except for the one Youtube news video about the launch of her website (which is more an indication of notability for her website than for herself). Furthermore, the article was created by User:Zymaseman, who is Matt Campagna in real life, the friend and professional partner of Anastasia Tubanos. His list of contributions show his only interest on Wikipedia is advertisement for his own websites, himself and Anastasia. Atlan (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless better sources can be found to assert notability. Epthorn (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete If the sources were better, I would be tempted to go for a "Weak keep". Tim Ross·^talk 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The YouTube video also exists on the CityTV News International site as a proper secondary source and the external link has been changed to reflect that, at YourGreekNews.com becomes to Nationwide Television - CityTV News International. The News Piece clearly states that the website's video content is now a Television show. Therein lies the notability. As the CityTV site does have a high churn rate, the YouTube link is more permanentplace for the News Piece to live, and may be the best long-term external link to have. Clearly it is not a homemade YouTube video. Additionally, the show happens to be called YourGreekNews.com, wich may be causing some confusion. Upon complete viewing, the News Piece is clealy about a television program, not about a website. Also, the Wikipedia article about Mega Cosmos further explains that the television station airs the show YourGreekNews.com as a part of its programming. I believe the value of an article on a nationwide Cultural Television NewsBroadcaster, (as the newspiece specifically indicates is not a 'blogger') and ensuring that it is in line with WIkipedia guidelines, is what is crucial. Zymaseman (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So you say a tv show, no matter how minor, means automatic notability and warrants a Wikipedia page for a host related to that show? I disagree. The whole reason I nominated the article is because it is NOT in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Fact is, that a google search yields only a number of blogs and her Wikipedia article. Calling her a "nationwide cultural television newsbroadcaster" is just using big words, to descibe a girl who has received about as much mainstream media attention as me.

Basically, the fact that this article had to be created by Anastasia's friend and partner (WP:COI anyone?) says quite enough about how notable she really is.--Atlan (talk) 21:34, 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. John254 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of flags with crosses

Galleries must be in Wikimedia Commons, WIkipedia is for encyclopedic articles. look the talk page OsamaK 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. This article is an encyclopedic article: a stand-alone list which provides a comprehensive overview (quite literally) of all the ways in which crosses and cross-like symbols have been, and continue to be, incorporated in flag design. It is a key component of the larger Gallery of flags by design, an important set of vexillological articles that together organize the many flag-related articles on Wikipedia in graphical/design terms.

Moving this article off of Wikipedia and onto Commons would reduce the usefulness, accessibility, and credibility of its contents. As far as I know, Commons articles are not intended to be indexes into material on Wikipedia, and are not subjected to the same high level of review and standards enforcement as Wikipedia articles. Moving it there would turning this structured index of verified and actively edited information into a mere collections of media files.

I'm aware that this article departs from the standard list formats defined by the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). But to quote from that page, these guidelines are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." In the special case of flag lists, there is a long encyclopedic tradition of including color plates listing flags as graphical matrices, a tradition well worth following here. The caption below each flag is well-suited for noting the flag's identity, noteworthy features with respect to the article's topic, and linking the reader to further information. A blanket ban on Wikipedia articles that rely primarily on the gallery formatting tag has not been adopted by our community (has it? I'm confused by the assertion "Galleries must be in Wikimedia Commons" above.), and articles like these are good counter-examples for why such a rigid ban would be counter-productive.

As a counter-proposal to deleting this article, I would suggest revising WP:SAL to include style guidelines for the special case of flag lists. (The gallery tag actually not the best format to recommend, as it sets each flag to a uniform width, when a uniform height is preferable -- see Gallery of sovereign-state flags for a better format.) I would also suggest pruning the content on this page of any flags for which there are not Wikipedia articles; i.e., a kind of no redlink policy. I would also be unopposed to renaming the article to conform to the naming conventions pertaining to list pages -- it would also clarify this article's essential nature as a list, not a commons-like collection of media files for re-use. --ScottMainwaring 22:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There seems to exist a precedent that galleries of flags are maintained on wiipedia, though I would think that they should be on commons. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, although it would nice to see the article improved with some discussion of the crosses on these flags. E.g.: Are there one or more historical origins of the use of crosses? Do all crosses represent the same thing? Etc.. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, a good overview of the various flags with cross components. Would like to see some more discussion within the article as per User:Reinoutr above Dumelow (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, rename to Flags with crosses and expand with text explaining it's one of the most common motifs in vexilology, etc--victor falk 09:49, 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. If the great number of reliable sources demonstrating the subject's notability exist, they aren't listed here. All of the references were either from MySpace or short play notices posted in a local Amarillo paper, which fall short of the notability criteria. While Michaels may eventually gain some fame, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - in other words, it's not our place to predict things of that nature. If more references can be found, perhaps this article can return. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sirc Michaels

I am challenging the notability of this person based on the fact that only a local/regional newspaper has covered the aspects of his purported notability. Discussion welcomed. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Article Patrios should follow the fate of this article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The picture in the article of the article's subject is apparently the own work of the editor who created the article. This makes me think a conflict of interest may be coming into play. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added much of the content for the pages, including the picture. It is actually from the playwright's page. I was unsure how to handle the adding it. There is no 'conflict of interest', unless you count the fact that I am a fan of this playwright. There are plenty of articles out there about this person, and the newspapers are in a variety of states. I felt that I had already added enough to bulk up the references and someone could add more later. Though you may not have heard of this person, he has a following and is considered one of the prominent descendants of 'in-your-face' theatre in the United States. If I am not doing something right, then tell me. But I am not the only one who knows who this is. Cobaltbluetony, your original issues with the article had to do with references and links and so forth, which I have provided. You can find more at the Virginia Pilot, the Allentown Morning Call, the Examiner, the Observer, the Globe News, USA Today, and on and on. These range from national to regional to local papers. I just grabbed the easiest ones to snag online. I thought we were supposed to work together to get these pages tight. I guess what I am saying is - SOME HELP, please! Thanks. --Gonzodak 07:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Gonzodak but maybe someone who knows something about copyright should check out that picture. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DELETE IT- You aren't going to get anyone but the source and his friends to contribute. Any bio from of that age that has an Early Years Section is simply introspective promotion from the source. Keep it on MySpace.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- About the picture - it came from his site. I was adding it to here and, while trying to figure out what the correct way to list it was, got sidetracked. Upon finishing other tasks I was performing at the same time, I posted the picture, which gives us the incorrect copyright info. It was sloppy on my part, which I apologize for, but now I am not sure how to fix it. As for 'early years', I just followed the format of all other bios on here. If I did something format-wise wrong with the page, please let me know or please fix it. --Gonzodak (talk) 04:25, 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. Spellcast (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock your Religion

The article claims the subject is a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe" and a "religious experience", but examination of the references shows this "Rock Your Religion" is neither - it is a company making and selling accessories featuring religious symbols. Unsure if this passes WP:CORP, as the references given seem to be of a promotional press-release bent. I don't know if this qualifies under CSD#G11, so sending it to AfD. ~Matticus ^U_C 10:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: the article has now been edited to make it clear it is a business and the "set of beliefs"/"religious experience" bit has been removed. ~Matticus ^U_C 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see much of a notability assertion in there. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia has a policy against articles about "hip jewelry companies", or at least it ought to. Mandsford (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. The article is clearly written in a way intended not only to promote the company, but to promote itself to a particular demographic, based on the dialect it's using. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per DTT: blatant self-promotion. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Nix It- Track down the perps and make them pay for having it up here.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea-- make them pay! In 2008, look for the "jigsaw globe" Wikipedia pendant and the "green ladybug" Wikimedia Foundation earrings! Very hip.Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep ~ Nix, 'make them pay', 'Hip' jigsaw globe, green ladybug? Blatant versus cleary written, demographic dialect after the set of beliefs/religious experience was removed, Quite sure I don't understand, policy against 'hip jewelry, seems everybody is misleading and puzzling the debate for their own Jollification. (DISEman73 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC))— DISEman73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment- The comments are not against 'hip jewelry' or even 'religious jewelry', I live in Austin and there is a store or stand on every corner selling it. Point being: this is not an advertising space, no matter how 'clearly written' it is. Go buy some space in cyber, it's more than obviously not notable. The only jollification I see is that there is even a debate about it.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as spam. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep... you people surely know how to write.. all wrong and out of context . Leave the crazy stuff out from wiki... thats for websites (Cool off 2 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)) — Cool off 2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note that the above poster has now more than once removed the AFD notice from the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribes 2: Elements of Gameplay

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Isn't there a specific games wiki for this sort of stuff? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Merge~~ the critical elements to Tribes 2, as the entire section on elements of gameplay consists of a link to this article. If I get time, I'll distill a paragraph or two summary for inclusion at Tribes 2 - that should be there even if this is kept. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Delete, as everything is already covered under gameplay (per my review and Pagrashtak). ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Tribes 2 already has a Gameplay section with content, and this subarticle is too detailed for Wikipedia and resembles game guide information. Pagra shtak 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Aaargh Foul word User:Krator (t c) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: not encyclopaedic in any way. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is exactly the kind of undue weight heaped upon the minutiae of gameplay which stops game articles developing. The reason it was too big for the article is that it's completely unnecessary in the first place - where are the out-of-universe details? There'll be a thousand and one in-depth guides covering this information and more. There won't be somewhere that all the information is available about the product as a whole - that's what we're here for.Someone another (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Copied over to StrategyWiki:Tribes 2/Getting Started. -- Prod-You (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you.Someone another (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I agree, y'all. This information does not need to be present on Wikipedia. I split the topic because the original article Tribes 2 was insanely massive. There are numerous websites with this kind of information, and doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Sorry.. D: 142.167.177.240 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: I believe that this is very important because it has changed the pattern of all online games since. Plus, the Tribes 2 article is lacking in size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.214.224 (talk) 05:37, 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 without prejudice against later creation of a referenced article if possible. Tikiwont (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Montorgueil

Nothing notable at all. No links, no titles or works, not even a birth/death timeline. This article should not be here. Metal Head 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable in his field. Kingturtle (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If he were notable in his field, there would be some references cited. --Russ (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Plenty of hits in Google, which suggest notability, but there isn't much in the article that would be lost by deletion. If someone looked for some references and put them in the article, then there would be some references cited. A lack of references does not equate to a lack of notability.--Michig (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. I'm no expert on pornographers, but I'm guessing this isn't a notable one (as a writer at least) because a quick search of the main bibliographical instruments brings up very, very little (and nothing before 1970 - which suggests that even the few facts provided here are wrong). --Paularblaster (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Nix it--Its not even stub class. --- Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:06, 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. east.718 at 17:55, November 29, 2007

[edit] Tempered Zealot Productions

Is this really just a long advert ? thisisace 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, seems to be at least somewhat notable given the number of films produced. This article could stand to be trimmed a great deal, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment the article is quite poor and cites no sources. It's only external links are to first party sites. That being said I think the potential must exist for the article to be improved given the number of short films produced, but then again maybe it's just not notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

weak keep: they've received an award, but that doesn't justify the amount of information here. Trim. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete-Overblown and promotional.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete if not fixed. I'm not comfortable keeping this around on the presumption that they might be notable. It looks like this is a film company that has produced several obscure short films, one of which won an award that isn't even verified on the film festival website, as far as I could find. If someone rewrites the article from reliable sources by the end of this debate, I would change my mind. Mango juice^talk 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though certainly disputed, there is some agreement here (and stronger consensus on other similar articles) that these people are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles. I am redirecting all seven of these articles to Kid Nation for now. The general feeling of this discussion seems to be more targeted towards whether, in general, anybody on this show should have an article, so it's difficult to determine consensus on the articles for Anjay and Laurel, which have claims of notability outside of the show that weren't discussed here in much depth. Whether or not this content is merged to Kid Nation or a future List of Kid Nation participants article is up to editorial discretion. --- RockMFR 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: If anyone feels that Laurel or Anjay's articles should be discussed further, feel free to un-redirect them (at which point they will probably be relisted at articles for deletion). --- RockMFR 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guylan Qudsieh

