Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bride (band)

Non-notable band, wikipedia is not myspace. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, apparently non-notable band, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable at this point. Possible inclusion later, but currently fails to meet WP:MUSIC. ExRat (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable Peter Fleet (talk) 04:06, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HONK T1R4

Non notable subject. Hammer1980·^talk 23:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete article about a gadget that sounds like the epitomy of uselessness. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Exceptionally non-notable. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 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 all except for Cindy Vortex, which will be kept. east.718 at 03:07, December 1, 2007

[edit] Libby Folfax

– (View AfD) These supporting characters do not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction and unlikely to do so at any point in time. Already on List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius characters. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 23:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete all, non-notable characters, covered already in the main character list. Not notable enough for their own pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hugh Neutron, Judy Neutron, and Cindy Vortex. Delete the rest. Hugh and Judy Neutron are the parents of the main character and appear in almost every episode. Cindy is a no-question keep. She is the antagonist of the show and is always picking on Jimmy. Besides Jimmy himself, she is probably the most seen character in the showFrank Anchor (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That argument has nothing to do with Frank's point. Scooter3230 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007

Delete all as per nom. RMHED (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Collectonian (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. They already have a more than elaborate coverage in the character list that the nom mentioned. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why the characters, especially Vortex, should have their own page. Scooter3230 (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all as they seem to be inherently notable characters of a recognizable nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nomination. Wikipedia simply isn't a guide to every character in every show. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Vortex only per Frank Anchor and a Google search that brought up over 30,000 results, the second highest for any character on the show including those not nominated. Also the inclusion of Vortex in this nom is borderline WP:ALLORNOTHING The rest should be deleted or redirected to a minor character list per nom. Scooter3230 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as these articles have no primary or secondary sources and fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability, references and general cruftiness. Biruitorul (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Vortex only per Frank Anchor. Also, her article passes WP:FICT because there are reliable secondary sources such as the results on a Google search for "Cindy Vortex." Clearly passes WP:N and WP:V <Baseballfan789 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, According to WP:FICTTopics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cindy Vortex absolutely hasFrank Anchor (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki, since there seems to be something here that someone else might be able to use, but they shouldn't be here on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: They are the parents, so they need their own article. She is the antagonist, so she needs her own article. Is there anything outside of plot for why this should be so? Yet, despite of all the Google searches and secondary sources not being used, not a single article provide any significant real-world context, its just one paragraph of plot after another. There is also a ton of plot-exclusive information on each of the characters in the list itself. If there cannot be something regarding character development, impact on the real-world, anything besides just plot in the list, then how on earth can they possibly not be deleted for have individual articles? I do not know how I missed Goddard, Carl Wheezer and Sheen Estevez, but if Vortex is deleted those do not even have a snowball's chance in hell. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuke Dukem

Speedy?Asserts enough notability to avoid CSD. Sounds, however, like a non-notable band that should be a quick delete —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my first Wikipedia article, so it's rather poor. I'm writing this article for my band and is a satirical piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael lund wiki (talk • contribs) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's satire, then take it to Uncyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place for creating your own satire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"There is much controversy surrounding the origins of Nuke Dukem; It is the subject of much scientific and political debate" Unencylopedic rubbish realy IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, though it doesn't seem to fit any speedy criteria, it is rubbish. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable, makes no legitimate claims to notability, and is probably suitable for a speedy deletion. If for no other reason, it could be tagged for nonsense, since " One popular theory is that [the band] formed as a result of a volcanic explosion in the early seventies." Also, COI problems are obvious, since the first listed member of the band and the creator of the page, User:Michael lund wiki share an identical name. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Creator admits its 'satire'. Hammer1980·^talk 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have speedied. It qualifies under Nonsense. Admission of satire confirms it. Hammer1980·^talk 00:52, 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 Keep. The Placebo Effect 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mall at Sierra Vista

Non-notable mall in Arizona. A search for reliable sources online turned up nothing (heck, not even the opening date, which I can usually find within the first two pages). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note I am crossing out my deletion rationale since the page has been greatly improved after its nomination. However, since some "delete" votes were cast, I cannot close this as a withdrawn nomination, and will leave this to be closed by an admin. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of the city newspaper's archives turned up "the Mall at Sierra Vista opened in 1999". This press release confirms the year (and gives the opening as October 1999). It also states the mall is the "The First Major Mall To Be Built In Southeastern Arizona Outside The Tucson Metropolitan Area". The newspaper article states 30% of the mall's shoppers are "well-to-do Sonorans" who come up from Mexico to shop at the mall. Hermosillo is about 3 hours away; even the border town of Nogales is 1 hr 11 mins away. It may be fairly notable for people to drive up to three hours to get there. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You should see the parking lot at the mall in Plattsburgh NY, where a full 30% of cars have Quebec plates even though the town is a 90-minute drive from Montreal. Anyway...

Delete for lack of notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I didn't know this, but apparently there is an International Council of Shopping Centers which ranks malls and shopping centers. According to their definitions (pdf) the Mall at Sierra Vista ranks as a Regional Mall, with between 400,000–800,000 square feet of space, and two or more anchors. It's the only mall in Cochise County, serving an area with a population of 117,755 and covering an area larger than the state of Connecticut. Since there are no malls in neighboring Santa Cruz or Graham Counties, or northern Sonora, Mexico, shoppers tend to come from long distances.[1] "Shopping centers are usually notable if the scope of activities is currently and/or historically large enough in scale to warrant multiple, non-trivial published works of credible and reliable secondary source material to be written about it, produced independently of the mall owner or developer. [...] If an individual mall can be clearly shown to have significant cultural, social and economic impact on the local and regional market area, as supported by multiple credible and reliable secondary source materials, and especially (but not exclusively) if such impact approaches a national level, the mall is considered notable." I've already shown above the article from the Sierra Vista Herald "Mexican shoppers wield clout", which discusses the fact that 30% of the mall's patrons travel long distances from northern Mexico just to shop there. It's not a trivial mention, containing sections like: "In the past, he said, Nogales was the most desirable regional destination for Mexican consumers. But especially after the Mall at Sierra Vista opened in 1999, shoppers from Agua Prieta, Cananea, Fronteras, and even Nacozari and Cumpas, 120 miles south of the border, have been heading for the city."[...]"They make a whole production out of going up to Sierra Vista,” he said. “They go to the cinema, eat at the restaurants, and they go shopping. “They even go up there to buy tires for their cars.” Escobar said Sierra Vista is especially popular among well-to-do Sonorans. “It’s almost like a vanity thing for people to say they do their shopping there,” he said. In March, the management of the Mall at Sierra Vista decided to find out just how much of its sales were coming from Mexican customers. According to marketing coordinator Crystal Rivera, a poll of store owners indicated that roughly 30 percent of all shop purchases were generated by cross-border consumers." The mall also hosts an annual Festival of Trees[2][3]

The Mall at Sierra Vista is discussed in Ethel Jackson Price's 2003 book, Sierra Vista: a Young City with a Past ISBN 0738524344. The Mall is apparently enough of a draw to be used as a lure by real estate companies in Tucson, 70 miles away.[4] The Mall also hosts an annual Festival of Giving and an annual Car Show for the Boys and Girls Club. This mall appears to be smaller than the two big malls in Tucson, but I'd say its regional impact is much larger. I've read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottsdale Mall (another mall nom'ed for deletion by TenPoundHammer), and I know TPH wants to delete non-notable malls, but this one has significant regional influence, even on an international level, as shown by reliable sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Simply too small for a US mall based on consensus in past AfDs. It needs to be a super regional or have some other form of notability. This article falls short in that regard for me. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Smallness" is not a factor in deletion. The article establishes notability (international patrons) through reliable sources. What other notability would you require to keep the article? (This is not a rhetorical question; I'm willing to expand the article. It's still a stub). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - well sourced and notibility are satisfied. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Firsfron. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Anthony Appleyard 11:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desert Ridge Marketplace

Non-notable lifestyle center in Arizona, actually gives more info on a neighboring development than on the actual marketplce itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Mall is a 1.2 million square foot GLA super-regional mall targeted at the upper-end affluent market of Scottsdale, supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. the wub "?!" 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - superregionals are notable, although article expansion is encouraged. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:58, 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 all. east.718 at 03:11, December 1, 2007

[edit] Tournament Season 1

This is a mass nomination, but a reasonable one. All of these articles are effectively identical lists of trading cards with no context, content, sources or assertion of notability, and as such fail multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Some have been tagged for improvement for some time without any change.

I am also nominating the following related pages;

I am aware that there are a large number of similar articles still extant; these will be addressed depending on the outcome of this AfD. ELIMINATORJR 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect and merge all into Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game, or, alternatively, create You-Gi-Oh! tournament booster packs. Corvus cornix_talk 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As I saw on AfD lately, the current community consensus is that this articles having no "real life" notability by themselves ought to be deleted. This of course does not apply to the main Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game article, but its "sub articles". -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - Wikipedia is not a game guide. - Chardish (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as they all faill WP:NOT#GUIDE, not to mention having no primary or secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:56, 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 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Springdale Mall

Dead mall in Alabama, no notability to speak of. Most of the complex has been replaced with a Sam's Club. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Opening in 1959, Springdale Plaza is one of the oldest regional shopping centers along the Gulf Coast. It was anchored by one of the largest department stores in the Southeast, as the flagship Gayfers eventually exceeded 270,000 square feet in size. NitekMobilian (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep- look at Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States and tell me that all of those are not notable. Just because something has ceased to exist does not mean it is non notable. P.Shack (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is basically what your argument boils down to. The fact that it's a defunct mall isn't per se why I nominated it for AfD -- I nominated the page because its subject doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have added a Rescue tag. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep There seems enough information for sourcing. Defunct does not mean non-notable. Notability is permanent, which is a good policy because otherwise WP would be the encyclopedia of what happens to be notable this month, rather than what's notable. Not all defunct malls are notable, not all are non-notable, and arguments relying on either of these statements will give inappropriate results. DGG (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep With a gross leasable area of nearly 800,000, this is a very large mall, dead or alive. Alansohn (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added a reliable source to the article; when I'm more coherent I'll try to clean up the prose and add some {{fact}} tags. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some clarification: The first big box store to open at Springdale following the debut of Barnes & Noble was Old Navy, which opened in the fall of 1996. Montgomery Ward ceased operations at Springdale in the fall of 1998. Burlington Coat Factory does not extend into the former Toys R Us space. NitekMobilian (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - conversion malls are notable. sources are present. dead/alive argument is a red herring. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:10, 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 No consensus. — Scientizzle 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Shore Centre