A selection of children from Kid Nation who have done nothing notable outside the show itself and not a sign of a secondary source showing notability for any of them Pak21 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Anjay Ajodha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Laurel McGoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mike Wyatt Klinge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Taylor DuPriest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Zach Kosnitzky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kelsey Liu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The above statement shows a clear lack of investigation. The Laurel McGoff article already has more than five references and explicitly states this person's many performances outside the show, a direct contrast to the claim that she (among the others) has "done nothing notable outside the show itself". I don't even understand how this assertion can be made when the article clearly shows the opposite. Some of the others, I can understand as they are minimalist and growing. Still, determining that these are non-notable at this point, especially when there are secondary sources out there (as indicated on multiple of these pages) is research-lazy at best. The pages show references or the locations to find more references. A simple Google search will reveal plenty of references for these participants. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Or not, as the case may be. --Pak21 (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? 15 seconds of better search skills (and I do NOT have that great of skills) brought this interview including Mike from a simple Google search. In fact, this (or another) Ellen interview has also been discussed on talk pages. Geez... Round and round we go, or as one might say on a BB forum, "repost!" VigilancePrime (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Further (actually, more specific). Laurel has five cited references (and two external links so far) while Anjay has four cited references (and two external links). This is better than a lot of longer articles on Wiki! (I know, Wiki's "Other Stuff Exists" guideline...) The point is, the listing of these two demonstrates that the entire series was indiscriminate. Yes, the Taylor and Zach pages had no references (yet), but these others do and they're here too. How many references are needed before an article, person, or subject is "noteworthy"? (That's a serious question... is there a specific number of references and if so, what is that "magic" number?) [BTW: Mike now has three/three, Taylor four/three, and Zach 0/two; the point is that there are references out there and they are being included as time goes on.] VigilancePrime (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the argument has seemed to be 1. it's "only" a reality show and participants therein, and 2. they only have this one notable event in their entire life, and finally 3. there are no references... Here's the problem: They are inaccurate statements (as described here). Instead of pasting it all here, I linked to it on the Laurel McGoff talk page. It's the best example of these and what they are all designed to be and growing to become. VigilancePrime (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be back on other stuff exists again. Each article must stand and fall on its own merits, not be kept because Survivor: Fiji or whatever else happens to have some articles about its contestants; consensus on Wikipedia is that reality show contestants are not notable enough for their own page based solely on their appearance in the reality show, unless you really claiming that the Washington Scholastic Intercollegiate League (which is being used as a reference on Mike Wyatt Klinge) makes someone notable? --Pak21 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You're basically nominating Guylan's page for being non notable and then added on the rest of the articles of Kid Nation participants saying basically that if one of them is not notable then the rest of them aren't either. And because you did a google search for Mike's name including his middle name in quotes and didn't find anything unrelated to the show that doesn't mean that there isn't anything out there on him. Obviously he may not always use his middle name. Ospinad (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, from the Other Stuff Exists: "This is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline; it reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)." In other words, this is how some people think. It is not binding. It is not guideline. It is not policy. It's something that people like you will throw out there when you want to delete an article for personal reasons (seen it many times before). If you want to set a precedant that these are non-notable, why don't you and I go on a deletion spree with that same mentality and remove every article with five or less references, every article about a reality show contestant that only appeared in one show, every article that is less than a full page (how many stubs are on Wiki anyway, I wonder?), and every article remaining that either of us thinks isn't of interest? I think that would be a great idea! Not so much? That's my point. These articles are new, and available for growth, just like hundreds of stubs. A couple of them (Anjay and Laurel and, to a much lesser extent, Mike) are already better-referenced, longer, and more thorough than many Wiki articles. This isn't a matter of "other stuff exists", it's a matter of "this is the precedent that has been set". And it's a good precedent. Let's follow it. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Despite having worked on the Kid Nation page, my experience through other reality TV shows is that contestants of reality TV are rarely notable unless 1) they were notable before the show (see Gary Hogeboom), 2) won the competition ((Yul Kwon)), or 3) did something notable on a notable show that has been sourced by secondary sources (Jon Dalton)). Note that all these are from Survivor. Despite having worked on the Amazing Race pages, only a select few teams even have pages and that's if they already had existing pages, and this trend for less popular shows exists. In all cases of the KN children, there has been no sufficient demonstration of #1, #2 won't happen (there's not a single winner to the show) and outside of legalities from parents about the show, I've yet to see secondary source citing incidents within the show to make them notable. I would also argue that there's something about making such pages for living minors to see rather odd - we already have special rules for bios of living people, I would think that bios of living minors may have additional consequences not already determined regarding areas of privacy (yes , despite being on national TV) and the like. Masem (talk13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about #4? They could do something completely unrelated to TV either before or after the show that would make them notable. And the fact that these are children is irrelevant. Just look at Dakota Fanning's page. Ospinad (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

4 is part of #1 - things done outside of the scope of the show - but yes, can include events unrelated to the show after the show. However, the events themselves need to be notable - in the case of Laurel, her performance in a local play is not notable - otherwise this would make every local play company's cast notable.

A better question to ask is that is having WP pages on these telling us anything different than their bios on the official KN site at CBS? I mean, you have more specific details, but really, nothing much more beyond what the kid's own bio page provides. Given that this resources already exists, it doesn't seem to make sense to duplicate it on WP. --MASEM 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge To the article about the show. The show is on network TV and is widely followed, and widely reviewed, thus it is notable. These characters have been featured on each episode, and the references about them (and their last names) would be appropriatle in thhat article. Edison (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about characters on a show or about the kids who were on it? Honestly, why wouldn't their appearance on this show be enough to prove their notability? The show is watched by 5 million people each week so just going on that they are all pretty famous. Ospinad (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Merging these into the main article would make the KN article too bulky. Of these articles, half are referenced, the other half are growing. Their initial AfD "nomination" seemed half-cocked (e.g. inaccurate statements about them all being unreferenced) and there is plenty of precedent for articles of this nature. Laurel and Anjay in particular are better-referenced and more thorough than an average stub article... should all stubs be deleted? Of course not; neither should these be. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to this simple search, there are appoximately 623 articles that currently use the actual generic {{stub}} template. And this lists about 200 sub stub categories with many many more sub sub stub categories beneath them. That should keep you busy for a loooong time, lol. Ospinad (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep per VigilancePrime Ospinad (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per VigilancePrime AdamJacobMuller (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all and redirect to Kid Nation. These kids are not notable enough for Wikipedia, and there's no use merging it into Kid Nation; there's no relevant information that can be added. Remember that notability is not inherited; in other words, they should be notable for something other than appearing on Kid Nation before being included here. Now Laurel is an interesting case; she apparently appeared in a 2003 play. However, if that is actually the case, it doesn't appear she meets the notability guidelines for entertainers. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Attn: Closing Admin - the creator of the articles (User:VigilancePrime) appears to be canvassing keep votes, in direct violation of the guideline WP:CANVAS. Please take this into account when closing the discussion. Thanks. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I take that kindof personally, especially as there is no violation of the guideline. If one is to carefully read the guideline, each of the types specifically and explicitly refers to leaving multiple messages on user talk pages. Show me where I've done that. (Hint: You can't; I pointed the vote out once on the show's main page to insure visibiliy of the issue.) Why is it that deletion "nominations" and some of the most staunch deletionists seemingly fail to even read the articles they are wanting to delete and the policies they cite? I don't get it. Notability has been established over and over. Rationale and precedent has been illustrated over and over. Now there's little more than these empty-threat-like comments like the "Attn: Closing Admin" message above. Come on, everyone... can we be a little more factual and consistent? Fact: These articles meet Wiki notability minimums, as described ad nauseum above. Fact: They are better referenced than the average stub, as Ospinad has pointed out very clearly. Fact: The alleged policy and guideline violations simply have not happened (rather, the actions that are complained about are not violations). I don't know how to break it down any simpler than that. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that "ANYWAY, make sure to go 'vote' for keep" qualifies as canvassing. The message apparently does not have to be on user talk pages. I asked a question about this on the helpdesk ("Canvassing?" under November 21), making sure to point out it was the article's talkpage, not a user talk, and was told by two admins that yes, it was canvassing. That aside, meeting the bare minimum of the notability guidelines generally doesn't cut it; WP:N explicitly says:

...meeting one or more [of the notability requirements] does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

and:

Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Let's take a look at Laurel McGoff. Reference 1: her page on TV.com. It simply establishes that she appeared on TV; and while that's great, I doubt every single person who has ever appeared on TV has an article here. Reference 2: Her page at Explore Talent. It appears she wrote it herself, so that is not independent of the subject; therefore, it cannot establish notability. Reference 3: She got her name in the local paper. That's a trivial mention; the article isn't even about her, and she is just one name in a long list of people. Reference 4: A list of people who acted in a local play. Again, a trivial mention, not enough to establish notability. Finally, Reference 5: Her page on CBS.com. Not intellectually independent, so it cannot establish notability. Now Mike Wyatt Klinge. The references are two press releases (not considered independent of the subject per WP:N), and TV.com again. This one probably needs its own AfD. Zach Kosnitzky doesn't fare much better with only IMDb (trivial mention; so he appeared on TV, but that doesn't make him notable) and CBS (not independent of the subject). Taylor DuPriest certainly is a beauty queen, but lists of names do not establish notability (they're a trivial mention). Now on to Anjay Ajodha. So he won some spelling bees. That itself does not make him notable, as it does not appear that he participated in any important ones. Finally, the references at Guylan Qudsieh don't establish anything important at all. Basically, this post in a nutshell: None of the refernces provided establish notability; they are either trivial, affiliated with the subject (both are disallowed by WP:N), or are irrelevant. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My keep vote was not the result of canvassing by VigilancePrime. I had not heard of VigilancePrime until I came to this page. Circumspect (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Participants Article At this stage in time, I don't believe that any of the kids are "notable" beyond them being on the show. They might very well be in the future. That said, I like the individual pages: the information is distilled down from what is on the CBS site and there are sufficient sources for smaller articles. I believe merging all the participants into one article of Participants would offer the best of both worlds. It consolidates all the information in one place, doesn't clutter WP with individual articles, and still offers more than the original Kid Nation Article. DoubleVibro

DoubleVibro, I like your idea a lot. Assuming that someone (admin-able) comes along and does decide to delete the pages, I would think that a Participants page would be a perfect alternative. It meets the need of not lengthening the main KN page while at the same time preserving the information from each of the individual pages. I still support the Keep, but if that is not the ultimate end of this "discussion", then the alternate single Participant page should be the obvious fallback answer. Thanks and Good idea! VigilancePrime (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I also would not be against a Participants article if one were to be created. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per VigilancePrime. If the consensus is against keeping, then merging into a new participants article, separate from the Kid Nation article, would make sense. Circumspect (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so lost on all this now, I'lll just post here at the end... As for the helpdesk discussion, while they may be right in their intent, the actual text reads differently. My thought: Go edit the article to say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says currently. (And I'm not meaning that sarcastically... it doesn't say what you and them claim it means, so it's logical to change the article.) Notability is fickle... here it's not enough, other places it's plenty. I don't get it. There's no argument from me that these people are minimally noteworthy, but that's still enough. Maybe we all should go on that deletion spree (I see plenty of other users who do that... so much negativity!) we discussed earlier. Take out all the minimalist stubs; who needs more information? At this point, I think the Participants option is the most likely, even though - at this writing - the Keeps outnumber the Deletes (4K-2D-2M). Of course, I've seen articles deleted with a 2/3rd keep ratio to deletes before. However it all works out, I'm sure there'll be more info and references to add about these kids as time goes on. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why everyone keeps trying to prove these kid's notabilty "beyond their appearance in the show." If you eliminate the one thing that accounts for 99% of their notability then of course they are going to seem unnotable. But why do that? I mean, how notable would George Washington be if you ignore the fact that he was the first president of the United States? Ospinad (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the meaning of notability. The first part of my comment was based on an assumption. Is there an objective definition of notable at least as far as WP is concerned? If there is, then this whole thing might be academic. If not, then this conversation needs to be taken offline until the powers that be provide that definition. I believe that such a philosophical argument can't be solved in a few posts, and this really isn't the place to argue notability, just the format of the information on the participants of KN.DoubleVibro (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline for notability per defined by Wikipedia: "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". None of the articles have "significant coverage" (they have coverage from secondary sources, but they are not significant as they cover primarily local issues). Being in a reality TV show via the show itself is a primary source and not enough for notability. --MASEM 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then the argument really revolves around the meanings of "significant coverage" and "reliable secondary sources". There have been comments about the kinds and types of coverage: some concerning material that the participants wrote themselves, some concerning passing references in other sources. IMDB is something I would consider a reliable secondary source, and it has fairly significant coverage (albeit mostly statistical at the moment) of the show. So long as it's quoted as opinion, I would also consider material from the participants themselves as fairly reliable. Even a source making a passing reference can be significant if it is a unique fact. Another argument being made seems to be: "just because a person stars on TV doesn't make him or her notable." If we confine the argument to the definition of notable, then I believe that notability is pretty well established. There are at least two current major sources: imdb.com and cbs.com. In my mind that satisfies the reliable secondary sources requirement. I believe that significant coverage has been provided by both sites even though cbs.com can be considered a more marketing site. Combined with the new material being found, I believe all of the conditions have been satisfied.

What's really being argued here is the spirit of an encyclopedia article, and that is an entirely different argument: Do stars on a TV show merit individual encyclopedia articles? I don't have a good answer to that question, but here's food for thought. Kathryn D. Sullivan has a WP article. She was not the first person in space, not the first person to fly a shuttle mission, and didn't really have anything notable happen to her as an astronaut. Now don't get me wrong, I think anyone that rides a rocket into orbit is deserving of mention, but why should she have an article and these kids not? As far as I know, this is the first time a bunch of kids have been thrown together on the premise that they are forming their own society. My personal view: consolidate the participants into one article for now and later spin off individual articles if warranted. DoubleVibro (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge them!! Or we can just start calling this WikiMySpace.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiMySpace... heh...that's cute... :-) VigilancePrime (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep all pages, whether that means merging the individuals to a First Season character page and splitting off as warranted (Lauren's is definitely warranted), or just keeping the stubs, because Kid Nation will probably be enough to get any of these kids a start towards anything they set their minds to, especially in show biz (You Can't Do That On Television ring a bell?) and it'd be noteworthy that people thought these kids were noteworthy way back when. Deleting now means the revision history is lost, and in a way, that helps document their notability, especially should they succeed later in life. As for secondary sources, the kids have been on other talk shows and such, which affirms notability. Wikipedians just need to document and verify, and be aware of any paper that ends up being written about the show in child psychology, anthopology, or other areas. I mean, I hate reality TV as a rule, but this is slightly more PBS-style, and may be an Old West version of a Skinner's box. This leads me to think that the full impact of the show will not be known for quite some time, and we should not be so quick to judge and delete. MMetro (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Pak21 (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First sentence, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." We're not adding speculation; we're not adding unverified information. Pak21, Fan24, why is it that every time some point is brought up, your argument changes and, why do your arguments keep revolving around points that do not apply? We have used your own linked guideline and essay pages to refute the very thing you use them to demonstrate. I don't deny that the notability is weak, but the criteria are met and that has been demonstrated. I don't deny that we're speculating about future increased notability, but the articles themselves are not based on speculation. I agree that articles should be referenced, in spite of the hundreds of articles on Wiki that are not, but these ones are referenced to varying degrees. Every time some new argument for deletion is thrown out, the replies from those who have worked on the articles and have referenced them are quick, factual, and logical. Then the attack shifts. If you would like us to go through every single Wiki policy, guideline, and opinion essay and describe why the articles meet with every single word on Wiki, just say so. Please, though, stop the constant "well then, they should be deleted because of this... well, fine, then this is the reason... okay, here's why they should be deleted..." It's getting tiring having to read and explain every policy page that you use as rationale. I simply read the page. It's not difficult and I'm not a rocket scientist. The case for Keep has been made plenty of times with plenty of rationale. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

^{[For those keeping score: 5K-2D-3M]}

The point of the point/counter-point is that is the information that will be used by the admin that closes the AfD; majority is not the same as consensus and the AfD closer is free to ignore votes that supply no or inappropriate arguments on either side of the discussion. When someone brings up a new point of view to consider, it is not inappropriate to state why it is not important to the subject, as long as the argument is rationale and doesn't fall into arguments to avoid

And save for Laurel, notability has not be meet: again: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is the notability requirement. IMDB or TV.com listing as a cast member is not "significant coverage" its a statement of fact (technically, they are tertiary sources for the source). I've seen mention of the show but not the children on the show in many sources, so there is a distinct lack of notability demonstrated. Laurel's appearance in a play may be notable, but because its a local production, and we don't list every single local theater production and the cast members in it, that itself is not notable. --MASEM 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's also the logic in my argument, though I may not have made it very clear. Yes, these kids have appeared. However, plenty of information about their experiences on the show is available in Kid Nation. There's no point in duplicating this information in individual articles. Is there enough non-Kid Nation notability to warrant these kids having their own article? It does not appear to be so. The references provided in the article cannot establish notability because they are either lists of names (trivial mentions cannot establish notability) or are not independent of the subject (press releases, a bio written by Laurel herself, pages on CBS.com, etc.). Now, Mike appeared on Ellen. That would be enough to establish notability if the interview was not about Kid Nation, which it is not. Again, that is simply a duplicate of information already in Kid Nation. I apologise if my argument was unclear, though it should be cleared up now. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is clearer and makes sense. I do not agree that notability outside of the initial notable event is necessarily demanded (as someone else pointed out above, there are many articles and many people who, but for one notable event, would not "qualify"). I see a very unclear standard being set among Wiki, though, as I initially pointed out with Reality show participants having their own pages already and thus these pages are in that same tradition. Yes, there's the opinion essay of Other Stuff Exists, but what we're looking at is the precedant set on Wiki. If we were to put all the information on each kid into the KN article, it would get excessively (and unmanagably) long. A list of participants page would be better, but individual pages for many of them could be warrented. As I've said, their notability is weak, but it is sufficient as I see it and as I see notability applied to articles throughout Wiki. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kid Nation article has grown to the point where articles need to be spun off. As such, their current collective notability has been determined. Nothing has been added to any individual article that is speculation. Deletion would be WP:CRYSTAL in reverse, speculating that nothing noteworthy will occur from any of them, when they have already achieved a notability comparable to other biographical articles. My vote is still Keep for having already attained notability, but I will support a merge, especially if individual articles can be kept on a case by case basis, and I strongly oppose deletion because I feel that is a WP:ALLORNOTHING. MMetro (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not everyone in a reality show is inherently notable, and neither is everyone who has ever been on a talk show. This would amount to saying that all video content whatsoever is inherently notable. DGG (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not everyone in a reality show is inherently notable. For example, someone who gets voted off in the first episode of a not very popular reality show, when they didn't even get that much screen time in that episode to begin with, wouldn't be very notable. But someone who gets lots of screen time and who is in every episode of a very popular reality show would be much more notable. Even if it is determined that none of these people are notable enough for their own article then at the very least we can still keep them but merged them together into a List of Kid Nation participants article. To delete all of them would be an overreaction. Ospinad (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys shouldn't delete the Anjay page. It's the most detailed...the most cited. I think in fact keep all articles. I think some Kid Nation fans are wanting to know more about the kids on the show. Use ImDB for full names, and CBS's site for biographical information.DancingWithTheStarsGuy (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Merge them into one article since none of them (except for maybe Anjay, if more information can be found on him and the spelling bees) are notable other then referring to their actions within the television series. TheSun (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, too!DancingWithTheStarsGuy (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Laurel's article; Merge the others (either into the Kid Nation article or a separate article for characters from Kid Nation), since they don't have any significance outside of the context of the show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Runger (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Most - Laurel's article seems to be well sourced and gives her some notability outside of the show and Anjay's does give some semblance of his notability too, but the others should definitely be deleted or (even better) just redirected to the main article. Phydend (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I see that another article has been added to the AfD. Anyway, Kelsey Liu, again, does not have any references that can establish notability per WP:N, so Delete her article. NF24^{(radio me!)} 11:37, 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 merge to Railfan. Still needs reliable sources if it's not going to be deleted as a neologism. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metrophile

After doing a Google search, the term "metrophile" cannot be found elsewhere on the internet in the context described in the article (except on mirror sites), and is not even listed as a word on Dictionary.com. Therefore, this article lacks any sort of notability and should be deleted. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN WP:NEO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Neologism with no sources. I checked the external links provided and none appear to mention this term. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

one uses the term "metro fan" (rather than "metrophile"); another is an advocacy group for public transport users ... --Paularblaster (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as the term is a little-known neologism. However, much of the article has interesting material that can easily be incorporated in Railfan. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Railfan. The term metrophile is a neologism, but the underground railway enthusiast is a figure of long standing. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Railfan. 209.105.207.181 (talk) 06:49, 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. east.718 at 02:02, November 27, 2007

[edit] Star Tripping

Unremarkable made up activity. Only sources I could find for this are the ones listed in the article. Maybe speedyable per db-web A^RendedWinter 08:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No suggestion of notability. Alberon (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah it is made up. Made up by some ids somewhere just like everything else we have and do. This is gettin popular among kids everywhere, and I've honestly done it and nothing happend. O well, its not cause to delete the article. Chromencajun1 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'm not sure which speedy I should point to, so I can't !vote for speedy, but that's what I'm thinking. Greswik (talk) 16:42, 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. east.718 at 02:02, November 27, 2007

[edit] We Are Change

This article reads like an advertisement written by one of the subject's members. Clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I am actually one of the members, but feel free to research my group and make the article more neutral. stewie69 (talk)

Delete Likely a Conflict of Interest is present too. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete There are no independent reliable sources, either to establish notability for the subject or to provide verifiable content for the article. Hence, it's no surprise that the article in unencyclopaedic and non-neutral. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per lack of adequate notability assertion. A non-profit organization that boasts about raising only $11,000 cannot be notable enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Looks like another case of someone who wants to use Wikipedia to build notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable kooks. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The author of this site has been active adding POV comments to today's main article, 7 World Trade Center, all of which have been reverted quickly. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- While the comment I made above can be used to establish the author's motive (in this case, COI), there are situations where such a comment constitutes irrelevant ad hominem. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Stewie69 has also made questionable modifications to September 11, 2001 attacks which were subsequently reverted. By What Wikipedia is not, it seems wrong to me that a member of some movement should write an article about it, with a number of external links that are no more neutral than its author. Hence, I think the article should be deleted. update: Page seems to have been deleted before, possibly for similar reasons: See deletion log Andreas Willow (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:NN fringe group. Fails WP:ORG. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete — non-notable organization, with no sources to back up claims of notability. --Haemo (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per reasons above. Timneu22 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment All the changes I made to the 7 World Trade Center and September 11, 2001 attacks were actually a service to wikipedia, as these articles are full of the lies of the official story. There is not one shred of evidence that those 19 hijackers or Osama Bin Laden is in any way shape or form connected to these attacks. Many of these hijackers are confirmed to be alive and living in the middle east. Steel buildings have NEVER collapsed from fire in history before 9/11/01. Our group is fighting to bring attention to the fact that right here in New York, in America, the government is murdering its own citizens and there is nothing being done to bring whoever did this to justice. You all have been fed lies and you're swallowing it down like thanksgiving turkey. To the guy that said we're not notable because we only raised $11,000 for the first responders, well we've only been at this for a year. Go ahead and delete this page if you want, You'll hear about us again. stewie69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Most are aware that small minorities believe different things. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where articles must display facts that are widely supported. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a place to draw attention to theories that are not well-supported. Consensus will probably never be reached on these subjects, people will always object. Although I wish to respect your opinion, I must stress that Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not a discussion platform. In many of the above WP links, you can see why you can not use Wikipedia for your opinion on this matter. Thank you for your understanding. Andreas Willow (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, I don't understand your point, so you don't need the thank me for that. 'Facts that are widely supported'? That doesn't mean true facts, but only facts that many people believe to be true. I believe wikipedia should contain only true facts. stewie69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I do not challenge your desire for Wikipedia to contain only true facts, I believe your claims that you only wish to tell the truth, per WP:AGF. The only point I'm making, is that in some cases the truth may be disputed. However, the current discussion on this page considers not possible vandalism on 9/11 pages, but rather the deletion of We Are Change. In this matter, I repeat that by WP:NN, the organisation remains, in my opinion, insignificant, and is not deserving a page on Wikipedia. Andreas Willow (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep due to improvements to the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

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

~~Weak Keep~~~~: For now. References have been added to support the statements listed, so I don't see the OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)~~

Delete: I've been convinced, per the below comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Per WP:HEY. Good work DGG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete — Overall concept of the article is OR and WP:SYN. Trying to tie together these diseases is OR. The entire thesis of the article is OR because there is no reference for it. Author is making a point, not reporting a point made by others. Skopp 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to me an entirely irrelevant article. Virtually every disease known to man had an unknown etiology before some period in its history, which readers can find out about in each disease's own article. For the handful of Wikipedia articles on diseases of unknown cause, we have Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Readers can also find lists of inflammatory diseases in inflammation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article rewrite displays this topic to be independently notable and verifiable. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per Someguy1221. (he pretty much covered everything.) jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete looks to me like a pretty straight-forward case of WP:SYN. Article author is collecting primary sources together to present a novel synthesis. The result does not appear to be an encyclopedic documentation of a topic with "extensive coverage" by reliable, secondary, sources as required by WP:N. If secondary sources existed, they would be review articles covering all the material covered in this article. If this article were to summarize a number of review articles from the medical journals, then I'd be satisfied, but that's not what's happening here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, essay. JJL (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Article creates a generalisation that doesn't exist. Most diseases mentioned are reasonably well understood, even if their etiologic agent is not known, and the author mixes autoimmune and infectious conditions, as well as suggesting diseases that feature inflammation are therefore "inflammatory diseases". WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH concerns as described. JFW | T@lk 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I agree there is a strong risk (indeed currently so) that this article breaches Original Research for the collation of different disease (not that any one disorder does not have plenty of references that could be cited), I would point out that the article is currently "Under construction" and already has had another admin (User:DGG) comment on problems and initial workup tasks required - see User talk:Reasonablelogicalman#Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology.
- As such, I’d be inclined to allow a little more leeway before AfD, and Skopp's (Skoppensboer (talk · contribs)) belittling of admin action/observation[21] is sailing close to the wind given the previous uncivil[22] edit warring against Reasonablelogicalman (talk · contribs) over whether there is a possible unrecognised infectious cause to chronic prostatitis.
- I agree though that WP:NOR risk and the topic might have been better worked up as a user subpage with some input from other editors to address the OR issues (too late now).
- Whilst a start has been made at citing references, many more are needed for the historical descriptions of each of the various diseases listed. Also if there is a citation which can be given to an article or textbook that considers inflammatory reponses to infections, then the charge of OR for the inclusion selection process for the various diseases would be (partly) addressed.
- Whilst I dislike intensely articles that collate unrelated disorders, there is no doubt that a large number of concurrently problematic disorders (MS, CFS, some cancers (cervical and possibly some of haematological cancers), inflammatory arthropathies, and dare I suggest chronic prostatitis) have had notable suggestions of having underlying infectious triggers. Of course whilst some initial research suggestions later confirmed and widely accepted, for many more acceptance has not been the case and WP:NPOV needs ensure such disproved/non-accepted suggestions not given WP:UNDUE weight.
- A description giving a historical outline of such notable claims does not seem unreasonable - the current (very brief) infection article addresses the direct effects of infections but not adverse effects of immune responses. Whether such coverage should be placed under infection or perhaps a better titled article (e.g. Inflammatory response to infections - but better phrased than my poor attempt) I'm unsure. However at very least "Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology" seems the wrong title for what is mostly an infections-as-putative-causes-of-inflammatory-disorders discussion. David Ruben ^Talk 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to persuade the author to at least divide the article: between one of diseases of presently unknown causation, and those that have been solved long ago, he has not done so. I cannot see any harm in deleting the article and starting over on a more rational plan.
I also remain unclear despite several questions about why there is a concentration upon inflammatory diseases, a very broad and inhomogeneous class--not all of which are infective.
However, I do not see the rush to delete the article, especially in view of the conflict between its author and the nom. over an article elsewhere. I have not been as involved with trying to straighten out the problems there as David R, but I concur in general with what he says above. DGG (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
comment the author does seem to be constructively working on it. I would continue to strongly advise division of the article. DGG (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

request more time I am requesting more time to work on the article. I have added much more content and have focused on adding more references that are from review articles in the medical literature. I have also rewritten the concept. Each day I add at least a little bit to the article. Thank for all the constructive input. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as modified. As the author is apparently reluctant to make the necessary drastic revisions in his article, I have boldly removed the long introduction explaining with over-long quotes why the subject is important, and also eliminated the section on diseases which have presently known etiologies. Such a summary section might well a separate article with an appropriate title, but I leave the author to do it. But he has by now added what seem to be adequate sources to verify the current status of each of the diseases mentioned, though one or two of the present ones seem to be individual case studies--they still need to be presented as proper references, not just links to PubMed. DGG (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as modified I think DGG has done a good job in modifying the article, and it is now both useful and more-or-less in compliance with OR. Tim Ross·^talk 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep with further modifications. The author asked my feedback. I was shocked to find a request for deletion. Clearly, it is misplaced here. Where are the calls to delete the 2007 Peruvian meteorite event article? This list is useful; please do not delete. I do, however, believe that the article should be simplified into a simple list of diseases. I notice that a List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies already exist. The author may chose to cross-link both lists or merge his list with the latter. I left a comment to that effect in the article talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve. The article is sourced and informative.Biophys (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into Amphisbaena since there is no consensus to delete the whole content.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amphisbaena (Dungeons & Dragons)