Non notable ~~strip mall~~ (ugh) "lifestyle center" in Alabama. "First lifestyle center in southern Alabama" does assert a slight degree of notability but besides that, this place fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I dunno, happen to recall their being some coverage in the local papers about this shopping centre when it was announced/opened. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Local coverage isn't usually enough. All malls are notable to the towns they serve; general consensus on Wikipedia that a mall has to be notable in more ways than that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I wasn't replying as to the question of notability. Don't know what discussion is going on there. My comment is solely to the issue of reliable sources. There are at least two regional papers you can access with regards to reliable sources. (The Press Register and the Pensacola News Journal, both of which have articles for themselves on Wikipedia). [5] may not be much, but I think it shows there are possibilities. Probably also a number of local gov't reports and transcripts. Large developments like this don't happen without planning and discussion. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This shopping area is significant to a large area. It is part of a strong economic trend and can be well sourced. I'll add the sources as we go. JodyB _talk 12:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep if sourced--Looks likely to be sourceable.DGG (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC) .
Comment There are several Mobile Register articles pertaining to Eastern Shore Centre's opening and development at the NewsBank of the Mobile Public Library's online site, unfortunately NewsBank is only available to card-holding library patrons, so linking to them probably wouldn't work. NitekMobilian (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete'. Simply too small per previous AfDs without notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your basing notability upon size is not a viable argument, see WP:BIG. Also, anything prooven "per previous AfDs", can also be dis-prooven "per previous AfDs" as the AfD process works on a case by case evaluation, not a This is and That isnt basis. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

keep - nom's concerns have been addressed. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ~Eliz81^(C) 09:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home alone 5

Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE because it hasn't begun shooting yet; also WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, this may never happen; no sources, no references, no citations, no assertion of notability Accounting4Taste:talk 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My prod tag was deleted, no problem there, so I've brought this for consideration; I'll let others judge its fate. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. "Lucifer McAllister"? Sounds like a hoax to me. Either way, it's definitely WP:CRYSTAL seeing as nothing's been confirmed yet. (And furthermore, you'd think they'd know better, seeing as the last Home Alone movie was a flop...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Per article author, in fact: he actually expresses doubt that the movie will ever be notable even if it does come out as planned. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. Article references Uncle Albert from Only Fools and Horses as being in the film, yet the actor who portrayed said Uncle Albert (Buster Merryfield) has been dead for more than eight years! Whitstable (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails notability requirements in WP:NF, since the film isn't shooting yet. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as all above. KTC (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete recreation. User is likely yet another User:Danny Daniel sock. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

*Strong delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 09:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. I have now referred for speedy. Actor mentioned to be in film, Buster Merryfield (Uncle Albert), died in 1999. Patent nonsense and sent for speedy for that reason. Hammer1980·^talk 09:41, 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 Speedy Delete by Mushroom. closed by non-admin RMHED (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martyr (band)

Non-notable band. As the article itself states: The first two were released independently; however, their latest album Feeding the Abscess was released by the small, relatively unknown label Galy Records (their other albums were subsequently re-released by the label). Signing to a label seems to have made little difference for Martyr so far, who have not embarked on any extensive tours and remain known to most fans purely through their recordings. Fails WP:MUSIC. IrishGuy ^talk 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete, article doesn't establish notability. Possibly a speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 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 speedily redirected to Lunatica. --Stormie (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Dätwyler

Singer in a notable band, but isn't notable in her own right. WebHamster 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article has been here for more than 2 years and still only contains 1 line of information, none of which couldn't be included in the main band article. --WebHamster 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Lunatica. No information worth saving. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Lunatica, the band's notable but the singer doesn't need her own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 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 snowball delete. Article doesn't satisfy WP:BIO as well as WP:MUSIC. Salting the earth as a result of persistent recreation. - @pple complain 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reggie Sears

Non-notable. Originally speedy nominated A7 by me, and deleted by User:@pple. Article recreated with same content, then modified a bit. Still does not assert notability, does not seems notable. KTC (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - This article was also speedily deleted by User:Jreferee under A7 4 days before the above mentioned speedy deletion. KTC (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. That an unsourced notability assertion is in all-caps speaks volumes. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reggie is notable on the Southern Soul & Blues scene. He is only one in handful of artists that has helped put South Florida on the map of the Southern Soul Music scene. He is a internationally known recording artist. Please leave his page up. Please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarboy229 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Please, please" does not constitute a valid notability assertion. Does Reggie Sears fit one of the notability criteria for musicians as exposed in WP:MUSIC? Can you show a neutral source (that is, not a MySpace page or any page owned by Sears himself) that shows so? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete all over again, either as A7 (no notability asserted) or G4 (repost). Take your pick, I've chosen the latter. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, doesn't seem to be a notable artist, even though he can play a whole whack of instruments. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note G4 only applies to XfD'd articles. Allow author/editor to bring up to standards while this AfD is ongoing. If not, it will be deleted & then then qualify for G4. SkierRMH (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Not a notable artist per WP:MUSIC. ~~User seems bent on creating the same article over and over in a short period of time. Since the user got a final warning before, suggest protecting page create and/or temporary ban.~~ ZacBowling^talk 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget what I said, i didn't see the author comment above. ZacBowling^talk 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Guitarboy229 is Reggie Sears so add WP:BIO as well. contact info of "Guitarboy229@yahoo.com", Soundclick page for guitarboy229 has him listed as Reggie Sears Reggie Sears user is "guitarboy229" ZacBowling^talk 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean WP:COI ? KTC (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless he's shown to satisfy WP:MUSIC. My (very quick) Google search just didn't find any independent sources. Allmusic knows of one album only. Huon (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as apparent hoax. DS (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn barden

This article is about an eleven year old student who supposedly won a bronze medal at the 2000 Commonwealth Youth Games. Google News Archives can find no record of this Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as hoax, "glenn barden" + "bronze" turns up bupkis on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The one external link provided that would have provided satisfactory information per WP:V turned up an Error 404. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The link is working now, but it doesn't provide any evidence for anything other than the fact that somebody with the same name ran in a non-notable race. Corvus cornix_talk 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Although there is no proof of the correctness of this article, surely the fact not even the gold medal winner, or even results for this race show that the person who wrote this must have a degree of knowledge on these particular games, maybe as a points scorer or as a marshall perhaps? Has anyone tried contacting the author to see if this is the case? SamDurell (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The above comment was User:SamDurell's first and (so far) only contribution to Wikipedia. And it doesn't even make sense. --Russ (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: It's not our obligation to dig out obscure citations to prevent deletion of an article; the editor who created it should have provided them. --Russ (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hi everyone, sorry this has caused quite so much controversy! As per Mr Durell's email I can confirm that I was indeed the "chief scorer" behind the 2000 Commonwealth Youth Games, and thought this article might be of interest to some people, not because of the athlete but because of the reaction through his disappointment. I have a newspaper article *I believe its from the Mail on Sunday* and I believe that the lad was featured on Grandstand where he explained his actions despite the grilling he received for 'letting down his country'. If I was to scan the newspaper article and save it on a server would that be enough to save my article? I was going to expand the whole 2000 Commonwealth Youth Games section upon wikipedia as I felt it was grately underrepresented for an event that took so much preparation, but if there is no interest in this article I doubt that there is much interest from other users for the rest of them?19:24, 26 November 2007 Edit - 19:30, clarification.
- "I believe" is not a reliable source. Please provide sources to prove your claims. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well okay, to clarify - I KNOW the athlete was featured in a national newspaper the weekend after the event, but as I have just cut out the articles related to the youth commonwealths, I do NOT KNOW which newspaper it was from. I KNOW the athlete featured on a national TV sports show, but I do NOT KNOW which one. Britisholympic, 11:16, 27th November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.144.52 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Your personal knowledge is also not a reliable source. Provide links to the newspaper article(s). Corvus cornix_talk 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There wasn't even a 5000M event at these games.[6] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've suspected hoax on this article all along. Corvus cornix_talk 18:19, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close.Jgera5 (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers season

Valid article topic, but this isn't an article, just a list of box scores and no other content. Fails WP:NOT#STATS, Merge or Delete This is a Secret ^account 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also adding all the articles between 1969 Pittsburgh Steelers season to 1977 Pittsburgh Steelers season, for the same reasoning, only box scores This is a Secret ^account 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete clear concur with nom. Not a merge candidate either. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not really a fan of an article that adds nothing except boxes and numbers. Some history would be nice. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all You admit that these are valid topics, so what does deletion accomplish? Just keep the articles and let people add some prose. (Or add some yourself.) I think NOT#STATS only applies to articles that can never be more than collections of statistics, which isn't the case here. Zagalejo^^^ 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all Not my subject, but with respect to NOT STATS, it is clear from the context that the meaning of it was to apply to pure statistics only--otherwise it would apply to many incomplete pages. STUBs and other incomplete pages are acceptable in WP. DGG (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a list of box scores, those are the same as stats, I prefer to merge all these article, discounting the box scores into a certain section of the teams articles. This is a Secret ^account 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. When I do new page patrol and I see someone entering a whole batch of new pages about a season in a professional team's history, I systematically skip all such entries as inherently valid stubs. These are no exception. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Valid topic; I'm clearing up the '78 article now. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all Valid topic. AFD is not cleanup. --W.marsh 03:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep all and cleanup. AfD is not cleanup, nor a way to propose merges (WP:MERGE explains how to do it editorially). Daniel 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep all AfD is not used to force the acceleration of article progression. east.718 at 03:56, November 26, 2007
Keep I withdraw, still don't agree with the list of boxscores though This is a Secret ^account 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep all and clean up. As the original author of this and the other referenced articles, I would like to make the following defenses of their existence:

The stubs are a direct response to the community, whose interest is evidenced by the season links on the "Pittsburgh Steelers" tag.
The format of the stubs follows those of more recent seasons. (See: 2007_Pittsburgh_Steelers_season)
Several stubs have been appended by other members to integrate them with other articles about the Pittsburgh Steelers.
If this content is deleted, it will have to be re-created by the community when it decides to address the topics.
The 1979 season article has sat for two months as a place keeper -- not even a stub -- without drawing a formal AfD, yet these pages -- with real information -- are being targeted.
As evidenced by the "stub" tag and empty fields, these pages were never meant to be simply a list of box scores.
The period that I have addressed was an important period of the team's history, during which it won four Super Bowls.
We might not be talking about the Potsdam Conference, but it was my little way of addressing what I see as a bias toward current events, at the expense of historical ones.
I believe that Wikipedia has evolved to the point where covering individual seasons at this granularity of detail has merit.
I understand that starting with the schedule and box scores might not be the only way to summarize a season, but I did so because it provides a natural framework to the article and is verifiable, neutral, and not subject to copyright. Future prose (that I hope to add and to be added) will build on these facts.

It is my intention to continue working on these articles. This will mean that I will not only search the Internet for information, but also will scour microfilm and other sources to add to what exists.

I know that it might seem that these are simple box scores, but each page took quite a bit of time to research and create. (Where were the Jets playing in 1974? What was the Bills' stadium called in 1977?)

I appreciate the improvements to the 1978 season page made by Mackensen and plan to incorporate them into the other pages.

-Thank you Fruminous (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

- I voted keep, but (Where were the Jets playing in 1974? What was the Bills' stadium called in 1977?)

are fairly irrelavent to the discussion and consists of unneeded trivia, I still prefer to merge most of them into an article on the 1970s steelers with the exception of the super bowl champs This is a Secret ^account 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(Where were the Jets playing in 1974? What was the Bills' stadium called in 1977?) is in reference to where the games were actually being played, so when putting it in the synopses, I considered it directly relevant.