Non-notable gamecruft consisting solely of plot summarization. Recent precedent exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (Warcraft). The only reference is to a magazine published by the game's maker. Tagged {{orphan}} for 14 months(!). MER-C 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete fancruft. No to-links, no changes. Not needed. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the head article on amphisbaena. Where legendary creatures are involved, current fictional incarnations are just as "valid" as fictions from antiquity; and the current version is authoritatively sourced. I didn't see any plot summaries in the version I read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Smerdis of Tlön, above. - jc37 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Smerdis of Tlön, above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Amphisbaena. The article is a legitimate stub, but since the creature is (primarily) referenced in legendary contexts outside of D&D, making a separate article for the gaming variant is unwarranted. It belongs in the main article, under a subheading. Freederick (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Rosser

CSD A7 was declined, taking it here. I believe that he fails WP:BIO. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:01, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dickerson Middle School

As with most articles on schools, it lacks notability. That it gives the location of an apparent, child-celebrity, strikes me as a little odd, but nonetheless. THobern 07:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Alberon (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The performance at Disney's Magic Music days might warrant a mention in the school district's article, as that event is a big deal from the school's (and community's) perspective; there may be a source for it. Otherwise, there's no evidence to suggest that the school is itself notable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - Blue Ribbon is the highest award given to US schools and make the school highly notable. TerriersFan (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per ZZ, no assertion of actual notability itself. --ForbiddenWord (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - of course there is - a Blue Ribbon school. TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. User:TerriersFan has done a nice expansion demonstrating clear notability. With time, any school stub can have interesting, notable additions. Deleting school articles has no benefit and causes stub re-creation instead of incremental expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can only presume this article has improved dramatically. No one would surely delete it as it stands. Strongly agree with Blues underlying point. Victuallers (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly meets WP:N. Noroton (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep It has many references, no need to delete! — Noah¢s (Talk) 22:28, 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of David Jones stores

Not sure what use this article has; is a list of David Jones stores even notable? Jmlk 1 7 06:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This falls squarely under Wikipedia is not a directory. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Zetawoof. Lists of store locations are outside the realm of encyclopedias (but well within the realm of corporation websites). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Zetawoof. Too bad, must have taken the editor some work to collect all of this information (doesn't seem to be on the company's homepage). ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:LISTS. Not sure what wikipedia policy it breaches to warrant its deletion. At the very least, it should be merged into the main article on the store. Assize (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to David Jones Limited Though this department store chain is apparently notable, this is essentially a list of blue-links about malls and shopping centers , and statistical data about the square meterage that would fail WP:NOTSTAT. By analogy, would we keep a list of the square footage of each Macy's store? Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong merge per Mandsford. Mandsford makes some good points here and they should be followed instead of just deleting everything. The addition of closed stores in here means that the article is more than just a directory of stores. It could play a better role in the main store article but does not need its own list article. JRG (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It is not a valid list since it doesn't link anywhere useful as there are no wikilinks to stores but just to places in australia that happen to have such a store and it isn't sourced, so basically it is just a directory. The problem with merging (back) is that as often the stand alone list seems to exist to keep the main article free from such data.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The coverage of where the David Jones stores are is already sufficient at David Jones Limited, and it's too much work to ask the closing admin to do to merge. Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Mango juice^talk 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bicol University

None of the contents can be verified - the University's web site is down and apparently has been for some time. And based on the article history, the content is a stripped-down version of a probable copyright violation. Barrylb (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup as necessary. A quick search shows that the university is verifiably real and still open as of 2007. The history section appears to be a copy-and-paste, but its substance and other parts of the article can be sourced from 3rd parties. Universities are inherently notable with or without a working website. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a real, verifiable university. One does not need online sources for verification. --Polaron | Talk 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, per precedent consensus that universities are inherently notable. The article is in a poor state, but that's an argument for improvement, not an argument for deletion. — mholland (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Gene. If content can't be verified then remove unverifiable information and make it a stub. —Noetic Sage 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per this pdf file the government of the Philippines has audited Bicol university, which is evidence that it exists. Universities are generally notable, even if their articles need improvement. Cardamon (talk) 07:23, 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. Davewild (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20/20 Club NCAA

Not a notable concept, as it only came into existence last weekend and only gets 1 unique hit on Google News ([23]). Perhaps in the future when there are more members, it will become notable. Toohool (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Trust me, the Heisman trophy voters will be aware of Tim Tebow's stats without the help this worshipful Wikipedia article. The point of the article is that there's only one member of the club, and it's Tim Tebow. I will grant you that Tim Tebow is impressive, as is the 2007 Gators team that runs up ths score like crazy to average more than 40 points a game. And yes, for a player to pass for 20 and run for 20 TDS (as Tim Tebow has done. is unheard of. Perhaps you can mention in the Tim Tebow article that Tim Tebow is the first and only player to accomplish this amazing feat. I'm not sure that anyone else will join Tim Tebow in this exclusive club, but we get the point. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Put the AfD Template on the Article, then Delete I agree with Mandsford's analysis, but perhaps the nomination should be completed first. Maxa megalon 2000 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, added the template. Toohool (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with Mandsford's evaluation too. --Nehwyn (talk) 22:08, 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 keep/nomination withdrawn. • Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valery Kopayev

An athlete, notable for coming in at 7th place in a lone Winter Olympics event. two links on Google--I think the last two of four are based on Wikipedia content. News searches: nothing. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 06:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep/withdraw Per the great reasonings and examples below of other Olympians that previously have been kept at AfD with similar statures as Mr. Kopayev. I'll also move this to the correct spelling, that was found. Sorry for the trouble, guys. Maybe we should encode this at the People notability policy page? • Lawrence Cohen 14:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep the olympics is considered the highest level of amateur sports. It doesn't matter if he came in 7th or 70th, he is per WP:BIO notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So if a country sends 500 athletes to the Olympics, each of them gets an article even if they don't win a single thing, only participate in a lone event, and never return to any notable professional or amateur sport? If any Olympian is automatically granted notability (note again; this person literally has no independent coverage for his sporting achievements or lack thereof) where is that recorded as a standard for notability? I'll happily withdraw this, if that is the documented standard. But I thought independent coverage established notability. Otherwise, how do we know this person is even a 7th place one-time Olympian? • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are olympians notable? In a word Lawrence, yes. Nick mallory (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Even as past outcomes are not dispositive, I would suggest that the Lecomte, Christine Robinson, and Albert Baumann AfDs go toward the proposition that anyone to have been sent as a competitor to the Games of the Olympiad or the Winter Olympic Games is necessarily notable (funnily enough, I argued against that proposition in the Baumann AfD, but I have long since jettisoned my deletionism). To be sure, policy is not made at insular AfDs, and these three especially are not all that revelatory of the consensus of the community since many of the editors partaking of one partook of the other two as well, such that the three might properly be viewed as one discussion, but it appears to me that the disposition of those AfDs is consistent with the guidelines for notability of athletes (the "who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them" provision of which would tend, as Lawrence says, to suggest that non-trivial coverage in secondary sources might also be required to demonstrate notability but which might otherwise [and in consideration of precedent] be read simply to mean that secondary sources attest, even if in just a few words, to their having competing at something). In the Lecomte AfD, the inestimable Wknight94 initially !voted "delete...[u]nless including every Olympian ever is some kind of precedent" and subsequently !voted keep, having concluded that there exists "an include-all precedent like in other sports"; I'm inclined to think that his analysis of the views of the community was correct then and that "anyone ever to have competed in the Olympics, irrespective of his/her having done anything else, is necessarily notable" (of course, if all that we can say about an individual is that he/she represented his/her country in a given event at a given Olympics, we might properly redirect his/her name to our article about that event or the sport or disciplined that comprises it) may properly be regarded as a standard commanding general community support. Joe 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Official Report from the '76 Winter Olympics spells his name as Valeriy Kapaev. [24] (go to Combined Jumping). Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Still not notable, unfortunately: see here, and here. • Lawrence Cohen 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your links prove that he IS notable, not that he isn't. Nick mallory (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to point that out. And now we at least have some verification that this guy competed in the Olympics.

Of course, I'm not sure how much more you expect to find online. We could barely find anything about Mzoli's, a contemporary restaurant in an English speaking country. Mr. Kopaev is a Soviet skier from the 1970s! We'll need some real library research before we make a decision about this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we're not in any hurry. If there was precedent for Olympians to be notable in general, we could close this out. I'm sure someone is an expert, and might hold old newspapers or whatnot as well.• Lawrence Cohen 06:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Olympians clearly are notable 'in general' because they're by definition competiting at the highest level of their sport. Nick mallory (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Balloonman and the excellent Joe are entirely correct. The Olympics is the highest level of sporting competition and therefore, by definition according to Wikipedia's policy, every Olympian is notable. It's not the winning, it's the taking part. The only thing to decide is the spelling of his name. It's incredible to me that someone can think coming seventh in an Olympic event isn't a notable achievement. This nomination should be withdrawn. The principle of Olympic notability is clear. Nick mallory (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:BIO on notability with the athletes on the criteria of "Competitors of who have played or competed in the highest levels of amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Extra references have also been added about them. If the last name is incorrect, then we can always move the article to the correct spelling on this. Chris (talk) 13:53, 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 per G12 -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont Libertarian Party

Though they have a few sources on Google news archive searches, their main claim to fame appears to be a couple of lawsuits. Most mentions appear trivial or insignificant. No major successes in government elections. A straight Google search turns up a thin 38 results by the last page. I'm not entirely sure they're particularly notable. On a side note, the maintenance templates on the article are almost nine times longer than the article itself. • Lawrence Cohen 05:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SOAP. Also, assertion of notability is rather weak; probable conflict of interest. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. The only two sentences are plagiarized from [25]. MER-C 12:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:02, November 27, 2007

[edit] READY: A Hostage Story

Non-notable play. Appears to have only been produced at one high school. No mention of reviews or even any mention in the press. The only Google hit is at the author's website. The article for the author of the play, Terry Godard, is having its own AfD. eaolson (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not notable if it's merely a local interest piece.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable HS play that was performed 4 times!Balloonman (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable. I deleted this a few hours ago as a copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/ready2007, and the text has changed only a little since then. It would be better to let this AfD conclude than to speedy it again as a copyvio since this is not a suitable article even if copyright permission is granted.-gadfium 07:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non notable. Delete instead of speedy by reason given by gadfium. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN No references other than the author's own Myspace site. --DAJF (talk) 14:43, 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 merge to Yes (band). There was a clear consensus that the information should be kept in some form. However, the straight Keep !voters did not produce any convincing argument as to why this is better as a standalone rather than merged. Indeed, a merged article looks rather helpful in summarising graphically the complex changes in personnel described in prose. Whether the table should be reformatted, as proposed by sgeureka, is for post-AfD talk page discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Yes band members

Redundant to the Yes (band) article. The article explains all the band's lineup changes, and I don't see why it's necessary to have a standalone article for this. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yes is clearly a notable group, and there have been enough changes that this chronology makes a lot of sense and is clearly helpful.Balloonman (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a stand-alone article? I'm just nominating this because of the Foo Fighters and Nirvana lists below - these bands are easily as notable, and they're being nominated for deletion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep: I agree with your other nominations, as the extra article provides no extra context. In this case however, there is a enormous history of change. Putting all of this in the band article would bloat it, yet the information is relevant to the article, so i think an extra article is appropriate. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Woops, i was accidently on the band page, thinking i was actually on the list this AFD is about. Information doesn't seem as valuable now, so delete. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and maybe merge. What the Yes (band) article lacks is some sort of table or graphic showing all the line-up changes (of which there are many, many more than compared to Nirvana/Foo Fighters). That's what we've got here, so I don't see this article as being redundant. That said, it might be better to include such a table (or, indeed, a better designed one) in the main article. However, the way to achieve that would be to propose a merger; I really don't see AfDs as a good way of handling situations where merging might be appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Replace information with a time table like Oasis (band)#Past members has and merge/delete back to Yes (band). This information is not notable enough for a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Merge back to Yes (band) per above. This information is useful for the band's page but doesn't warrant it's own article. A1octopus (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Unlike Nirvana and the Foo Fighters, there have been alot of line up changes in fact, in the bands entire history they have only had one constant member Doc Strange (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above, although I think it could be merged back into the Yes article without detracting from that article. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of comparison, I wouldn't nominate Members of The Fall for deletion, as the number of lineup changes there makes Yes's lineup changes look small in comparison. I still think this is redundant though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Reformat and merge per sgeureka's suggetion. Although I think they could do a better job with the graphics, and I'd like to see each member as a separate line, rather than each instrument. If nobody creates this graphic, my vote is to keep unmerged as the information is important, but way too large for the main article. Torc2 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Yes (band). While the information is useful, it isn't worthy of its own page. •97198 talk 12:02, 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. Davewild (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Beckett

This article, about what I presume to be a notable musician, was previously speedily deleted. I created a stub in its place, only to find a prod tag on it, which I removed. I'm going through with a full AfD. Certainly the AMG bio looks promising, and I would think this article should be kept. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak Delete~~~~: The only assertion I see is that he worked with notable people, which isn't enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)~~

Keep: Per the great improvements by the nom. Good work! - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the article now, and a producer who has worked with all of these artists certainly seems notable. He produced Bob Dylan's Slow Train Coming. Check Special:Whatlinkshere/Barry Beckett. He clearly is notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete I think he has potential, but I'm not sold on it yet.Balloonman (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Co-produced "Slow Train Coming" with Jerry Wexler and has worked with any number of big name groups. Instrumental in the 'Muscle Shoals' sound. Strange nomination really. Nick mallory (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually want it deleted, but I came here for consensus because it was speedily deleted and prodded previously.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why it's strange. It shouldn't have been speedied but it shouldn't be here either. Nick mallory (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well why are editors so keen to speedily delete and PROD things? Give an article a chance.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep-His notability is more valid than most music bios on here but the article needs cleaning and expanding.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:41, 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. Notability concerns addressed with sources. Spellcast (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunset Marquis Whisky Bar

Unreferenced article on bar in hotel. The hotel itself does not have an article. I declined a prod because a previous AfD under the earlier article title of Whisky Bar was kept as no consensus; see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whisky Bar. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Nothing found in a Google search that would make this place notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete : Lacking notability as noted by RJD0060. (I was the one who put up the prod for deletion based on this criteria) Guroadrunner (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I've "seen" celebrities... but I'm assuming that the author meant that the celebrities have performed there? Even so, having a famous person perform there doesn't equate to notability.Balloonman (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think it just means that they hang out there? (Per [26] from the original AfD.) Espresso Addict (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete doesn't seem verifiable. RJFJR (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now seems to have some verifiability, so I'm willing to reconsider, but is it notable? (Nees to be renamed.) RJFJR (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I've edited the article to give it context. "Sunset Marquis" is the subject of a song and has received some news mention. Article should be about the hotel with a section on the bar, so the article should be moved to Sunset Marquis or Sunset Marquis Hotel. The bar is now called Bar 1200, by the way. Don't people research these things? Gimmetrow 05:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notable; improved per WP:HEY. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:02, November 27, 2007

[edit] Thurtene carnival

This started as an article about a nonnotable carnival, and has now turned into an article about the organization that does the carnival that is only slightly more notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I do not see how this is notable...seriously. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Carnival organised by a secret society and whose only references are not independent of the organising body. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no different than thousands of other non notable college festival.Balloonman (talk) 06:50, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Godard

Overly promotional biography. The person may be notable, but we'd be better starting again rather than trying to make this neutral. gadfium 04:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed that the article was a copyvio of [27] as originally written. However, it has been substantially rewritten since I nominated it for deletion. This now becomes an issue more of notability than of promotion, although the copyvio in the history may mean the article needs to be deleted anyway. My nomination for deletion stands. The article needs reliable sources and clear establishment of notability to be kept.-gadfium 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable. Google search brings back approximately 250 hits, however most of them are not this person, and the few that actually are, do not assert any notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't appear to be notalble. Author also created READY: A Hostage Story (which I've proded), which has no Google hits either. eaolson (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, only refs are self-published, and blogs. Non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete don't see the notabilityBalloonman (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN --DAJF (talk) 14:44, 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 Speedy Delete per A7 company without claim of notability. Balloonman (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Trade Centre Residence

Delete yet another nn building under construction, without sources as the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable, brand new building. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. Balloonman (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamweel Tower

Delete nn skyscraper - 35 floors which in skyscraper world ain't that tall Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:01, November 27, 2007

[edit] Al Seef Tower 2

Delete another nn building under construction in the same complex Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Al Seef Tower 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) same reasons, same complex Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete All: These aren't notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment reopened AfD, buildings are not speedyable as CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable enough. RMHED (talk) 20:52, 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 delete. east.718 at 02:01, November 27, 2007

[edit] The Success of Open Source

Contested prod. This book fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Lacking any commentary from reliable sources, this article should be deleted and the existing mention of the book in the article Steven Weber (professor) could be expanded if there were any material to add. The article on Steven Weber (professor) is already very short, and no case has been made that an unsourced book article needs to exist in addition to the author article.

For Wikipedia:Notability (books) , note the requirement that The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. The publisher's own web page is not a reliable source, and the award the book is said to have won is hardly a major literary award like those listed in Category:Literary awards. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the nom. This book does not meet notability guidelines for books. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Edjohnston did a great job explaining why this should be deletedBalloonman (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nom. Mikemill (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Tim Ross·^talk 20:14, 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. Spellcast (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of channels on Tiscali TV

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and not a channel surfing guide with lineups of every conceivable cable, terrestrial, satelite system everywhere in the world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per NOT. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)a
Delete clearly NOTBalloonman (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge back into Tiscali TV article, from which it was recently spun off from. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:01, November 27, 2007

[edit] List of Foo Fighters band members

Redundant content. Lists like this are notable for bands that had significant lineup changes throughout their history. The Foo Fighters, however, have not. The changes are already covered in detail in their article. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. When it comes to lineup changes, they're not exactly the Queens of the Stone Age. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per the nom reason. This information is already properly covered in the main article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, totally redundant to the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Put anything useful back into the Foo Fighters page; redirect it after. • Lawrence Cohen 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't see the need for this group to have a list.Balloonman (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as everything relevant can be kept (or is kept) in the band article. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete The band haven't had many significant line-up changes in their successful years. Martin B (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Leave or merge There's been a lot of instrument-switching over the years in the band, and it's too vague to simply write it in a list. I've tried adding this table to the article, but that always gets rejected, and I've tried clarifying who played what when in other ways, but that always gets reverted too. Now I've tried making this, but it's just getting nominated for deletion! How am I supposed to write the important details of this information without someone undoing it?

I'd also like to point out that there is a page for Def Leppard band members, and they've had seven line-ups too, but no one says anything about that page!

--Rock Soldier (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you refuse to listen to the opinions of other editors. The active editors of both Foo Fighters and Nirvana (band) have made it abundantly clear (ie, consensus) that they do not think a list of this type is useful in the article. Your response was to create new articles for the explicit purpose of adding these lists to Wikipedia. That's not how Wikipedia works. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:00, November 27, 2007

[edit] St. Vincent de Paul Separate School

Delete nn primary school without any sources to show how or why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per Wikipedia:Notability (schools)....oh wait, that notability guideline doesn't exist for some reason. Anyways, this is just another non-notable school. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per rjdBalloonman (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board per precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Carloss. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:04, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human (Christian band)

Delete fails WP:BAND only issued one album no evidence of meeting other criteria and the band is now defunct to little likelihood of meeting any in the future. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not meet BAND, and probably will not ever, as the band doesn't exist anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete As mentioned, not notable now, and unlikely to become so as they're history. • Lawrence Cohen 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC quite badly, reliable sources barely exist at all.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails to meet bioBalloonman (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:BAND. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep with the necessary expansions. The band released a succesful album that received mostly critical praise from almost every critic I can find, it was produced by two renowned producers (Dino Elefante & Billy Smiley), and they enjoyed a good - albeit brief - stint of success opening for bands like Petra, Audio Adrenaline, and Geoff Moore. Still looking for more sources and more info to expand the article. Thief12 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Doesn't quite make WP:Music, has one non-trivial secondary source and one album on a possibly well-known indie lable, but niether are quite enough. A1octopus (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. I realize this is pretty unorthodox, as I participated in the debate. However there are too many solutions being proposed, none of them has majority consensus apart from that the article doesn't belong here in the main namespace (thus, a "no consensus" close, while probably an accurate assessment, would result in the wrong thing happening, which I think is why people keep not closing this debate). With a transwiki closure, the material will be available in full; that way if anyone wants to incorporate some of the material into other places, they can. (If another admin sees this closure and agrees with it, I'd appreciate a note of endorsement here, for transparency's sake.) Mango juice^talk 13:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the end result, but your closing it because closing as no consensus would lead to "the wrong thing happening" is entirely inappropriate; please don't do it again. Neil ☎ 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Researching Japanese names

This seems to fall under a combination of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: This is a directory page, and not acceptable for Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Move or Delete: This doesn't belong in the article namespace. If WP:JAPAN wants it, it should be moved to a subpage they can manage, otherwise delete. Burzmali (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The policy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY lists five criteria and the policy WP:NOT#REPOSITORY lists four. Of those, I cannot identify any one that describes this article. Researching Japanese names presents valuable encyclopedic information for general readers and its interest goes beyond Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan (of which I'm a member). So it should stay in the article namespace. (Other titles can be considered.) Fg2 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure on this one. There are no sources on the page, but all of the works listed there could be used as sources. Are there any articles out there which list references for looking up Japanese name information? These could be used to source the content here. I don't think an AfD was the proper way to note these problems, however. The article should have been marked as needing sources instead, and perhaps a note placed on the WikiProject Japan talk page. I agree with Fg2's interpretation of WP:NOT. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't nominate it to correct those problems, I nominated it because it's just a list of references. Is there another wiki that could cover this, so that we could transwiki? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  - - We could transwiki it to Wikibooks, maybe. Mango juice^talk 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I support Merging into Japanese name per Chris, below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
merge into Japanese name Chris (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Move or delete per Burzmali. This doesn't violate WP:NOT#DIR, it violates WP:NOT#HOWTO, in a big way. I can't picture how this could become an article, but even if there is a way, someone needs to do it or we shouldn't keep it in the main namespace. Mango juice^talk 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge content into List of genealogy portals and add external links. I think the content is reasonable for Wikipedia, but Researching Japanese names is an unsuitable article name. The Japanese sources should be in a separated section of List of genealogy portals so that it can be specifically referenced by other articles such as Japanese name. PKT (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks as a 'How to' guide. BlueValour (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and transwiki. I agree with Mangojuice on his interpretation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. However, I do feel some of it will be relevant in Japanese name. The majority can be transwikied to Wikibooks, though. SorryGuy 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. The term is in widespread use and readers would expect certain films to be listed. The argument of original research is overcome by providing references, as suggested, and this needs to be done as with any article. I will tag as unreferenced. Merge or otherwise is an editorial decision. Tyrenius (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of avant-garde films: Pre 1930

Delete what constitutes an avant-garde or experimental film is a subjective determination and this unsourced list while it looks pretty does not provide us with anything except POV OR of the subjectiveness of its author. And what watershed event occurred in 1930 to make that anything but an arbitrary cut-off? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating:

List of avant-garde films: 1930s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of avant-garde films: 1940s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of avant-garde films: 2000s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) same reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per WP:OR since what constitutes avant-garde and experimental is subjective -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: per the arugements on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of action films: 1970s. If every film needs to be cited for genre it can be done so, but with lists like these it enables people to get more familiar with what these are without being overtly subjective. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, lists like this are very useful navigational tools on Wikipedia. In many cases references for the films being experimental or avant-garde can be found in the actual movie articles, something that is perfectly allowed, although it might be a good idea to start adding references in the lists. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and merge - merge into one page ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per Andrzejbanas Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The information is already present in the article, so there's nothing to merge. If you want to change the format of the Nirvana_(band)#Band_members section, discuss it on Talk:Nirvana (band); don't create a fork article just to display the same information in a different format. Neil ☎ 15:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nirvana band members

Redundant content. Lists like this are notable for bands that had significant lineup changes throughout their history. Nirvana, however, did not. The changes are already covered in detail in Nirvana (band). -- ChrisB (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This info is covered by the {{Nirvana (band)}} template and the article's coverage of the band history. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, redundant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not as if there were that many members...? Delete/redirect back to the parent. • Lawrence Cohen 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
delete no major changes or extensive changes in historyBalloonman (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is easily contained with a category. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Leave or merge I've tried adding the information in a layout like this to the article, but it always gets rejected for the "space it takes up". I tried making a separate page for it to avoid that problem, but now that's being rejected too. It's a useful layout, probably the best way to show which drummers came before which and which line-ups were with who. It's too inconvenient to just have the drummers listed with the years they were in the band, it's too confusing to figure out which were when. This layout works fine in plenty of other articles, I don't see why there's a problem with it here, particularly in another article.

I'd also like to point out that there is a page for Def Leppard band members, and they've only had seven line-ups, less than Nirvana, and yet there's no one discussing deletion for that page!