--Thank you for the input Fruminous (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep them all. We have an editor actively working on improving them. We have articles on more current seasons for various professional teams in various sports so deleting these would show a bias towards current events as opposed to past events. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
KeepThere are plenty of other sports articles like this one, so why would this one get tagged? I take it that people just don't have anything better to do on their time than to submit an AfD on a page they don't want. I just went through this the other day with Vocelli Pizza. We have plenty of articles that could be tagged right now that aren't, yet people are tagging articles like this one that are legit. Gheez.Jgera5 (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 keep. John254 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intown Suites

Non-notable hotel chain OGLY (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve. 131 locations in 21 states would seem to be a notable enough chain -- and there are a couple of reliable sources in the article, so I'd say more might exist. I would trim the criticism section, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Ten Pound Hammer Jonathan^T•@•C 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I created this article when I saw the niche on Wikipedia. There are some Wikipedia articles on companies with fewer than 10 franchises. I don't see how a company with over 100 could possibly not qualify. The name Intown Suites may not be as well known as Holiday Inn, but it doesn't need to be to qualify. Tatterfly (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Obvious keep. Clearly notable. Wikidemo (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Improve neutrality: The problem with this article is not a notability but rather a neutrality issue, which is in no way, shape, or form, grounds for deletion. The criticism section comes down hard on the chain, and there must be an equal number of positive statements to balance this out. Yes, Intown suites does get a bad rap on the internet, but I have stayed at multiple locations myself, and only have good things to say. As a black woman traveling alone, Intown Suites has treated me better than many other hotel chains with a better reputation in online reviews. There could be something said about that, and someone should have sources to back it up. All the negative accusations listed here go on at poorly managed franchises of all hotel chains. Whoever wrote this article or section must have wanted to vilify the company using these inevitable reports.Shaliya waya (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. No evidence is provided to lack of notability. 328 google news hits. --Smashville^BONK! 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

More on neutrality: I just looked at the history of this article. It was a single user, Tatterfly, who created this article, and has made all the significant edits ever since. No one else has really added any information. This single user, perhaps, had a bad experience staying at Intown Suites, and wanted to bash the chain. When only one person is involved in an article, you have these kinds of problems. If more people get involved, this could be a better article. I have had positive experiences with Intown Suites. I am trying right now to find more sources of additional information that can be used to improve the article. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:03, 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Wozniak

Delete I meant to speedy this. If no controversy, please speedy delete. THANKS.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unnotable. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:39, 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. Tyrenius 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proyecto 'ace

Contested speedy, might be notable, but probably not. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and it's written like an ad. Jonathan^T•@•C 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Jonathan. freshacconcispeaktome 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. - Modernist (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Shows some press coverage, but it seems to be pretty minor. Mostly self promotion. Kind of spammy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 03:23, December 1, 2007

[edit] Neil Cartwright

Wikiproject Football discussions have led to this being proposed for deletion since the usual notability criterion of playing in a suitably high-tier league has not been met. It's debatable as the subject in question appears to have notability in his own club, non-league Hinckley United . Prod was removed so bringing the discussion here procedurally. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Notability at a local level within his own club does not confer notability on Wikipedia. He's not made an appearance at national level and therefore fails WP:BIO. – Pee Jay 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete with mind-numbingly great pleasure. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment and probably weak delete I'm tempted to say keep but there's simply no reliable sources on the vast majority of his career or many of the details listed in the article. Peanut4 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment To my mind the record he holds makes him more notable than many of his bluelinked Hinckley teammates who have articles by virtue of a handful of uneventful Football League appearances. If this was well-referenced I'd say keep, but as it is I'm wavering. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - As author I'm always going to say this, but this player is exceptional in regards to the club he plays for. Hinckley United are only 10 years old and this article relates to a player that has been at the club all that time, coming through the youth teams and then breaking into the first team, becoming the record appearance holder and captaining the team on many occasions. There is a reliable source on the internet for references (or rather was at the time of events), but at this level website authors are also volunteers and so space for news is recycled every year. For 'national' websites that have kept information online, I have added into references. Regardless if he fails WP:BIO, I personally believe those guidlines are too rigid and will prevent natural progression and growth of articles, but that is another argument for elsewhere. Mattythewhite simply dislikes me which would explain his comments, but there is a growing undercurrent of the users at the lower level of football feeling they are constricted by the few at the top level implementing guidlines as strict rules. This is why we feel so angry and frustrated, and the people that make these decisions end up needlessly arguing with us all the time. Deletion will result in a loss of valuable information in regards to the Hinckley United article. DJhinckley (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately without any reliable sources, I'll have to say delete. I want to vote keep for various reasons. But all I can find is that he was playing for Bromsgrove in 2001 which only backs up my delete vote. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, especially after this, but my vote would have been delete anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, sorry, playing at the sixth tier of English football is not notability, even if he has played quite a lot of games for his team at that level. --Stormie (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Delete unless reliable sources can be found to suggest notability; having not played in a fully professional league, he fails WP:BIO for sportspeople. Unfortunately it is necessary to have a bright line on notability for footballers, like many other subjects, even if it does lead to inconsistencies as pointed out above. ELIMINATORJR 14:00, 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 03:18, December 1, 2007

[edit] List of churches in Edmonton, Alberta

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. --Ichabod (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note This AfD is part of a series of AfDs made by the nominator that specifically targets lists of churches across the United States. The AfDs currently include this, this and this • Freechild'sup? 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete not a directory. JJL (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This kind of information is better suited for a 411-type site. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory, so list is not needed. Articles about notable churches here will be grouped in the geographic church category tree (Category:Churches in Edmonton). --Lquilter (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as is this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is a substantial compilation with many links to websites. I note that the list for Fort Wayne has been kept (though only for want of consensus), in which case other substantial lists should follow the same course. It would however be better if there were rather more text. And is this information readily available elsewhere? Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The phone book usually suffices. --Lquilter 13:19, 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 Speedy Delete by Acroterion. closed by non-admin RMHED (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niagara basketball association

Subject of article is not Notable Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete a7, no notability asserted, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custom ps3 themes

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and that is all that this article purports to be. —Travis ^talk 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jonathan^T•@•C 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete since this is inherently how-to material, plus Novermber never really happened Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. All instructions. Tim Ross·^talk 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zackary Flansberry

Definitely not notable. Already speedied once under A7. It has also been orphaned by the author. Registered 48 Ghits. jj137 (Talk) 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt, not notable, doesn't come anywhere near WP:MUSIC.Ga rr ie 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:18, 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 keep. John254 03:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miss America 1994

Looks like a copy and paste edit. Fails to establish notability for own article. Hammer1980·^talk 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Kimberly Clarice Aiken. We don't need an article about each year's pageant. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, we do have individual articles for nearly twenty editions of the pageants (see Template:Miss America), and I don't know that most have any particular assertion of notability beyond "this was the XXth Miss America pageant" (as would, I'd suppose, be quite sufficient, since I'd imagine that each iteration of a prominent, notable pageant should be necessarily notable) or any particular coverage beyond an enumeration of the event particulars and finalists (as would, I'd suggest, be sufficient content to merit a standalone article), such that, notwithstanding that the instant article is un-wikified and suboptimally formatted, each should probably be disposed of in the same fashion as is this. Joe (Wake me from my food coma) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Wow. Wikipedia(ns) thoroughness surprises (and slightly worries) me yet again. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep article needs complete re-doing but the topic itself surely got considerable new coverage in 1994 and hence is WP:N. JJL (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I'm sure it got plenty of coverage when it was happening. I also took the time to reformat this per the conventions present in Miss America 2007. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep It meets the standards for being kept, though I suggest that a merged article would make more sense, unless it is planned to add significantly more information than just the names of the place, the winner and the top 5 contestants. DGG (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Article lacks any WP:RS or WP:V after over a year. Pigman☿ 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TextTwist

Subject is non-notable. No 3rd party sources, notability tag unanswered for a month. Additionally, it has been a target for vandalism. Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"No third party sources"? you must be kidding. 350,000 google hits. `'Míkka>t 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note WP:GOOGLE. What I meant was that there were no third party sources or references mentioned in the article. Do we have any evidence that any of these Google hits are reliable sources primarily discussing TextTwist, as WP:N requires? Oren0 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the word "cooperation"? Or you are here to ban and convict? Or to write wikipedia? Have fun, then. `'Míkka>t 05:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

merge/redirect into Jumble, where texttwist is a rip-off from. `'Míkka>t 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
merge/redirect per Mikka Jonathan^T•@•C 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No established notability for two versions of a javascript word jumble game. I see no reasonable merge & redirect material as there must be countless similar games out there. — Scientizzle 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phat Policeman

Fails to show notability. Speedy tag removed by an editor, not and admin. Hammer1980·^talk 19:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nothing seems notable.--NAHID 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not much of a notability assertion. In fact,

It has sold over 7 copies worldwide.

I sure hope this is a typo. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, looks like a hoax to me. Nothing comes up for this guy in Google outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. The Current activities pretty well proves that. Corvus cornix_talk 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete if it only sold seven copies that is probably a clue. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons Movie 2

Been tagged for speedy several times, but doesn't seem to fit. But really, it's a crystal ball. I don't think a redirect to the first movie's page (as has been edit-warred) is right, since there's no evidence this thing even exists in the pre-production state that the article asserts. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to The Simpsons Movie - In my view this is the only option, if its a re-direct then it can be easily watched and just reverted if anyone decides to make a page. For the record, there are no plans for a Simpsons Movie 2. Gran² 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. You can watchlist a page that doesn't exist and it can be speedy-deleted if this AfD concludes as "delete", or else the page can be salted to prevent its recreation. If there really are no plans, then having a redirect for something that amounts to a hoax or wishful thinking seems even less appropriate than I had thought. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I change to Delete. Gran² 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:NF clearly states that "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Although you can't technically "shoot" an animation, it still applies here as this film has obviously not yet entered production. I see countless articles on pre-production films get deleted through prod every week, and this should be no different. Tx17777 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as per Tx17777. Hammer1980·^talk 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete It's quite clearly nonsense vandalism. I have no idea why an afd is even necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Especially when there aren't even any plans for the sequel. As mentioned above, WP:NF does say that the film has to have begun production, and the Simpsons Movie 2 fails that criteria. Useight (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE or SPEEDY DELETE. no evidence that the movie is even being made,and it can't be a sequel if it isn't made.Crystal balling,defently.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This film isn't being made, and should have been speedily deleted as false information. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jonathan^T•@•C 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete because there is no verifiable information that this project is in production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. My way of thinking is: if it's under production (it's not), give it an article. If there are rumours & rumblings of a sequel (I see no sign that this is the case), mention them in the original film's article and make this a redirect. Otherwise, as I say, delete. --Stormie (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete clearly an article with no basis per WP:CRYSTAL. Irishjp (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. The article has drastically changed since the AfD started. I feel a "no consensus" is appropriate because of the article's state of flux through the course of this discussion. A future AfD may be appropriate... — Scientizzle 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education for Ministry

Nothing to show notability. Hammer1980·^talk 19:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: no evidence of notability. Oren0 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable. jj137 (Talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jonathan^T•@•C 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is HUGE in the Episcopal Church. It's used for deacons and priests. I'lll tag it for rescue and come back to it. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now - this article is tagged as "under construction". It is only 10 days old. Deletion would be premature, in three months time perhaps. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

>>><<< Ok folks, Bearian'sBooties has it right -- this is a very large program in a small church. Most candidates for the priesthood are required to take EFM (some folks take it while they're in seminary). I know that the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) is the incredible shrinking church, but the folks who run EFM at Sewanee's School of Theology have hopes that other churches will take it up generally (it has been taken up bit by bit by some other churches on an individual basis). They would love to have the Methodists take it up. The program has value and having it explained at Wikipedia is useful should folks wonder what it is and what it's about. AbbotSoule&Hoyt 21:08 1 December 2007.

Comment - it gets 34,000 Ghits [7], and I promise to work on it. Bearian'sBooties 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete for lack of reliable sources from outside the church.--Tikiwont 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm still looking. If I can't find anything by the end of the day, delete it, if that is the consensus. Bearian 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Done for now, I found one recent article on Google News that was a WP:RS. I hope that is good enough for now. Bearian 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. This is because several "delete" opinions advocate merging the contents of the article to Political views on the Macedonian language, which does not require deletion and can be done independently from this AfD if there is consensus for it. Also, WP:ATA deletion arguments are disregarded, I'll not read through an entire article talk page to look for a deletion rationale, POV is generally are a reason to edit an article and not to delete it, and any possible disruption can be dealt with easily under the proposed remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. Sandstein 06:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian_views_on_the_Macedonian_language

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia Capricornis (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I nominated this article for deletion because its content is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It elaborates on a nationalistic POV in biased and offensive language, using well known nationalistic sources. It is a detail page from Political views on the Macedonian language where the Bulgarian view is already explained in enough depth (while the others aren't). The current article adds no value to an ordinary encyclopedia user, but only incites nationalistic debates, hatred and intolerance among editors as can be seen from the discussion and history of the article. A good background overview of how Bulgarian POV persists in Macedonian Wiki pages can be found at the expositions of the current arbitration case Macedonia Arbitration Capricornis (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm not sure how this article can ever acheive a neutral POV. Tx17777 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - A pretty obvious nomination (which itself is POV enough). I'd just like to point out that the article has enough reliable sources (not Bulgarian) and with a little work it can be turned to NPOV. Off course this is not suiting the view of User:Capricornis who instead of trying to work on the article and amend what he views as POV, he simply nominates it for deletion. --Laveol ^T 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not see how this article fits into an encyclopedia. It would be like having an article called "French views on the English language". Besides the fact that in essence it is a POV article I see no use for it. The article also seems to be an excuse for posting prejudice such as claiming the language was "Serbianised". This sort of non-sense should be not spread world wide. Ireland101 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete some of this info. merits inclusion (somewhere) and should be merged (somewhere), but an article on one POV without even a Criticisms section is hard to support. JJL (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Articles of the format "X's views on Y" are, almost by definition, POV forks. If X's views on Y are notable, they can legitimately be integrated in the article on Y, where the breadth of their coverage must be balanced according to the "no undue weight" principle. Giving them a separate article instead just means giving them extra uncontrolled soapboxing space, where this requirement for balance can be conveniently ignored. This one is blatantly non-neutral, so there isn't much that would be worth merging back into the main article either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. See my comments on Talk:Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Use the material in the article to support and expand the section in Political views on the Macedonian language. Whoever complains of undue weight, then, let him put more weight (sourced) on his POV rather than deleting sourced material from the other POVs detailed there. However, if this nomination is made only to remove Bulgarian POV on "Macedonian Wiki pages", I instead wish to clarify what is meant by "Macedonian Wiki pages" and whether those are intended to include only the POV propagated by some Macedonian nationalists in the Republic of Macedonia. Still, however, transfer of material to Political views on the Macedonian language is a better move because the proposed article contains enough non-Bulgarian sources that support the view that Macedonian language is a Bulgarian dialect (a POV which I do not share, at least for a term used to refer to the contemporary (after the beginning of 1960s) official language in the Republic of Macedonia), so that calling this a "Bulgarian view" (Bulgarian POV) is misleading. I think that it is even better to rename the article Political views on the Macedonian language to Views on the Macedonian language and include there all views (linguistic, as well as political), making a careful distiction between those by putting them in separate sections. Lantonov (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep One of the voters for deletion above said 'It would be like having an article called "French views on the English language".'. Err, not in the slightest. Macedonian has a complicated relationship with both Serbian and Bulgarian, and the question of its identity is a big one in discussions of what differentiates a language from a dialect, as well as being a good example of such issues when there is a dialect continuum. Much of the language expressing the Bulgarian POV is actually reporting the view rather than suporting it (some could be tidied up). I don't know the contributors involved, but wonder whether some of the complaints about POV might be because of a different POV, rather than from a desire to represent all sides of an argument. So quite a strong keep, unless it was all to be moved into Political views on the Macedonian language. Drmaik (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I didn't expect to say this--until I looked at the article. there is enough material for a separate article, and there seems to be an attempt a NPOV here, both sides being represented. I have no object to an article on French views of the English language, either. --there should be a good deal of sources & I encourage anyone who wants to give it a try. DGG (talk) 01:51, 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. Tikiwont 09:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Trouble For Megaland (Captain N episode)

Fails WP:Plot, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, nothing more then a plot summary and trivia on NN episode. Ridernyc (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom with possible shorter summary merged into List of Captain N: The Game Master episodes. Collectonian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fancruft. PKT 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it's huge, and yet not one 3rd party source. AnteaterZot 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Brian Thornton

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. BozMo talk 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: this AfD was mal-formed and overwrote a previous AfD which is here : [8]

Blatant advertising/résumé for a person; doesn't seem quite blatant enough for A7 or G11 so I'm taking it to AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Definitely spammy, and the parts that aren't don't seem to be very notable (and definitely lack any reliable sources to prove as much) Bfigura ^(talk) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No real claim to notability and worthy is not the right test. Also looks like the creator is the subject of the article --BozMo talk 09:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, "entrepreneur, author and noted humanitarian". Could it get any more over the top and promotional in tone? Fails notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

Looking through the deletion history and recreation history I am speedy deleting and salting the page to prevent recreation. I will return and close this when I am done. --BozMo talk 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion, copyvio of text released under non-commercial-use-only license. Gimmetrow 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Status of Medjugorje

Reads like an essay. Formatted like its copy and pasted from elsewhere. Hammer1980·^talk 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Definitely reads like someone put there essay on here. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Copyvio -- however, with appropriate sourcing (& probably change of article title) this would be as valuable as the many other articles in Category:Marian apparitions. Brianhe (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Amended from keep after copyvio issue was uncovered. Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://inside-medjugorje.com/ Corvus cornix_talk 00:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as copyvio per Corvus. Now I wish I hadn't spent 10 minutes wikiformatting the article. The subject is probably notable, however, and an article would not be inappropriate. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The article at Medjugorje is also related to this debate, as it appears to be an article about the village that actually speaks mostly about the apparitions. Even lacking the copyvio, this article would seem to be redundant to Medjugorje. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. east.718 at 03:24, December 1, 2007

[edit] Calabrese (band)

This band doesn't seem to meet any part of WP:BAND. Unsourced endorsement from Rob Zombie. Prod removed by IP. No wiki article for their current label Spookshow Records. A google search seems to indicate that it might be a one-shot record company based around Calabrese. -- Swerdnaneb 19:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable band, doesn't meet any criteria of WP:BAND and I agree that Spookshow Records appears to simply be this one band's nom-de-publishing (no sign of any other band releasing anything on the label). I think I'd like them, but.. not notable enough according to our standards for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, also: delete Midnight Spookshow, 13 Halloweens and The Traveling Vampire Show. --Stormie (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex2ube

Website has not received independent news coverage; the only references given refer to a press release reprinted on two adult industry news sites. Alexa rank 112,888. Criteria of WP:WEB are not fulfilled. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nn and merge any useful content at YouTube or better at one of its sex-related knock-offs. JJL (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, seems like wisely worded advertisement. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic, basically advertisement. — Noah¢s (Talk) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge if Pornotube and YouTube have their own sites I fail to see why this website shouldn't. The Pornotube article, for example, contains less information and is not AfD. Either keep them all or merge them into one article. --.Tom. (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Youtube is a huge network, Sex2ube is miniscule, as for pornotube I've never heard of it, so I can't say. Perhaps it should be proposed for deletion as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:26, 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. east.718 at 03:26, December 1, 2007

[edit] Capture bonding

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Capture bonding

Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination)

Previously deleted after a valid AfD, then reconsidered in deletion review and the deletion was endorsed. A new draft was recreated, and it is different enough that it should be reconsidered. Mind you, it is not very different, so consensus should lean strongly toward keep in order for this to be closed not as delete. Chick Bowen 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

delete - A lot of the sources seem to be dubious, after reading the old AFD and finding a problem with one of the sources I support the move to delete. futurebird (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy makes is very clear that it is permissible to cite your own published peer reviewed material. If you are going to declare Mankind Quarterly to be not acceptable then you really should go into the Mankind Quarterly article page and make it clear that it is not acceptable to cite this journal in Wikipedia articles and why. Incidentally, the revision of the MQ page you did is over the top. I have asked you to revert on your talk page. Keith Henson (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think this should have been a speedy G4 (reposting of deleted content). The only substantive change between pre-deletion versions and the current version is that an article by Keith Henson in Mankind Quarterly has been substituted for an article by Keith Henson in The Human Nature Review. Since this was discussed at the DRV, there's no reason why this article should have been restored.
Anyway, the same problems that were discussed in the AfD and DRV apply. There's no use of the term "catpure bonding" in peer-reviewed psychological literature except in articles by Keith Henson--see a Google Scholar search for "capture bonding psychology". Even worse, except for the Henson article, none of the sources currently cited in Capture bonding use the phrase "capture bonding", with the exception of a self-published ~~novel~~ book by Linda McJunkins. Thus, most of the references used in the article are an example of an original synthesis of previously published material. That's a violation of our no original research policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that McJunkins' book isn't a work of fiction, so I've altered my statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were right the first time and I was mistaken. It is fiction. Keith Henson (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. We've been through this. It's little more than a promotional protologism, highly redundant by any standard with an existing article, and with no independent and credible sources telling us how it is really different. COI sourcing is a major problem. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re "promotional protologism," you might note the term was used before Wikipedia existed. I think it's really important for people to understand EP and its minor points like capture-bonding for the reasons Silverman stated:

"My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep0119.pdf

But I didn't originate either EP *or* capture-bonding.

Now the EP model from bleak times a-coming to xenophobic memes to war or terrorism, that I might be able to claim, at least on the points Azar Gat missed in his work. Keith Henson (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

" . . . but I'm [in]sufficiently familiar with the history here to judge. Chick Bowen 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"To my eyes, the draft is substantially improved, more than enough to escape CSD G4 (deletion of reposted content.) I'm not even sure it requires an AfD, but that is at editorial option. It now seems like a fine article to me, and I will move it to mainspace. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)" [9]

A bit of history. The original AfD was based on a version of the article butchered by someone now banned. That was in the middle of the Sadi Carnot (also now banned) controversy. The reason was "either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both."