--Rock Soldier (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you refuse to listen to the opinions of other editors. The active editors of both Foo Fighters and Nirvana (band) have made it abundantly clear (ie, consensus) that they do not think a list of this type is useful in the article. Your response was to create new articles for the explicit purpose of adding these lists to Wikipedia. That's not how Wikipedia works. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as everything relevant can be kept (or is kept) in the band article. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and recommend that the others he has made for other bands be deleted too! Everything can be covered in their main article(s)! Scarian ^Talk 09:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge (and thus keep) to parent article, this list is much more detailed and easy to interpret than what is mentioned in Nirvana. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge Nirvana haven't had any significant line-up changes so it should be merged into Nirvana. Martin B (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge Like the Foo Fighters, Nirvana hasn't had frequent line-up changes (except for drummers, but they haven't had that many) In fact after 1991 the only addition was the 1993 inclusion of Pat Smear. This would be fine as a part of the Nirvana page itself. Doc Strange (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect without deleting. Notable, but short enough to be part of the main article, I think. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:36, 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 SkierRMH (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia Delta

Wikipedia is not WP:NOT a webspace provider for individual chapters of student organizations. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; article fails to assert sufficient notability. However, I believe that individual fraternity chapters (maybe even this one?) can be notable. —Disavian (^talk/

_contribs) 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there have been several debates about individual chapters in the Fraternity and Sorority project and the consensus is that no individual chapter should have a Wikipedia page. Every single similiar article like this has been deleted. In fact, a project that attempted to create an article of every single chapter of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity was deleted. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: No sources, nor any assertion of notability for this club. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:OR, little content in the article itself, unlikely to be notable (but what do I know about U.S. fraternity organisations? Precisely nothing, because they don't exist where I live. Should I be thankful?)--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable and OR...Balloonman (talk) 07:30, 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 Delete (w/possible COI by author of article) SkierRMH (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaea Beyond the Son

No notability asserted in the form of reliable sources. The notability guideline for books says that a book should, at a minimum, have an ISBN number and be in a national library, but "meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable". shoy (^words _words) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Article does not meet our notability guideline for books. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources can be found. WP:NOT#DIR applies here - there must be masses, huge numbers of non-notable books and this one doesn't seem any different.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable bookBalloonman (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This book was published just last month. It appears to be both the first novel of the author P.D. Gilson and the first novel published by Helios Publishing. A new book by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publisher does not meet WP:BK. Bláthnaid 10:22, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Cleveland Christian School

Closed school does not seem to have ever achieved notability through WP:N, WP:ORG or the proposed & rejected WP:SCHOOL Ga rr ie 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Ga rr ie 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't added, but it is now. TerriersFan (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete This school seems particularly non notable with its short troubled history. --Stormbay (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I cannot find anything that would make this school notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete clearly not notable in its short history.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Rjd. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:04, 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. east.718 at 02:00, November 27, 2007

[edit] Ceremonial county of Durham

Content forking and breach of WP:PLACE. Result of edit warring. Possible breach of WP:POINT. All content should, per policy be within one County Durham article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Super Extra Strong Delete - All these articles need to be deleted. Not notable for articles, anything contained in them worth keeping should go onto the County Durham article within the history section as the traditional county was destroyed a long time ago. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, or at least redirect to County Durham. This is content forking to make a WP:POINT. While the entities described by each article title do (or did) exist in one shape or other, the subtle distinctions between each are best explained in a single article, not split across five. --RFBailey (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect All: To County Durham. What's the point of these? A question about Non-metropolitan county of Durham though, it already was a redirect yet you AfD'd it. I'm not sure why you did that, but for future reference, use WP:RFD instead, as AfD'ing a redirect is not proper. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: strictly speaking, redirects should be listed at RfD, but that would have created two discussions on what is essentially the same topic. As three articles and one redirect were nominated, AfD is the right place. --RFBailey (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, I would have did the RfD anyways. Even if this discussion concluded first, that would then make the redirect speedy-deletable per R1. I guess this is WP:IAR? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: it wouldn't make it speedy-able, because the target article (County Durham) is not one of those up for deletion. But I agree this is a case of WP:IAR. --RFBailey (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as unnecessary forks. The equivalent of a separate article for each of the original 13 American colonies, just because they had land claims beyond the Appalachians that they gave up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect or delete all, not fussed, but unnecessary content forks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is simply POV forking by the "traditional counties" mob. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Delete These forks are unnecessary and will be confusing to ordinary readers who are not immersed in some kind of POV pushing. DDStretch (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep until more explanation provided. What is the edit war and why is the County Durham article the best place for all this? FWIW, I was born in this area myself and so have a special interest in this. And what about Cleveland and any other overlapping areas? I'm suspicious of the extravagant hyperbole above and suppose that one or more sides in the edit war are at work here. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The edit war in question is that on the County Durham article. It arises from the (unanswerable) question as to whether "historic" County Durham (i.e. including Gateshead, Sunderland, etc.), "non-metropolitan" Durham (the area covered by the modern-day Durham County Council), "ceremonial" Durham, etc. are totally separate entities or not. Regardless of one's opinions on the topic, it is totally unhelpful to have information spread across four or five separate articles, making it difficult for an uninformed reader to put it into context, and also suggests a single "correct" (in somebody's opinion) definition of "County Durham". Of course, there should be an article on County Durham, as there should be on Northumberland, Cleveland, Tyne and Wear and Westmorland.

The presence on Wikipedia of a small number of noisy "traditional counties" enthusiasts (i.e. people who believe that Westmorland still exists, etc. etc.) in the past caused a huge amount of edit-warring, POV-pushing and other disruption, and as a result arouses very strong passions. This is the source of the "hyperbole" you were referring to.

Does that help? --RFBailey (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. On reflection, I'm now a Strong Keep. The deletion argument is based primarily upon WP:PLACE but I'm not seeing anything there which prevents having articles on notable historic regions in their appropriate context. For example, we have separate articles on London, City of London, Greater London, County of London and more. Separate articles which explain the details, boundaries and history of each of these concepts seem fine. Forcing them all together into one article would tend to cause confusion rather than clarity and lead to warring over the true name of the entity, as has happened here. There's room and reason enough for all. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think London is a false analogy here. The latter three "Londons" are all well-defined entities, each of which is quite different, and also has enough content to make a full article. The same can't be said of, say, "Ceremenonial county of Durham" and "Non-metropolitan county of Durham", or (worse) "Traditional county of Durham" and "Administrative county of Durham" which are pretty much identical. There's just not enough content here to justify the separate articles, and besides that they are so intertwined that they should be explained all in one place. --RFBailey (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point FR Bailey about the non-metropolitan county and ceremonial county, and the traditiomnal and adminsitrative counties covering a similar area but fundamentally it is wrong to say they are the same. In any case, Tyne and Wear, Cleveland, and even Yorkshire (a big area of the non-met county of Durham came from administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding) are all intertwined. We should acknowledge this as it is by having a seperate article that is linked to the non-met and met counties. Logoistic (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that they are exactly the same, but given that they are extremely similar, it is more useful to have a single article which can focus on the common ground and draw out the small differences. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are "extremely similar" is irrelvent (and in any case they are not really: large swathes of the admin county went into Tyne and Wear and Cleveland and a very large section of Yorkshire approximating nearly 100,000 acres went into the non-met county of Durham). The point is to be accurate, not second guessing what is more "useful" and misleading readers in the process. Logoistic (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant that they are extremely similar, and all have the same common name ("County Durham"). Having one article doesn't preclude accuracy. --RFBailey (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete all (or redirect any which might ever be linked to, to point to County Durham). Some of the other entities are ill-defined, others well defined, but there is so much overlap that the differences are best explained in the County Durham article. Warofdreams talk 03:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep until this is debated as per my post here. My main concern is having a seperate adminsitrative county article since the non-metropolitan county of Durham is not the same as the adminsitrative county of Durham. The adminsitrative county was split into several different entities (non-met county of Durham, non-met county of Cleveland, and met county of Tyne and Wear). It is not right to give the non-metropolitan county of Durham preferential treatment over the adminsitrative county of Durham's history as all of these met/non met county areas had part of their area in it. The best solution would be a seperate article.

To the point about seperate articles confusing users: Wikipedia: Naming conventions (places) makes it clear that the article on "County Durham" is to mean the non-metropolitan county. It is surely more confusing to start conflating the administrative county of Durham with the non-metropolitan county of Durham. If the truth is confusing then so be it: we can't start compensating for that.

As a side point, I think some of the eitquette used here needs improving here. I am not a "tradional counties enthusiast" but an entusiast for the truth: there are no 'sides' here. I think you will find me reasonable if you adress my arguments and engage with me. I really can't be arsed with Wikipedia fighting: I've seen too many burn outs and lack of progress for that. Logoistic (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Breach of AfD guidelines The original nominator for the discussion (User:Jza84) has breached guidelines about articles for deletion, sepecifically: "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic." The user sent a clearly biased message to several editors about "still a flat earth" (see here, here, here). When Bailey says that he might retire from Wiki Jza84 then says "don't retire! If you do who's going to help tell the world that their planet isn't flat?" (see here). Clearly Colonel Warden was right to be suspicious about the hyperbole: the AfD has been stacked. I am disgusted. Logoistic (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What?!? "[...] Bailey says that he might retire[...]"? I don't recall saying such a thing! What are you talking about? --RFBailey (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered this. --RFBailey (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: Yes I brought this to the attention of some users I am aware of that are involved with British geography per your own request ([28]). Regardless, this still doesn't nulify the pre-existing consensus or policy, or non-negotiable fundamental policies on verifiability or citing sources. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That statement was written before you even nominated the article for deletion. It was referring to the dicussion we were having on the talk page, not to vote in an AfD (which didn't even exist). I am not sure what you mean by citing sources: what do you doubt about the articles? That the administrative county of Durham existed? It is not up to me to proove that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is not a direct continuation of the adminsitrative county, it is up to you to proove that it is (and therefore that Tyne and Wear and Cleveland are not), and I don't think you can (which is exactly my point!). Logoistic (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have no further intention of dragging this out any further (it is clear a consensus and policy exist), and as such this is the last time I shall respond here as I can't continue to repeat myself. However, full citation is found at County Durham - it's there will all the details of authors and isbn's as a courtesy for you to go and verify. Policy, community, convention, consensus and citation - all as one - all supporting each other. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but your citations are to show that it is of "historic origin". I don't doubt that, but those sources don't say that the adminsitrative county and the non-metropolitan county are the same! They don't say that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the sole embodied continuation of the administration county of Durham! Tyne and Wear and Cleveland are too, and we should not treat them as if they have been "cut off" from County Durham by having a history of the administative county exclusively in the non-metropolitan county of Durham article: they are just simply not in the non-metropolitan county of Durham, and that is it! I hope someone understands what I am trying to say here!!!!!!!! Logoistic (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your sources as to why. We do not accept individual users as authorities on geography. You should (must) be reporting back on reliable source material rather than providing original research. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there is nothing to say that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the sole embodied continuation of the administration county of Durham. It is up to you to proove that it is, not me to proove that it isn't!!! You get me now?? Logoistic (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to engage with you, and even assume good faith from hereon. I want to ask an explicit question - are you trolling? I really don't know if you're trying to mock and undermine what going on here or if it's just your character to persist in such matters; citation has been provided in full in the article (which you can verify) and there's an overwhelming consensus above and a policy that exists that asserts your ideas are not helpful in furthering Wikipedia. Again, please, please, cite your sources, as I have done. You're in an absolute minority here and your ideas would be better served and respected if you did this. Even if you provided them, you should respect the consensus that, however noble or un-noble, your ideas are unwanted and unhelpful. Thanks for understanding, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't get what I am trying to say, therefore I will leave it to others to understand it. Please assume good faith: just because you don't understand what I am trying to say does not mean that I am trolling. Logoistic (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Look, I understand that each of the titles nominated has a different meaning, the problem is that there's no need to have separate articles on all of them. It should be about all of them. The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain:

Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time.

This appears to me to be the relevant piece of policy here. The County Durham article isn't (or shouldn't be) just about one definition, it should be about all of them. If it has more content relevant to the non-metropolitan county, then that's because that is the present-day administrative area, so is probably the primary usage of the term, and thus has more relevance to people. --RFBailey (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But "changed its boundaries with time" is false: the administrative county of Durham is not the same as the non-metropolitan county of Durham. No matter what popular imagination says (and I know a lot of organisations and people think like that), the administrative county of Durham did not "shrink" to form the non-metropolitan county of Durham, it was abolished and three new entities formed in its place. The policy is wrong, that's why I challenged it here. I am perfectly willing to put in a section about how some people and organisations see the non-metropolitan as the sole, direct continuation of the administrative county of Durham (such as Durham County Council - I can give you lots of documents that claim this), but on the condition that it is made clear that this is how they perceive it, yet actual legislation simply abolished one area and set up three others in its place. Logoistic (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: (and edit conflict) For those who wish to see the separate articles remain, I have a question for them to answer. As a preamble: Looking at the different articles as they now stand, some are certainly of stub status, and one is empty. These would certainly be candidates for merger with other articles or deletion as they now stand, and also for the additional reason (apparently conceded by Logoistic) that they are greatly intertwined with the entities the other articles are about. Now, let us assume that the present County Durham article is the primary one. My question is: what information is it envisaged that each of the other articles would contain, if kept and developed, that would be specific to each of those articles? In other words, removing all the duplicated information in one article that can be found in another (with County Durham remaining a primary one), how much would remain in each of the articles? Note that this is a hypothetical question, since I was always under the impression that one added to an article until it became so unwieldy that one considered a split into two or more articles, and what has been done here, on the basis of what is currently in each article, seems to be the reverse situation: split the articles first and then try to put information in them, which, so far, seems not to have happened. DDStretch (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: First and foremost, it is factually inaccurate to conflate the non-metropolitan county of Durham with the administrative county of Durham: this is the most important point. They are two seperate entities, the former of which was broken up into 3 new entities, the latter of which was merely one such entity. Secondly, there would be no need for duplicate information: the "County Durham" article is supposed to deal with the non-metropolitan county of Durham, which can then link to the administrative county of Durham (and the same for Cleveland and Tyne and Wear articles), and so each would define their specific entity. Thirdly, the actual County Durham article as I had it (check before Jza84's changes) removed little information from it, whilst the administrative county of Durham article could be expanded by users. Principally though, we should not merge the articles because the "County Durham" article is supposed to be about the non-metropolitan county of Durham (as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places): "We should use the current, administrative [meaning non-metropolitan], county"), and this county is not the 'shrunken' form of the administrative county of Durham.Logoistic (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge all to County Durham. Is there really so much that can be said about different minimal variations on the same thing that cant be said in a single article? Having numerous articles on a very similar thing is confusing to the uninformed reader, who will struggle to understand how things stated in one article may or may not relate to the other or worse not realise the existence of a more relevant article (whilst serves no purpose to the informed reader as they already know), secondly it encourages replication of material. Both of which are bad things. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with introducing innaccuracy because some people might be confused. On the contrary, we should present the facts as they are. Logoistic (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to introduce inaccuracy. All of this could go in a single article. Having one article and accuracy are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in the broader scheme, the replication that multiple articles will create means that a single article will on the whole be more accurate as there is only one article where any mistakes need to be corrected rather than five. In my experience of Wikipedia replication leads to inaccuracy as most editors will not realise the existence of (or can not be bothered to trawl the encyclopedia for) other articles where the same error occurs. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution: I have proposed at least a partial solution here. Logoistic (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For the nth time, nobody is remotely suggesting that the differences should not be explained, merely that they should be explained in a single article. Given your proposal, Administrative county of X would have to contain the same explanation as Non-metropolitan county of X and Ceremonial county of X. Having it spread across three (or more) articles would make it harder to contain a consistent explanation (they might do to begin with, but not after people have edited them), and therefore would be counter-productive. And I disagree with your assertion that modern-day County Durham is not the natural successor to the historical county that has been in existence for centuries--that really is a fringe point-of-view. (Are you seriously suggesting that, say, Bishop Auckland is in a different county now from what it was in 1750? "Popular imagination" seems to be used to mean "the vast majority of the people, who all disagree with me".) While a technicality of 1970s local government legislation may have abolished one entity and replaced it with another (with the same name), that simply amounts to changing its boundaries. This isn't "covering up the truth", it's the reality of the situation.