From WP:COI

"Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest.

"Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."

Although interesting in providing a tentative explanation for a lot of weird human behavior, the psychological mechanisms are so obvious to evolutionary psychology researchers that it was considered too trivial for a paper back in the early 80s. So there are not a lot of cites besides my two papers (mostly about other subjects) where capture bonding was used as an example of an easy to understand evolved psychological mechanism.

It's not pseudoscience by (Wikipedia standards) when an article gets published in a peer reviewed journal.

Akhilleus' objection of "original synthesis of previously published material" has more merit. But I think if you read the evolutionary psychology entry, it should be apparent that providing detail related to the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness where some psychological trait was selected isn't original either. In any case, there are equivalent developments in both the HNR article and the MQ article on such subjects as drug addiction.

I welcome people editing this article who understand evolutionary psychology. The only two (both now banned) I have objected to didn't know a thing about EP. Keith Henson (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rename to whatever may be the standard term, for it is not this. The concept seems to be broader than Stockholm Syndrome, which is I think properly used in a modern political context only. There's no reason to think this is pseudo-science--I think sources could be found for discussion of this concept back to at least the 19th century. However, I ask KH for some source for the definition and acceptance of the term, for none has ever been provided "The term is fairly widely used on the Web and has begun to show up in books" with one self-published fictional book cited is not sufficient. This is particularly relevant as the term used out of context would suggest something in chemistry. DGG (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This version, although different, seems to have the same faults as the last one. There is no evidence that this is a notable psychological concept and, dispite his obvious efforts, Keith Henson has not been able to address this point. It is my personal view that this is pseudoscience as well, although it seems deleteable as non-notable. Most examples of pseudoscience are simply ignored by main-steam scientists, and it appears that that is what has happened (quite justifiably) to this poor hypothesis. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to call it a "poor hypothesis" then how about generating something better?

The rules for EP reasoning are that *every* psychological trait humans have has to be either the direct result of selection or a side effect of some trait that was selected (with a possible corner case that a few traits might have been fixed randomly).

So, for example, the nearly universal trait of humans seeking status makes sense as a directly selected trait because you can see that high status males in tribal situations sire the majority of children.

Drug addiction, on the other hand, only makes sense as a side effect of some other trait since it is obvious that lying under a tree wasted on plant sap is a way to be eaten by some predator.

Within these rules how do you account for the way Patty Hearst responded to being abducted by the SLA?

If you can come up with something better, I will be happy to rewrite the article with your EP reasoning for what's behind Stockholm syndrome, etc. I am far from welded to the idea; I only used it as an easy to understand example in two articles. Those articles were about far more important subjects, how/why do people get sucked into cults, and what are the psychological mechanisms behind wars.

Further, it's not like I claim to have originated the idea. According to Dr. Leda Cosmedes, it was widely discussed by Dr. John Tooby with other graduate students in the early 80s.

If you are good at this, try coming up with an EP explanation of hypnosis. I have been considering that human psychological trait for a decade without making progress. The high powered researchers in that area of study have recently been trying to apply EP selection rules to hypnosis. I don't think much of their efforts so far.

There is a lot of status to be gained by the person who can put an EP explanation on hypnosis. Keith Henson (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RE Rename I am not adverse to using another name for the concept if there is anything in use. This term is reasonably descriptive and reasonably short. I have used "social reorientation in response to capture" as the an equivalent (awkward) phrase. Agree that out of an EP context it could sound like something out of chemistry. Don't remember if John Tooby used the same term. Will ask Leda Cosmides. Agree that Stockholm Syndrome doesn't work here. Stockholm syndrome is the *outcome* of the operation of an evolved psychological mechanism that was essential for survival up to fairly recent times. Maybe the acronym CBM for Capture-bonding mechanism or some other acronym is the way to go. Am open to suggestions. Keith Henson (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is still no evidence that this term (or the concept under any other name) has gained currency in the scientific or popular literature. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re "no evidence." Trying Google, 1,330 for "capture-bonding", 1,270 for "capture-bonding" -henson How many wikipedia entries have even less hits than this? (hit random button a few times)

223 for "Charles E. Kearney"

163 for "Pearcea rhodotricha".

1,300 for "James Howard-Johnson"

106 for "Knapton railway station"

79 for "Moses G. Leonard".

and

861,000 for "Stockholm syndrome" (Which is not a very good article, but not worth rewriting because whatever you write gets clobbered in a few days.)

2,140 for "stockholm syndrome" "capture bonding" (That's strange. Now it says 3,600 for "capture-bonding" -henson)

Now I know it is possible to salt Google, but you can look at the dates on the capture bonding pages and see they were built up over a number of years.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:09, 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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martina Keibler

I know nothing about wrestling but Martina Keibler isn't mentioned in any of the refs. Also I get zero Ghits here. Possible hoax. I am happy to withdraw the nom if she really is a famous wrestler! TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete The years she supposedly won "PWI Woman of the Year" someone else did. I think it's a hoax too. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, hoax, it's some stuff copied from Trish Stratus and fiddled with a bit. --Stormie (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, blatant hoax. Nikki311 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - thanks folks, that's what I thought. I have speedy tagged it (since I AfD'd, it is procedurally better for another admin to delete). TerriersFan (talk) 20:36, 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. east.718 at 03:27, December 1, 2007

[edit] Kenneth Alan Miller

A biographical article about a political activist. The article has lain orphaned and unreference for over two years. This is little assertion of notability. A google search indicates this person is indeed an anti-sweatshop activist, but I cannot find (and the article does not reference) anything about him (so the article seems to fail Wikipedia:Verifiability). There is no indication, and I cannot find any evidence that, Mr Miller is a notable, important, or influential activist, and there appears to be no evidence that the necessary 3rd-party coverage (per WP:BIO#Basic_criteria) exists. Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:25, 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 deleted per CSD G4. Recreation of deleted material, content was "substantially identical", reasons for deletion were not addressed. --Stormie (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Van de Wetering

Fails WP:BIO. An article on this individual was the subject of a successful AfD nomination last month. While it may be a considered for G4, I note that the criteria for speedy deletion requires that the article be a "copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." This article is not identical to that which was deleted; in fact it is much shorter. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Canada Who's Who citation established notability. Vividfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment While a citation in The Canadian Who's Who does not in itself establish notabilty according to the guidelines, I do think it an important source. That said, I have one question: Does Van de Wetering have her own entry, or does the information provided come from her husband's entry (or that of someone else, for that matter)? I ask because spouses, parents and children receive mention and little more in this publication. I note that no page references are provided. Certainly a Canadian Who's Who entry devoted to Van de Wetering would be a good start in meeting the guidelines. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The nomination neglects to mention that the previous AfD was subject of a an 22 October deletion review (closed 27 October). Victoriagirl (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A published author, and a database entry by itself is not evidence of notability. If there are no better sources (by which I mean reviews of her work), we don't have enough information for a biography. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. I hate it when someone tries to do an end run around a deletion, DRV endorsement, and salting by creating a new article on the same topic, with a minor orthographic change in the title. There's nothing in this version to make me alter the opinions I expressed in the previous AfD and the DRV. Deor (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Address the issue, not the process. Vividfan (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, gaming the process isn't acceptable. And note that this looks like more of the Mark Bourrie edit war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think the new sources (not the orthography) make this ineligible for speedy G4 deletion. And I am seriously unimpressed by the subject lines used in Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs)'s earlier attempts to recreate this article after the previous AfD. But as for the present article: it seems her accomplishments consist of two small-press books and participation in a law-school contest documented only by a press release. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 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. Eluchil404 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number One Rand

Delete - prod tag changed to merge tag but the information is already at the intended merge target, Flintheart Glomgold. This is a fictional coin that has made two appearances to date, one appearance of no consequence. Information is already covered in the main article and the obscurity of the reference makes "Number One Rand" a highly unlikely search term. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Since info is already at Flintheart Glomgold, no need for this article ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Exists (maybe) in the world of cartoons. Non-real world, and details are already in a merged state vis-a-vis Flintheart Glomgold. PKT 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:28, December 1, 2007

[edit] July 2005 Jerusalem Peace March

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/July 2005 Jerusalem Peace March

Unverifiable (site no longer exists); Notability: was written before proposed event which was unlikely, and in any case never happened Avi (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete Reads like an out of date advertisement ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete since it probably didn't happen; see this posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 01:33, 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. — Scientizzle 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whorld

This software does not seem to have been the subject of any independent articles or reviews. No assertions or proof of notability. ~~Borderline spam.~~ Delete TheRingess (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

comment: I was the original author of this article, and I do not, in any way, have any association with this software or its programmer Chris Korda. I haven't been on Wikipedia for long, so I do not know if the notability rules have been changed or not. I will leave this for the community to decide whether it merits deletion. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The charge of spamming is quickly dismissed on the grounds that the wording used to describe the creator of this software is not too kind, but the article gives me the impression that the purpose for which the software was made is by itself non-notable, and more so the software itself. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of reliable sources. --Tikiwont 09:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete I'm doing a bit of WP:IAR here on BLP grounds. This article is obviously going to get deleted here anyway, and the history shows up stuff that's upsetting an individual needlessly, so let's not wait. Contact me if anyone has a problem with this. Doc^g 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April Eden

Delete: Non-notable actress per WP:BIO. Apparently the greatest claim to notability is as a seamstress on a DIY network show (which does not have an article here). Author's only contribution. No third-party references, just links to the DIY show/book and her own resume/portfolio web site. It appears that Ms. Eden herself has found the article and was quite displeased.[10][11][12][13] —Wknight94 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. The actress or article doesn't assert or comply with notability. Rudget _talk 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 没有公众舆论. Go find consensus at the talk page. east.718 at 03:31, December 1, 2007

Translation for those who don't read Chinese: No consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 東北大學

Non-English title, can be merged by utilizing Northeastern University (disambiguation) ✉ Hello World! 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - per nom. Is it my browser or is it viewable? Rudget _talk 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Needs to be on the university page itself, and who's gonna search on the english wikipedia with chinese characters?? Malinaccier (talk •contribs) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - good point! Rudget _talk 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't (see comments by various users below) --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. "東北大學" does not disambiguate into different English translations, it can be translated directly as "Northeastern University". So I believe Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is applicable here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC) (changing vote to merge to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), see below. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Can be translated, but in the Japanese case the usual English term is a transliteration of the Japanese pronunciation of the characters, not a translation at all. This is a wider problem (see below). --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Since the page's title is not in English and is no use to those using the English Wikipedia, this should've been speedly deleted. Doc Strange (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an entry, just a disambiguation page; the rules are not so clear here. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Let's face it,non-english people may come across english wikipedia and will be able to read this article.It will be niceif they can read part of it.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, meaning that our articles are supposed to be in English. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If Keep, then the article has to be listed in WP:PNT and moved to a Latin-alphabet title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchardb (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly not, since the whole point is that the same title in Chinese characters has multiple readings across multiple languages, in this case Chinese and Japanese. cab (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely! --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and salt per TenPoundHammer. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete simply because it is a non English title. Per WP:ENGLISHChris! _ct 02:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, disambiguation pages are not articles but they are navigational aid, in a same way redirects are not articles, though they are at the article name space. There are many non-English redirects at Category:Redirects from alternative languages and it is accepted on Wikipedia. What if there are more than one possible target for the title? There should be a disambiguation page. --Kusunose (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- For this specific page, one of the disambiguation target is Tohoku University which is not known as "Northeastern University" so merging is not appropriate. --Kusunose (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep because the deletion and merge arguments are unconvincing.

WP:ENGLISH --- This is a disambiguation page, and User:Kusunose provides a reasonable account of why disambiguation pages with foreign titles are useful, since redirects from such titles are already widespread. This is a clearly a case where policy has not caught up with actual need, not where you can just WP:BASH and be done with your argument.
"Who's going to put non-English into the English wikipedia search box?" I for one do this all the time, especially when looking for information about topics from regions of the world where name transcriptions are done however-you-damn-well-please, like Korean, Hokkien, or Arabic, and I don't want to bother to play the exponentially-expanding guessing game of trying to figure out which parts got capitalised or hyphenated or spelled with one of three or four potential consonants or vowels or whatever.
"Northeastern University" --- no one refers to Tōhoku University this way.

The main reason I'm not voting strong keep in this specific case is because the modern orthography for Tōhoku University is 東北大学, while 東北大學 is only pre-war orthography in Japanese, and in modern practise (especially what people type into a computer) will only ever be seen in Chinese publications in HK or Taiwan. I'd be convinced to vote delete if someone addressed the above three arguments. cab (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep — per English Wikipedia usage and WP:DAB guidelines. The only 2 articles which mention any form of 東北大學 are Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) and Tohoku University, hence the dab was limited to only those 2 entries. (The latter also mentions 東北帝國大學 further down in the article). None of the other articles in Wikipedia even remotely mentions any Chinese characters resembling 東北大學. Therefore merging the Chinese characters into the dab page for Northeastern University (disambiguation) would be a bad idea, since it suggests a novel and false usage in the English Wikipedia.--Endroit (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As a dab unless one of the universities can be said to have a stronger claim on the name, in which case a hatnote directly to the other university would be better. Taemyr (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's not an article, it's just a disambiguation page. Haukur (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ IMO this would set a very bad precedent for expanding the incursion of unreadable (to the vast majority of EN readers) and unmaintainable (by the vast majority of EN editors) non-english characters into WP:EN. As there are only two articles involved, the disambiguation function can more effectively be accomplished through Wikipedia:Hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing to Weak keep. I think my main concern was that page such as this could become something of an unmaintainable orphan and a magnet for pov edits as well as garden-variety vandalism, as the vast majority of editors would not be able to decipher the content. However, I'm encouraged by the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals‎#CJKV disambiguation pages and the comments of JHunterJ that there may be sufficient interest among knowledgeable editors to provide some level of quality control.

Unutterably strong keep until something is done to address the problem in general terms. This is one of a number of cases where different Chinese, Japanese and in some cases Korean phenomena are all identified by the use of the same Chinese characters (known as Kanji in Japanese and Hanja in Korean), but the pronunciation in the different languages and hence the English transcription are very different. Tohoku University uses the Kanji that would translate as "Northeastern university", but in English it is never called that, it is named by the transliteration Tohoku University - the typical disambiguation "Northeastern University can refer to" would not apply to Tohoku. My own view is that hatnotes would be the best way to solve the problem, as I am little uneasy about the use of Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja even as disambiguation (but some users do use non-Latin scripts as a tool even on English wikipedia, as was pointed out above); but until all the other cases are addressed and a consensus emerges about what to do with names that have the same Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja but completely different English transliterations. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I'm not at all convinced we should disregard WP:UE in this case. I agree (with Bkonrad) that this would be a very bad precedent for the English WP. This is easily solved with a hatnote or two. Keeping this page invites far more problems than deleting it. I may be misunderstanding the argument, but the points made by Paularblaster for his "unutterably strong keep" all seem to relate to the ability to use non-English characters to find articles, which I don't think is the purpose of a dab page in WP:EN (per consensus). SlackerMom (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What would be a very bad precedent would be deleting disambiguation pages for different pronunciations/meanings of identical Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja. If this encyclopedia is going to cover East Asian phenomena it will have to include the way they are written in the native languages. Given, therefore, that the different Chinese/Japanese/Korean will be present, it will be both useful and interesting to be able to see when and how they refer to different things, i.e. to disambiguate them in some way. To do this by translation or transliteration will only be possible by favouring one of the meanings/pronunciations over the others - precisely the sort of bias to be avoided. The fact that, as others have attested, non-Latin scripts can also be used for searching is a further reason, but is not my own main reason, which is this: there is in general no obvious, unbiased way of applying WP:UE in such cases without losing information. In this particular instance I think a hatnote would do it, but there are other examples out there that would be harder to solve, and I can see this becoming a precedent for a creeping obliteration of useful information that, due to the nature of non-alphabetic scripts, cannot easily be stored or presented in any other way without bias. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally be fine to delete this page and not even bother with the hatnotes (due the orthography issue I mentioned above), but deleting this dab page unfortunately won't save you any dangerous precedents. See 文, 饅頭, 琵琶, etc., which would be much harder to deal with using only hatnotes. Arbitrarily picking one language from among Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Vietnamese to transcribe the dab page titles is an even worse solution. See the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) for more. cab (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) and putting a disambig message at the top of the article, per 东北大学 and 東北大学. There seems to be disagreement over the utility of having the title in Chinese characters. I believe that disambig pages may be useful for pages like 琵琶 and 七夕, for example. But consider that in this particular case, we're talking about a disambig page with only two entries. I think 东北大学 and 東北大学 offer the better solution here, in that they are both redirects. And really, it doesn't make sense to me that those two pages are redirects while 東北大學 is not. I would assume those other pages are redirects based on common usage. Likewise, someone searching for Tohoku University would more likely use "東北大学" as opposed to "東北大學". Making this page a redirect would still allow users to search using Chinese characters - they would get to Tohoku University in the same number of mouse clicks, and actually get to Northeastern University in Shenyang in one less mouse click. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What I see here is a deeper problem which doesn't really allow for this information to be placed within the article. I imagine that, this is purely assumptive per the above comments, that most people get annoyed when they see Chinese characters within an article. Now, on top of that we have more than one meaning for the Chinese characters... OMG, surely this is some sort of violation of WP:NPOV because we're putting much emphasis on these characters, right? Wrong! I think the disambiguation here follows the spirit of the Manual of Styles for DAB's. I also think we should have a link to the Chinese Language version... the problem: where should it be? Should English Wikipedia have the disambiguation or should the Chinese Wikipedia, should it be within the main articles or the language bars of each main article? From what I recall, the little language bar on the left side just under the "search" and "toolbox" is where I remember seeing translations. (usefull too). Also, last I remember, such as the case for multiple sclerosis, we usually put the other "appellation" at the top of the article. So, what's the problem... Oh yes! Now I remember, most people have this belief that DAB pages don't need references and don't need to be verifiable whereas if we put the information within the article then you need a proper citation, etc... (Also some policy I remember reading... this is my comment and I'm not adding the delete or keep. We're supposed to come to a consensus! I think keeping this page has no real effect, deleting it will mostly create disappointment and removed some interesting information which should remain somehow on English Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - User:CaliforniaAliBaba highlights another obvious problem with this particular DAB page. Tohoku University is only referred to as 東北大學 when you're reading about it in Traditional Chinese. It is written as 東北大学 in Japanese. So if we're accomodating for the written Chinese name of non-Chinese universities that may be named 東北大學, we should really put Northeastern University in this page as well. Likewise, we should then make a DAB page out of 東北大学 and basically making it a duplicate of 東北大學 - 東北大学 refers to both Northeastern University and Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) as well when you're reading about those two schools in Japanese. I believe Chinese characters in some DAB page titles are useful (namely, those subjects where the common English names are romanisations of Chinese characters as pronounced in different languages and dialects), but in this particular case, we are overreaching the function of English WP here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Northeastern University, with appropriate hatnote on Tohoku University. CyclePat, most users above are not saying that this information should not appear in Wikipedia or that Chinese characters should not appear in Wikipedia; rather, the title of an article should be in English whenever possible, with useful information about foreign translations in the body of the article. Also, remember that the purpose of the English Wikipedia is to provide information in English to readers of English—this certainly can include useful information about foreign languages, including translations, but the information has to be useful to and focused on persons reading English. --Russ (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Perfectly good dab page, since it's not an article, it doesn't have to have an ASCII title. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Perfectly good dab page already exists at Northeastern University (disambiguation). Well, that dab page also needs to be fixed up: "Northeastern University or 東北大學 can also refer to: Northeastern Illinois University in the United States" makes no sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ENGLISH.--Jerry 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Official policy clarification: several contributors to this discussion have inappropriately referenced WP:ENGLISH. Article titles should certainly not be in any language other than English. Deletion criteria clearly state, however, that "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages." (my emphasis). If redirects, mutatis mutandis disambiguation pages. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep as a dab page. While 東北大學 is not currently used for Tohoku U, it was only 60 years ago. Therefore, it would still be useful to have a dab page which refers to all the possibilities in whichever language uses them. And, as a dab page, WP:ENGLISH does not apply as dab pages are not articles (see Paularblaster's comments directly above). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as written (that is, if there is no primary topic for the dabbed phrase). If a primary topic does exist (and it seems that Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) may be the primary topic), then I would support a redirect there with a hatnote to the other entry -- but the discussion of primary topic should be raised and held at Talk:東北大學, not here, which is why I'm voting Keep at this point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Northeastern University is not a good choice for target of the redirect since that article does not mention the 東北大學 use. If it is edited to mention that use, then that would be the third dab entry, and it should be kept (and moved to 東北大學 (disambiguation) if there is a primary topic). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment #2: take note of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals‎#CJKV disambiguation pages and consider weighing in there -- this kind of issue will come up again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I fail to see why we accept GERMAN LANGUAGE TITLES on _articles_ when they are clearly not English and can't even be typed, and cannot accept this title. Or diacritic marks that are also not English. This isn't even an article. 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're right: it isn't an article. No one here is claiming it is. Rather (and as several others here, including myself, have pointed out), it is a disambiguation page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because English is a West Germanic language. --72.79.16.72 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:ENGLISH. --72.79.16.72 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)— 72.79.16.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - This particular topic seems to be a bit narrow in coverage. Would be a much better dab page if it covers the title 東北 instead, in my opinion. Aquarius • talk 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are many disambiguation pages which only have a few links on them. This one isn't that small or that unusual. DAB pages can have as few as three article links on them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
delete. Not a slightest chance of English usage. I would understand a case for disambig of foreign words in Latin script, but in cuneiform, — no way. `'Míkka>t 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please do a little better research. Chinese characters are not cuneiform. They have some similarities, but are not related.···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ENGLISH. A disambiguation page is unnecessary because romanization of those characters are different in Japan and China. It is reasonable to expect that the user of the English Wikipedia would use English or the English romanization of those characters rather than the characters themselves. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects from Chinese characters are common and covered by WP:SPEEDY#Redirects. If the redirect target is unclear (no primary topic), a disambiguation page is indicated. What shall the disambiguation page be called in that case? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page with only two items listed. Given that the name of Tohoku University is not actually written as 東北大學, but instead, 東北大学, it's pretty clear we should redirect this page to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China). And note that both 东北大学 and 東北大学 are already redirects. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If your proposal for a primary topic is implemented, I agree (as I noted in my vote above). I'm not sure if the consensus on primary topic should be built here or on Talk:東北大學, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this AfD has mostly been discussed outside the simple context of: do we need a disambig page with only two topics, one of them being the obvious primary? I initiated a discussion at Talk:東北大學, but there doesn't seem to be too much participation. Given the amount of discussion here, I don't want to unilaterally change the page to a redirect. So if this AfD does not result in a redirect, I will most likely bring the article to a second AfD and start the discussion off in the right context. The proposal in this AfD was to merge to Northeastern University (disambiguation), something which I no longer agree with. I would start the second AfD as a proposal to redirect to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of confusion here. 東北大学, 東北大學, and 东北大学 are only using different versions of the same hanja/kanji and refer to the same universities. Both Japan's Tohoku University and China's Northeastern University are written as 東北大学 in Japanese language, 东北大学 in simplified Chinese, and 東北大學 in traditional Chinese and traditional Japanese. See the articles of the two universities on Japanese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia. They are written in the exact same way. The difference is only regarding the English names of them. --Saintjust (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, except traditional Japanese hasn't been used since WW2, while both simplified and traditional Chinese are still in current usage. So anybody searching for 東北大學 will most likely be looking for the university in Shenyang. There's not much of a point keeping this page a disambig page. There are only two items on it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Bradshaw