Finally the quote from the naming conventions which says that We should use the current, administrative, county is primarily referring to which county we should use to describe where places are (e.g. the article on Gateshead should describe it first and foremost as being in Tyne and Wear) as a geographical reference. It is not saying that the "county" articles should only be about the current entity with no mention of its pre-1974 history. --RFBailey (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it is obvious that Bishop Auckland is in a different county: the LGA 1972 is not a "technicality" and you cannot plaster over the facts of this legislation because you think the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the "natural successor" to the administrative county of Durham. Present the facts as they are: legislation is in no way a "fringe point-of-view" but the primary source that created and abolished the entities we are discussing. Bishop Auckland both belong to county entities that both contained the term "Durham", but it doesn't mean they were the same and Wikipedia should not be misleading people about this. I have already said we can include the views of those who do see it as a "natural successor" (with references), and I know certain organisations and people perceive it like this (but this doesn't mean the "vast majority of people"). Unless you survey a representitive sample of the population of County Durham (however you want to define it) I won't be taking your opinion on that one. Logoistic (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposed solution given by Logoistic introduces an inaccuracy that isn't otherwise present if one does not introduce his new breach of the naming conventions. The form of words used in his proposed solution suggests that Tyne and Wear got only parts of former non-metropolitan county of Durham, and nothing else, when in fact, it got others pieces of land from Northumberland and so on. If one attempts to take the solution offered to its logical conclusion, and keeps with his basic idea, one would have to have separate articles for, say, Congleton (a) before it was made an Urban District, (b) for when it was an unparished area, and finally, (c) for when it was created a civil parish again. This would be replicated all over the UK at civil parish, borough, council district and county levels. At least if Logoistic is serious about this matter, I would expect him to admit that this would be what is required. However, that way leads to madness. DDStretch (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem on the first point, instead of saying "the legislation divided the adminsitrative county of Durham into 3 new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties (Cleveland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear)", we simply replace the word "into" by "among", thus "the legislation divided the adminsitrative county of Durham among 3 new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties (Cleveland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear)". This does not suggest that Cleveland, Durham, or Tyne and Wear consisted of purely of land from the administrative county of Durham. On the second point, the level of significance of entities below county level is lower than the county level significance. If it was felt that there is a history to talk about for previous entities (as evidently there is in the case of administrative counties - hence why the administrative county of Durham gets a run through in the County Durham (i.e. "non-metropolitan county") article) then there is no reason not to have a seperate article. If it is not significant then the article can say that Congleton belonged to entity X until X time and leave it at that. Note that this is in contrast the way some users are portraying certain non-metropolitan counties as the "natural successor" to the administrative county. I believe the administrative county of Durham article could contain the historical county history, thus making the article significant. I see your point about significance though. Logoistic (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. We had all of this before a few years ago, somebody else went around spliiing up county articles such as Warwickshire. And after a long debate it was clearly decided a long time ago that splitting up county articles was unnaceptable. G-Man ^? 18:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that discussion debates whether the traditional counties should be used as the current day referrent in Wikipedia articles. Please read my arguments. I am not arguing that the historical counties should be used as a modern day referrent, and I don't really mind whether seperate historical county articles remain: just that to conflate an adminsitrative county with the non-metropolitan county is a no-goer. When the adminsitrative county was split it is pure opinion whether one entity is seen as a "natural successor" - the legislation made no statement about this. We can say who considers it a natural successor (e.g. Durham County Council) but we must state facts as they are: the adminsitrative county was abolished (nothing about an entity's boundaries being "changed") and distributed among three other entities. Simple as that. Btw, I am going to be away until Friday so excuse any delay in replying! Logoistic (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the provisions of the 1972 Act, all pre-existing local government structure was abolished and replaced. So let's take another example, Cornwall. Following Logoistic's logic, the then-existing administrative county of Cornwall was abolished and replaced by a new non-metropolitan county of Cornwall. This had exactly the same boundaries as its predecessor [29]. Should we have separate articles on each of those? Surely not doing that would be "conflating" too?

As I and others have said repeatedly, having a single article should not preclude accurately describing the effect of legislation. It is far less confusing to readers this way. --RFBailey (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that both entities have the same name, cover much of the same area, and have both been administered by a body called Durham County Council, legal technicallities aside, common sense would suggest that the current non-met county was in practice a continuation of the previous admin county but with different boundaries. G-Man ^? 23:28, 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. east.718 at 17:52, November 29, 2007

[edit] Jamie Bishop

Redirect to list of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre- per WP:PROF, this teacher is not known as an expert in his field, is not known for publishing anything significant in his field, and is not known for advancing anything new in his field, and has not received a notable award in his field. Per WP:BIO, the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of his death in the Virginia Tech massacre. HokieRNB (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Argument by the author for keep: Before writing the article, I did check the Wikipedia definition of notability. The key definition is: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors." (The text at Wikipedia:Notability (people) has similar wording, "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.")

My quick google search gives me 51,300 hits. [30]. Yes, I'm aware that merely having a lot of google hits does not define notability; but I will submit that fifty thousand articles, primarily in print sources that are reprinted on the web, including New York Times, and many other "reliable" sources-- should qualify as "significant coverage" by Wikipedia's standards.

HokieRNB seems to be arguing that coverage in reliable sources is not sufficient if the primary reason for the coverage is that the subject of the article article died in a massacre. However, I don't see any such exception in the actual definition of notability. This seems to be "subjective personal judgement of editors."

I could argue that Jamie is, in fact, notable regardless of the manner of his death, in that he was attracting attention in the science fiction art field, had done several book covers, and has left behind a portfolio of work including both art and software that is still in use. I could argue that he is the only one of the professors shot at the VT massacre who does not, in fact, have a Wikipedia article. However, such arguments are unnecessary, since as far as I can tell, the statement "Jamie Bishop is notable because he meets the explicit Wikipedia definition of notability" should be the end of the discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Appears to be notable, given some of the sources present. Also, there are more sources (via a google search) that could be added to the article, to further affirm his notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Virginia Tech massacre or merge per nom: Doesn't look like Bishop is notable in his own right, just as the victim of a shooting. This article is basically a brief bio, then a mention that he was killed in the shooting. If he was still alive, I'd say he wasn't notable enough for the article and I don't think that should change because he's dead, even though he died in an unusual way. eaolson (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
merge/delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news Balloonman (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and include name in list of victims as per nom. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to list of victims. It should be noted that among the 50,000 hits are other individuals with the same name. The only sources in the article not related to the event are self-published, and therefore the criteria for notability is not met. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You write: "The only sources not related to the event are self-published". I'd be interested in your methodology for determining that. I searched Jamie on google subtracting all the terms I could think of that seem unambiguously referrring to the "event" (specifically, massacre, "was shot", died, "april 16," cho, "4/16/07) and still got 22,500 hits. Did you examine all 22,000 hits? Or do you have another search methodology? I see a number of links, for example, to artwork, that don't seem to be self-published; how did you exclude these?Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - of course I didn't examine thousands of pages, I only examined the sources that were listed in the article itself, and found that at the time I looked the only ones that were not in the context of his death in the massacre were of the "self-published" variety (not necessarily by the subject himself, but the kind that does not require the editorial scrutiny of something like a scholarly journal or a major news outlet). Even the book cover that you linked to smacks of that. Having one's artwork on the cover of a non-notable book does not make one notable. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

now that you have edited your comment to add the qualifying phrase "in the article", your comment is much clearer.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to the list of victims. He does not satisfy WP:PROF. Being a victom of a mass killing, and thus mentioned in the flurry of resulting news articles, does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO per WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect. The only notable issue here is that he was indeed killed, yet the article presents a great deal of extraneous information not pertaining to that sole tragedy. There is nothing offered that would differentiate his death from those of the others who died. Epthorn (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm a little confused by some of the comments-- he was individually covered in news stories not just included in a list with no information but his name, extending over a period of time. What more is possibly needed. This is how we define notability. Or should we change it to "notability requires uniqueness. if other people were also involved in the same way, none of them is individually notable"--thats what the delete comments here amount to. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Its close, but I guess "just" Victuallers (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I was a friend of Jamie's so I understand if I shouldn't have a vote here (and that his or anyone's importance is not dependent on having a Wikipedia entry). Are the pages of the other professors marked for deletion? He was a published writer and artist in paying (not self-published) venues. A bunch of predatory, national news outlets tried to get in touch with me merely because his website linked to mine, and, though I largely stayed away from it, I gather there was a lot said about him on TV and in print without my participation. Seung-Hui Cho has an entry. FWIW I'm not disappointed/upset that the article is being considered for deletion, but I am suprised. alexotica (talk 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. I see no good reason why we should delete this. There are many reliable fact-checked sources that talk about his life, not just his death. He is notable because of the way he died, yes - that's why those sources exist - but the sources exist which means that many people have been interested to know and research the details of his life. Therefore, it's fine for Wikipedia to do so, WP:NOT#PAPER after all. Mango juice^talk 15:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 company no claim of notability. Balloonman (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songza

Delete no indication that this on-line database launched last week is notable per WP:WEB and WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: It is brand new and not yet notable. Who knows what the future will bring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Rjd. No third-party sources given.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call You Free

Delete no indication that this web company is notable per WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable per WP:WEB and / or WP:CORP. Also, reads a bit like an advertisement. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not quite a speedy delete candidate but close.Balloonman (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11. I wonder why the nominator didn't use the {prod} or {db}. --Futurano (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of notability. Snigbrook (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete should have been tagged with {{db-spam}} Alexfusco5 21:18, 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 merge to Messenger Plus! Live and delete. Spellcast (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSN scripts

This article is not notable enough to be on wikipedia. The content could possibly be merged with the article on MSN. Vince | Talk 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the subject of the article is not notable, and should either be redirected or deleted. I'd say redirect it though. I (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect: A brief mention in the MSN article, but it does not need its own page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
delete scripts ??? Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be a minor component of Messenger Plus! Live which is already discussed in that article. It bears mentioning that this software is not produced by Microsoft; as such, a redirect from the current title is inappropriate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No use. No context, poorly written, irrelevant topic. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Before this article was listed here, I withdrew a CSD-Nocontent nomination that was based on the author's first draft. There is content now, but not enough to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Ok, I wrote this article, and I agree this can be merged into another article.Warrior4321 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Make A Stub. Ok, how's this, why don't we just make it a stub.Warrior4321 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, made a stub. Ok I made a stub, there we go, check it out.Warrior4321 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A stub offers no benefits over this section being merged with the MSN article. There are no separate articles for facebook applications or adium add-on scripts either.--Vince | Talk 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, this feature is a component of Messenger Plus! Live, not MSN. It's already mentioned in that article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Just because another company's applications or scripts doesn't have it, doesn't mean that MSN shouldn't either. I have seen stubs with like 2 lines, some with just a table. This stub is big enough, don't delete it.99.240.112.235 (talk) 23:19, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Smith

Overly promotional article on poet of little notability. I rejected a prod on this article because her single poetry collection has received two independent reviews. The page creator and major contributor is User:AMSmith17, so there are additionally potential conflict of interest concerns. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. Article is written like an advert/promo piece. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. I'd even say speedy-delete as blatant advertising. --Futurano (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The subject's writings have been published in multiple publications. If poorly written, it should be re-written, not deleted.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 12:57, 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 and redirect to International Debate Education Association. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IDEA Youth Forum

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwiki.idebate.org. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same:

Keep International Debate Education Association and merge the other 2 article into it: Needs sources added to the article, but a quick G-Search brings up a number of results that would qualify as reliable sources to verify the notability of this group. No need for 3 separate articles though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep IDEA and merge the others into it, per Rjd0060. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto Keep IDEA and merge the others into it, per Rjd0060 -- SiobhanHansa 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per above, and merge the others back to the parent. • Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Per pre-existing prod+talk, I believe there is sufficient evidence of copyright infringement for IDEA / NJFL National Tournament to delete it outright, as a decision separate from the other two articles. The IDEA site states "All Content is © IDEA 2007" and this cut-and-paste from their PDF of the Tournament Manual would seem to fall under that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Devore (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC) (Man, that bot is fast! Faster than my reactions to fixing a missing sig.)Michael Devore (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courier Mail Server

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. The topic is not notable -- Jreferee t/c 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the nomination reason (does not appear to be notable). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Major MTA used on a large number of linux based server systems. It is hard to find sources that are generally reliable outside the user communities though, so someone with no knowledge about the subject may not recognize any notability. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone with no knowledge about the subject can still determine whether there is sufficient reliable source material for the topic to meet notability. Courier Mail Server might be important, but if independent reliable sources are not writing about it, then there is nothing to include in the article that would meet Wikipedia's article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 15:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Such a person could, for instance, not tell that Freshmeat is a reliable source for information. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Courier is one of the leading (if not the leading) IMAP servers in use. A web search for "courier imap" will produce oodles of independent references. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - as noted, Courier IMAP is widely used and recognized. A redirect from that to this article would be a good idea, I'll add it if the article is kept. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:02, 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. east.718 at 01:59, November 27, 2007

[edit] Cheryl Bentov

This article is about a Mossad agent whose sole notability derives from being the honeypot in the 1986 abduction of Mordechai Vanunu, for which a full article already exists.