Not sufficiently notable Lrjlo (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Uncertain associate professor of geography at the University of Nottingham, with two books. Have not yet checked to see if more can be found, DGG (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Bradshaw is very significant academic in his field, and more sources should be available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - nom makes an empty claim with no evidence whatsoever. Unless Jrjlo is from the academic field, I'll consider this a bad faith nom. --.Tom. (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of churches in San Marcos, Texas

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Ichabod (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of info, nor a travel guide, nor a collection of external links. The only thing these churches have in common is their location. Useight (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. Non-encyclopaedic, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Tx17777 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. We can't just go and list every city's religious areas! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Malinaccier, we list a lot of different areas for a lot of different cities, including churches. The argument here is that this particular article does not contribute encyclopedic content to WP, not that it is overkill. A lot of WP could be discounted in that way. • Freechild'sup? 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as is this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Making a note of the series of church-related lists that are being nominated currently ([14], [15], [16]), let's not be arbitrary in which articles are going down. • Freechild'sup? 15:16, 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. Any re-creation must have sources. Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accumulator (structured product)

Prod contested by original contributor without improvement. The article appears to be original research and is not supported by reliable sources. Evb-wiki (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - definitely NOT a main-stream financial product, not supported by the single source (which is a single page). Besides the lack of verifiable sources, and the likely lack of notability, the article suffers from a lack of specificity - I really can't tell exactly what the article is talking about. But - just guessing - it looks like a fairly exotic option combination being sold as a get-rich-quick scheme. If it could explain exactly what the combination is, and could explain the costs (there are no free-lunches in finance), then I might say "Weak Keep." But at best it needs a whole lot of work. Smallbones (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern from the source is "because more premium is earned by selling two puts" whereas the article talks about a series of daily up-and-out forwards. In all likelihood, if this type of thing isn't clearly explained, we will be misleading our readers. Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete People will trade just about anything. This sounds like just a minor variant of a knock-out option. It should be merged with Barrier option. Ronnotel (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Lacking in evidence of notability. Don't believe this fits the bill. Good sources required; if none, this must go. Merge?--Samiharris 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete until sources are found. AnteaterZot 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 User:futurehawk is interested in userifying this article to continue working on it, let me know & I'll restore it into your work space. — Scientizzle 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle missions table

I'm nominating this article because in my opinion, it is totally unreadable. It is also an incomplete list, and we have much better alternatives. For instance. List of Space Shuttle crews List of space shuttle missions and of course all the individual mission articles. At most some of the pre-STS1 construction and test information, might be useful in the articles of the respective orbiters. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Redundant article to List of space shuttle missions which presents more data in a clearer form. Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete I agree that it's unreadable. I'm intrigued by the format (columns with illustrations), which was apparently intended for side by side comparison. It doesn't work in this case, since shuttles tend to "take turns" in going into space, and since the streaming goes on for 30+ years. A lot of work went into it, obviously, and this type of display might work for other articles. Mandsford (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete I've had this on my watchlist for a while now, as a member of WikiProject Space Missions, and it has annoyed me, both that it forces horizontal wrapping, and that it is simply, as DJ points out, unreadable. It is also as mentioned, redundant for the most part, as any number of other articles cover the same info, notably, as Nigel mentioned, List of space shuttle missions, which is a featured list. I agree with Mandsford, a lot of work did go into it, but it is ultimately unhelpful overall, and the featured list is much more helpful. Ariel♥Gold 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to other articles, as well as unreadable/unusable, and sixty swats with a wet tufte to the creator. The individual orbiter articles have most of this information and there is no WP:ENC need served by merging it all into a ginormous timeline. A bar chart of orbiter lifetimes could sum it all up visually. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Redundant and unreadable, per others. Chris! _ct 02:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment We could think about creating a vertical timeline of launches/landings per shuttle (stripping the images and commentary). Would help illustrate how long orbiters have been away for extended maintenance perhaps. But you would still end up with 4 empty columns at the bottom, which again would be pretty unreadable. Also I notice how almost all images used seem to be separately uploaded, while most of them already existed in Wikipedia. Including most crews and patches... That makes me think that it might be one big copyright violation.... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but how would they be copyvios? The images I checked are all from NASA, and licensed with PD-USGOV-NASA. I still think this table is redundant, and doesn't provide helpful information in a readable format for the average reader, that cannot be found in other articles, even if it was re-designed, however. Ariel♥Gold 12:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the table. Like someone copied the table and then uploaded all the images to accompany the data. But I took a few strings from the table, and they seem quite unique. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment As the creator of the offending article I would like to respond to the points against this article. INCOMPLEATE I’ve only been adding a year or so per month, I had expected to complete the article sometime next year (unless others pitched in). READABILITY yes it is not as readable as I had hoped to make it, I had hoped after the article was complete to address this maybe by causing the header to remain stationary while scrolling through the content. I also hoped others would help with clean up. REDUNDANCY my intention was to present the missions visually in an easily referenced table (clearly easily is a subjective word), the List of space shuttle missions is good as a list of missions but it is not a visual referance. I realized some time ago that this article might come up for deleation, but as no one seemed to be paying any attention to it, I just keeped working on it as the mood struck me. Obviously I would like to keep the articale and make it easier to use, but I bow to the rule of the majority. I only wish these point had been brought up sooner so I could have attempted to correct them. futurehawk|talk 21:45, Monday, Nov 26, 2007(UTC)

I totally feel for you, cause I know you put a lot of work in it, but I just cannot see how this article can become more readable. As you might see from my nomination, this is my main problem with the article. And in all honesty, I just don't see how this article can become readable without looking a lot like List of Space Shuttle crews, List of space shuttle missions and Timeline of Space Shuttle missions. If you have any ideas how that could be achieved, then I think no one would mind you continuing work on this. And it's always possible to move it into your userspace for that time being of course. I just stumbled upon it, and thought it was better to nominate this article now, than in 6 months or so. I'm glad you at least had the chance to weigh in on the discussion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I’ve reformatted the article to improve readability. There are a few minor glitches I’ll work out later if it’s not deleted. I know this doesn’t address all the problems but it’s the only one I have time to correct at this time and seemed to be the biggest. Let me know what you think. futurehawk|talk 18:53, Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007(UTC)

Well at least its more readable now. I'm still not sure if it's actually that useful, but I'm not totally against it. PS. Over the last couple of days I have been replacing jpg insignia, with png (+transparency) insignia from commons. As a result of that many in this table are now broken. Check the tables history for User:CommonsDelinker or just to here commons:Category:Logos of STS missions to find those. Other broken images, are probably also the result of "NASA-image" cleanup drive :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep under certain conditions The main editors of the article should consider keeping a copy in their own sandbox if they anticipate it taking a year or so to complete the task. I did this for a chart that I inserted later into an article. Grossly unfinished work, such as unfinished tables, are not looked upon kindly in Wikipedia if unfinished for a long time.
What I got out of this article is different from other comments above. I thought it was a potentially interesting collection of mission patches. To see each patch otherwise requires clicking possibly 100 articles, which is a lot of effort!
The question of whether this article is notable is an important point. I think it is notable.
The question of whether it is a content fork is not settled. Content forks are discouraged in WP. However, there is not editorial debate, rather a different ordering of information. If the consensus is that the article is a content fork, then weight should be given for deletion.
I think this article would be better if renamed to focus on what makes it unique, i.e. the mission patches and crew photos all in one article. Since this AFD does not discuss name changes, I'll leave that to the main editors. A new name for the article (which would sharpen it's focus and it purpose) could allow a KEEP. The current name is too close to other tables and articles and could point to a delete decision.
Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was to keep. This isn't going to go anywhere RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swalwell, Alberta