WP:BLP1E states that we "cover the event, not the person". Unlike Vanunu, who was notable as a whistleblower/traitor (depending on viewpoint), a major human rights case for 20 years, and a major figure in Israel's nuclear history, Bentov has pretty much zero notability save that she was the one he went to Italy to meet, and who acted as the "honey". A classic "one event".
WP:BLP1E also confirms If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.
WP:NOT#NEWS confirms that someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.

In and of her own right, she is not notable; the honeypot agent could have been anybody, and all relevant content is already included in the article on Vanunu. Proposed - merge any missing information into, and redirect to, Mordechai Vanunu, the main event for which she is known. There is no independent notability beyond that case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete: Per the nom reason. Sufficiently covered in the Mordechai Vanunu article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Futurano (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J Raymond

Delete nn local disk jockey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd borderline say it's a speedy. But the fact that he's not notable, and in all probabilty created by the subject himself, I support deletion. I (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: This person isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Total WP:OR, would not meet WP:V, and no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Unencyclopedic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not presently meet our notability requirements. I wouldn't speedy it, though. Let it run out 5 days in case someone finds some local press. • Lawrence Cohen 14:36, 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 Redirect to band. If the band article gets deleted, the redirect will go as well. IF the band is notable though, this is a reasonable search term, but not a notable enough subject for a separate article. Fram (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O Pioneers Split 10"

Delete unsourced article about an album by two groups - one redlinked and probably nn, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable, so I'd just say redirect it to the bluelinked band, but as Carlos said, I seriously doubt the band is notable, and a bit of searching would probably prove that. I (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect: To Bomb the Music Industry!. Non-notable album. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, because indie music is really, really lame and so is the culture that surrounds it. No, seriously, it's unverifiable with 4 Google hits. Enough said.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete: It's a real split. You can find it at www.quoteunquoterecords.com under the Albums section. It's legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.173.215 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)— 24.60.173.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glam Gonzo

No sources to show that this genre of porn is notable in that it has received significant coverage in independent 3rd party sources per WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there were genres of pornography. But I seriously doubt this is notable, so delete it, or redirect to Gonzo pornography, of which this is apparently a derivative. I (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable, or something made up (whether the thing itself is made up, or just the word is). No need for a redirect, as there really is no mention of this in the other article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable without reliable sources. This article cites none. The article refers back to Gonzo pornography, where the author has also added an unsourced "glam gonzo" mention. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Article history shows that it is advertising (original version [31]). Author removed external links after call for speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - original research, most likely.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism and original research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced possibly original research. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Seems to be advertising, along with the main article on gonzo pornography. Edison (talk) 18:24, 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. DS (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zushy

Non-notable snack food. The article has no references to any external sources. Google searches reveal nothing about the snack food, so the article is likewise not verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —DAJF (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the nom. Non notable, and cannot find any references for verification. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax. "Zushy, or Zushi, is a delicacy eaten in Eastern Japan and has grown to Australia where it is most popular." Funny that, I'm Aussie and I haven't heard of it. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it may not be a hoax but more along the lines of something made up after school one day—which is still not encyclopedic. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NN and WP:NFT. Sounds like a delicacy eaten in Japan by just one or two Australians. --DAJF (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: As Per the nom and DAJF. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No sources, non-notable, barely any information, and according to L337 kybldmstr, contains false staetments. Almost completely unencyclopedic. Koryu Obihiro (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW.Mr Which ^??? 02:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No notability, sources, nothing. • Lawrence Cohen 14:36, 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. east.718 at 01:59, November 27, 2007

[edit] Howtoons

Non-notable comic/comic strip. Jmlk 1 7 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: This isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The only fallacy I can see is that the notability hasn't been proven, but frankly, I don't see that happening. Koryu Obihiro (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I've cleaned up the article and added a link to a news article where one of the authors received an award in connection with the comic strip. In its current state I would suggest keeping the article. Granted, as the original article author, I may be a little biased.—Midnightcomm ^talk 05:31, 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 Doesn't meet our notability standards, yet. • Lawrence Cohen 14:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Hiding T 21:38, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Acorah's Search for Guy Fawkes

Article relates to a one-off TV documentary, based on a TV series. The series and the episode are covered by the main Derek Acorah article. thisisace (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to be notable, and I cannot find any sources to help it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Derek Acorah and preserve this as a redirect. The documentary title, as it's one-off, is a useful search term. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocelli Pizza

Withdrawn Rather than wait for an admin closure on this article (the outcome of which appears to be a foregone conclusion), anyone should feel free to perform a non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. I still don't believe that small restaurant chains such as Vocelli Pizza should be included, but the sources cited below and the opinions given support the idea that the article meets WP:N as it is currently written in the view of the community. At some point, I'll pursue the issue at the policy page. Avruch ^Talk 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A small chain in Pennsylvania. In a worldwide encyclopedia, every small business/small franchise operation is not automatically notable in the absence of some other factor arguing for notability. Additionally, it is minimally referenced. A youtube video, a pizza franchise website, and one article in post-gazette.com (a local paper) regarding a name change. Avruch ^Talk 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Chain actually has locations in many other states besides Pennsylvania. Article has appropriate citations. The chain seems notable enough for an entry ~~and holds with precedent~~. EDIT: OK...if you're going to pick part one part of my argument, I'll remove it and leave the rest. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Individual_merit Avruch ^Talk 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - Appropriate citations:

One article about the name change in a local PA newspaper
Two citations to the corporate website
One link to a YouTube video.

How does this establish notability, or provide RS citation for anything else in the article except the name change? Avruch ^Talk 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Going though some of the G-Hits, the place appears to be well know. I do realize that a lot of those hits are from directory-type websites, so this Google News search helps out on the notability part. The article itself needs sources and expansion if possible. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Agreed. Also check G-news hits~~ Oops..redundant link already posted by Rjd0060. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Same arguments as Arx Fortis. There are so many less notable & smaller chains with pages. Plus, if we were to get rid of all of the regional or semi-national chains, that would basically leave us with McDumpster's and the Evil Empire, among others. To be honest, I thought there was already a Vocelli page until I was editing the Kurt Angle page and found out there wasn't. I think we've proven our points, and I'm not exactly a novice at Wikipedia.Jgera5 (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To Rjd0060: I concur that more sources and expanding the article is needed, hence why I put in a stub tag whenever I created the page.Jgera5 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. I was just reiterating the point, as since the sources do exist (although are missing from the article), and the article needs expansion, no reason to delete it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. We've got the Kurt Angle angle, plus we've now got the franchise being ranked in their industry's trade journal in the Top 100. (I just added that citation.) The Post-Gazette article (which is a major metro newspaper, btw) notes that the chain is multi-state. I'm seeing multiple sources stating that the chain is notable and verifiably so. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per comments above -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are plenty of results on Google News Archive under both business names that could become citations, and there should be more sources than are there, but a regional chain of this size is certainly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. A restraunt chain notable for a global encylopedia would be something like:
- very large
- very old
- absolutely dominant in a given large area
- with a unique and awarded cousine
- notable in a historical or political sense --Futurano (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep see WP:PAPER. The article is clearly satisfies WP:V, and WP:N only requires that the business be cover in secondary sources. Local newspapers from Texas to Pennsylvania have run pieces about their expansion, and their choice to go to a single call center [32] warranted coverage in several papers. Burzmali (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vocelli's doesn't appear to be the subject of the above linked (pay only) article from LexisNexis. WP:N specifies direct "significant coverage" of the subject. Avruch ^Talk 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While I can't see the article to see if Vocelli's is in the content, it should be noted that LexisNexis didn't write the article. It originally appeared in The Washington Times. A search on the word Vocelli on this page results in this hit, so I would assume Vocelli's is mentioned in the article. I'm going to assume good faith that Burzmali read the full article. edit: You quote "significant coverage," from WP:N. Significant coverage is defined by WP:N as "sources address the subject directly in detail" and "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." To me, 282 Google news hits, most of which are exclusive coverage, show the subject meets WP:N. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had caught a similar article (or at least a better synopsis) on one of the other Google News hits, but I couldn't find it when I went to paste it into my response. It is more than trivial, and less than exclusive. Here is the article I originally found [33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burzmali (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- not just a mom and pop corner store or local chain. Locations in several states and the District of Columbia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rip (rapper)

Non-notable rapper; mainly a promo article. Jmlk 1 7 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Seems to meet MUSIC. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I don't see a criteria in WP:MUSIC for simply performing alongside a notable musician, but this is probably an oversight of criteria for musicians and ensembles #6. On the other hand, the author may be a single-purpose account on going through their contributions, having added references to Rip on several other articles, and uploaded a couple of images now up for speedies. So, I'm not sure about this one. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. Avruch ^Talk 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, looks alright, but I'm not entirely convinced about the quality of the references.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I couldn't find anything that could be interpreted as a claim of notability in the article. MLA (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per MLA. Additionally, the performer received no notable awards outside his local niche sub-culture. --Futurano (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be at least just notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 14:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment seriously, and without trying to be in any way provocative, I wonder what it is that states notability as I genuinely didn't see anything at all. Breaking the article down: released an album in 2003 that didn't achieve notability, was born in Illinois, wasn't signed to a record label, did some web design for someone notable, was named employee of the week Atlantic Records, released some mixtapes, appeared on some other non-notable mixtapes, will produce an album next year, made appearances as an extra in a couple of vids. I hope I'm not coming across in any way rude, I'm genuinely keen to know what I've missed for notability. MLA (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's close, on a visceral level it sort of feels like the article is OK, but when pressed there's nothing properly sourced that points to notability. Xymmax (talk) 18:54, 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 02:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kunta Kinte

Strong Delete Watered-down plot summary of the films. Article has no real purpose outside of that. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - clearly passes notability guidelines as either a real person or a fictional character. Otto4711 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep The plot summary can be renamed, but this character is notable. the_undertow ^talk 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Clear Keep-Outside of the films, the character is referenced in many other contexts of popular culture, skits, plays, television shows, books, etc. The article needs rework though.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, central character in major miniseries, copious outside references. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Probably needs some work, but definitely notable. Maxa megalon 2000 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Da Stressor 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
keep --Atamari (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment What??? Seriously? Look at this article. Like I stated above, all this is is a chopped up plot summary of the Roots miniseries and it obviously can't grow much from that. It doesn't matter about the character's notability if the article isn't talking about anything. You can't make a good article about Michael Jordan if all it says is "Michael Jordan plays basketball." I've said this in the past about this article: the only way you can justify this article's existence is if you make the article speak about Kunta Kinte's cultural impact on American society or something similar, which, without sources, is practically impossible. Not saying they DON'T exist, but it's less than likely they do. Also, this isn't a simple "cast-your-vote" poll. You have to state a reason for your vote. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I did look at the article. Then I voted with commentary, and sourced it. You need to relax. the_undertow ^talk 07:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It can grow with information about the Kunta Kinte festival and the Kinte-Haley Foundation, both of which are found in a 0.08 second Google search. Otto4711 (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Otto4711. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dalmål

[edit] Bludhound

[edit] Charles Maire

[edit] ScreamingMonkey

[edit] Performance 3000

[edit] Systematic Layout Planning

[edit] Tablexchange

[edit] Essex Agricultural & Technical High School

[edit] Frank West (Dead Rising)

[edit] Inter-County Scholastic Hockey League

[edit] Suburban High School Hockey League

[edit] Western Washington High School Hockey League

[edit] Ultzama valley

[edit] List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members

[edit] Nothic

[edit] War on Terrorism: Allies

[edit] Blazing Ptarmigans

[edit] Llamatron

[edit] Human search engine

[edit] Mía Colucci

[edit] Marizza Pía Andrade

[edit] List of Rebelde Way characters

[edit] Marlo Furniture

[edit] Stalfos

[edit] Dayna delux

[edit] Poe (The Legend of Zelda)

[edit] State of Mind (Music Magazine)

[edit] Wizzrobe

[edit] Animal Egalitarianism

[edit] CAOS Calgary Animated Objects Society

[edit] UAB Montgomery Internal Medicine Residency Program

[edit] Otters ASC

[edit] Dual Blades

[edit] Lizalfos

[edit] Gohma

[edit] MONTH

[edit] The Hat

[edit] Between the Lines (Xena episode)

[edit] Sarah Schwartz

[edit] Manuela Darling-Gansser

[edit] Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs)

[edit] Flowform

[edit] Paola Cavalieri

[edit] Mike Shamus

[edit] Digital Dreamgirls

[edit] Software that uses Subversion

[edit] Standard Template Construct

[edit] Greg Bourassa

[edit] De Inevitable

[edit] Semblances of Sovereignty

[edit] Crush (pop band)

[edit] Kats (video game)

[edit] Quack.com

[edit] Space Marrine BaneBlade

[edit] Billboard Hot 100 Christmas Number One Single

[edit] Kolbrin Bible

[edit] Certified of New York

[edit] Kelsey Chow

[edit] Anastasia Tubanos

[edit] Gallery of flags with crosses

[edit] Sirc Michaels

[edit] Rock your Religion

[edit] Tribes 2: Elements of Gameplay

[edit] Bernard Montorgueil

[edit] Tempered Zealot Productions

[edit] Guylan Qudsieh

[edit] Metrophile

[edit] Star Tripping

[edit] We Are Change

[edit] Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

[edit] Amphisbaena (Dungeons & Dragons)

[edit] Phil Rosser

[edit] Dickerson Middle School

[edit] List of David Jones stores

[edit] Bicol University

[edit] 20/20 Club NCAA

[edit] Valery Kopayev