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. It's desolate areas have oil drilling, but this unincorporated area is otherwise without news/book and other reliable source coverage. Without independent reliable source material, there is nothing to add to the article that would meet Wikipedia's article standards. The topic is not notable. Delete and redirect to Hamlets of Alberta. -- Jreferee t/c 15:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - real place, appears on all maps and in all gazetteers. Wikipedia is not paper. An encyclopedia should cover all geographical placenames, even ones where nothing ever happens. --Qyd (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - All real places are inherently notable, even if the lunatics at Wikipedia Review want to turn this article into a battleground. Reso lute 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - why is this even up for AFD? if there are issues with content - deal with those. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - all real inhabited places are notable. No encyclopedia would omit geographical topics. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep obviously. The reason cited for deletion is "insufficient amount of independent reliable source material", but an official government web site confirms the existence of the place, and if any particular details beyond existence are not sufficiently supported independently, the article can be edited accordingly without entirely deleting it as if the place doesn't exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Hamlets of Alberta and protect the resulting redirect. Given the attention on the subject by the trolls at Wikipedia Review, if kept this article would need to be perpetually protected. Real inhabited places are not inherently notable - they are encyclopedic, but not inherently notable. There is no source material to state other than that this place exists; the only reliable source is simply the name "Swalwell" on a small list, with no information next to it. Searching only results in Wikipedia mirrors and random directory sites, with one or two small businesses. This article will never be expanded - better to just merge and leave a protected redirect. --Coredesat 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If a real place is encyclopedic, per your argument, then why would this article require removal? Wikipedia is not paper, so removing a large collection of encyclopedic topics and merging them into one is really quite unnecessary. Also, the existence of trolls is not a valid merge reason, nor is the fact that this article will have to remain protected until the trolls move onto their next target. And this is only if you ignore the fact that it won't stop them. They will just start harrassing an editor at the Hamlets of Alberta article. Resolute 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm not suggesting it be removed, I'm suggesting it be merged. A stub that will never be expanded is bad enough, but a permanently full-protected one that will never be expanded is even worse. --Core desat 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment and process note, the AFD tag was removed from the article on 25-NOV with a summary indicating that the AFD closed as a speedy keep... however it appears that the AFD was never closed and has been still running. I leave it up to whomever considers this whether or not they want to let it run a few extra days per this, but I do note that I personally don't think that would influence consensus at all.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's my fault, I forgot to restore the tag. --Core desat 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see what happened... an admin removed the tag per this close because obviously that editor couldn't as the article is protected. I tend to agree that closure by someone who opined then immediately closed per that opinion isn't really valid.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. We have no problem with articles on every other inhabited place on Earth, so why in the world (or out of this world) should we do differently because of "the trolls on WR"? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dan T. I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedia Review might be mucking this article up for whatever reason, but verifiable geographic communities are inherently notable. WP sometimes merges neighborhoods into larger city articles; something like that might be appropriate here. If this really is a hamlet in the middle of nowhere, though, then it merits its own article. It is presumptuous to say that nothing will ever happen in this place; by long practice and convention, if a government or municipal authority recognizes the existence of a community, Wikipedia will not delete an article on it. Xoloz (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Nobody disputes that it is a real place. That limited online sources exist today is totally irrelevant. Dead tree sources are likely to exist, and are generally superior to online sources. The local historical society for Kneehill County, Alberta or one of the nearby towns or cities is likely to have some. (And, if a merge occurs, it should be to the county article, as the next larger place including this one.) The article obviously can't go beyond the known sources. That it is located along the railroad track is a strong indicator that there will have been sources published about it in prior centuries; there usually were publications and disputes about where railroads would and wouldn't go. GRBerry 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per the above evidence regarding geographic communities' notability. Not even a close call. Why was it even nommed? Mr Which^??? 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Read the nomination. --Coredesat 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I read the nomination. It does not qualify for deletion per the cited reasons. Thus my question. And thus your brusque response. Mr Which ^??? 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't be stupid Invalid nom to start. Keep and unprotect (quietly after a few days). Ban the trolls. There are more good wikipedia editors than trolls, right? So ask everyone to watchlist it. Use the wiki, believe in the wiki. A quiet and steady pattern of removing the problems will make them go away. Making all this big fuss stirs the pot and attracts them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Strong keep per above. Real place that is inherently encyclopedic. Graham87 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per all of the above. Let's not feed the trolls. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Valid existing place. We can deal with disruption.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:06, 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 as a copyright violation. Metros (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Hoge

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Josh Hoge

Articles for deletion/Josh Hoge (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Josh Hoge (3rd nomination)

Repost of a non-notable musician article written in very spammy tone. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. "[A] new artist who is currently finishing up his debut album for Epic Records" Fails WP:MUSIC without a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Evb-wiki. freshacconcispeaktome 15:51, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spitfire (Bangalore band)

Seemingly non-notable band. Creator removed two separate prods from different users so bringing here. tomasz. 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN band. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No label, no album. No assertion of notability that would pass WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 17:13, 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. Tyrenius 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacek Tylicki

Originally a proposed deletion. No real claim to notability, no references or other indicators of notability. freshacconcispeaktome 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —freshacconcispeaktome 15:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per freshacconci. Thus far the article is strong on philosophy and description of work, with no references or clear evidence of notability. Claims of founding a 'natural art' movement need substantiation to establish validity and importance. JNW (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Could be saved with references. Looks like it might be an autobio (looking through the history, you see one of the old editors User:Jacek1981). Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per freshacconcispeaktome and above. - Modernist (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article is hopeless, but even this doesn't spell notability to me. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted per (CSD G4). Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

Articles for deletion/The Little Mermaid III

Articles for deletion/The Little Mermaid III: Melody's Story

Articles for deletion/The Little Mermaid III (2nd nomination)

Absolutely no references to back up the statements in the article. The movie is supposed to be released in 2/2008 and there isn't even a plot summary out yet. ~~May I also point out the uncivil note at the bottom of the page?~~ NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Per G4, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Mermaid III (2nd nomination). Also WP:CRYSTAL for good measure --Closedmouth (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as such. NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Probable delete: Amazon has this down for DVD release on August 26, 2008[17], so it it isn't a complete hoax however the article is unreferenced, badly written and has already been deleted once so it is hard to see how its contents can be relied on. Unless it can be improved drastically by the end of the AfD period it is probably best to get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE! IT TICKS ME OFF WHEN ARTICLES ARE DELETED, LIKE THE ONE I MADE FOR MY FANFIC SERIES FLAME ICEJIN! ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 8:45, 25 November 2007 (EDT)

If you do not wish articles to be deleted, then might I suggest taking a look at the policies and guidelines that explain how to write an appropriate article for Wikipedia? See cite your sources, manual of style, layout guide, first article, article development and how to edit for assistance. Also, it would be helpful if you review the deletion criteria. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I'll clean up the resulting stub. Pigman☿ 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sangala palli

Been hanging around WP:PNT for two weeks without being translated. Yupik (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is from Pages needing translation into English:

WP:PNT dialogue

Weak Keep (at least until translation)- I agree with the nominator to a certain extent. It doesn't require deletion until translated, and even then it should be moved because of the lowercase title. Rudget _talk 17:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Revert to the previous English stub and rename as its seems to be a real village. --Tikiwont 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Revert per Tikiwont. I don't know how to revert such an old diff. Bearian 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S.M.K. Sultan Abdul Samad, Petaling Jaya

~~I have cleaned up this article, but no real reasons for this school being notable are given and I therefore propose it to be deleted. Crusio (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. --Crusio 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I have put a reference in the article which shows some notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment that's rather minimal and not really independent. IS there anything better to show notability? --Crusio 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm usually very reluctant to use ghits as an argument for notability, but in this case I will. Considering that high schools are usually accepted as notable purely by virtue of their existence, I would have thought that for a high school in Malaysia to get these ghits would imply pretty strong notability. Phil Bridger 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Many of those Ghits don't seem to be about this school. If one ads "school" to the Google search, much fewer hits result. But that's rather academic now, as I am withdrawing the nomination. --Crusio 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Phil Bridger 08:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - significant high school. The page needs expansion but the sources available show that there is plenty of material to do this. TerriersFan 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks TerriersFan, the article looks better now and I am withdrawing the nomination. --Crusio 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, article is reasonably well-written and appears to be rather notable. Thanks for the rework, TerriersFan! CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 of all (non-admin close). jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look to the Sky

Although the article is well done, the subject fails WP:BAND - no charting hits, no label (single album released on DIY label), no notability to speak of. Google searching reveals nothing, and Prod was removed without comment.

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion:

Delete all per nom, fails WP:BAND, seems to be a walled garden. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability ~~except for the record label which doesn't meet speedy criteria.~~ RMHED (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts CSD A7 includes companies, so it probably does. RMHED (talk) 23:40, 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. Sandstein 07:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockingham Vipers

This is about a recreational/youth football team in Australia. There is nothing notable about them that would warrant an article. There are tens of thousands of such teams in the U.S. and we are not accepting articles from them. I also think this article lacks verifiability. KnightLago (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is not a rec/youth team. Gridiron (American) football is not played at a professional level in Australia, and this team is in the highest amateur level of the state (out of a total 6 teams for Western Australia), so it is not like the tens of thousands as described. Admittedly, although this article does require cleanup and sourcing, this team has notability to warrant an article. --Breno ^talk 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gridiron website describes the league as "fun and entertaining league of boys and men from ages of 14 to 55 playing in two divisions." The Junior Division "is between 14-17 years of age and they play 7 on 7 on a full size field." And then the "Senior level when you reach 18 years old." I'm not sure where this team falls but it doesn't seem any different from rec leagues in the states. They openly advertise for players on their website which again seems like a rec league. I did some further checking on their website and the senior league takes people up to 55. While Australia might not have many teams, this is equivalent from what I've read to the thousands of other rec league teams all over the world, and therefore not notable. KnightLago (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google News Archives comes up with nothing and they are a recreational team. [18]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or at best merge to an article about the league, or American football in Western Australia.Ga rr ie 02:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. That a rec league is the highest level of competition in a given place does not change the fact that it's a rec league. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per Garrie. Twenty Years 10:36, 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 — Caknuck 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pagan House

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pagan House

Article clearly does not meet the notability guildelines for groups and organizations: it is local to Omaha, NE and I have not been able to find any references to it in secondary sources. The only references on the internet are the group's own website and event ads posted by the group on various pagan websites. Probably unverifiable. Article was previously tagged for notability/lack of sources, but the tags were removed by the article creator.

I am bringing this to AfD rather than prodding because of a potential conflict of interest; I am personally acquainted with the founder of the group, though I have no quarrel with her. I'm fairly certain that the article creator, Musashi39, is either Leslie McQuade or someone else closely associated with the group, and I am notifying them of this deletion discussion. AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 12:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless originators or other editors can find decent secondary sources. I'm sure this is a bona fide organisation, but the point is not whether or not it exists but rather whether it meets the criteria for notability for organisations. The lack of on-line sources suggests that it does not, but people who know it better may be able to cite print sources which I have not ben able to find. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, weakly, per. nom., unless reliable secondary sources are found, and a certificate of good standing from a secretary of state is not good enough, all it does is show that an organisation by that name has been registered with a state government. No opinion as to conflict of interest issues at this time; if notability can be shown, that should be enough, since the actual text seems neutral enough to pass. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't mean to suggest conflict of interest on the part of the article's creator; I agree that the text is neutral. I just thought that, given my personal involvement (peripheral as it may be), it would be appropriate to ask for community input. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Just a church or church equivalent. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is produced before the conclusion of this AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete without secondary sources or citations, it cannot be verified that this is not an advertisement for this group's activities. Among items that need to be substantiated are:
- Pagan House attempts to foster an understanding between different Pagan beliefs and main stream religious institutions.- No efforts toward this end are described. The only activity mentioned is a recurring ritual for Pagans.
- Pagan House attempts to change the world for the better.- This statement is nebulous, most organizations feel they are making the world better. It seems a bit self-serving without clear examples of how this relates to this group's specific goals.
- The White Ritual is held in conjunction with the Unitarian Universalists.- This needs to be clarified in order to not be misleading. Is Pagan House affiliated with any Unitarian Universalist organization? Is the ritual described formally co-sponsored by a UU organization? Is it even held at a UU church or a location procured at least in part by a UU body?.
- The only sources provided are the State of NE certificate and a link to its website. Unless the neutrality of this article can be confirmed, it can be concluded that this article is meant to drive web traffic to the Pagan House website, rather than serve as a general interest article.

--RadicalHeretic (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Pigman☿ 18:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rhythm

This is a listing of compilation albums, and track listings for some of these albums. They apparently fail WP:N. I don't see any encyclopedic content in these articles. Also, I don't think that anything can be salvaged here by merging, so I propose deletion, both for the series and for the album articles.

I also nominate the following related articles:

The Rhythm vol. 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 11 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 14 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 21 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 22 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 23 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 24 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Rhythm vol. 25 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, the track listings suggest that notable artists all contributed to these albums, so they may be keepable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for all I can see these albums are recompilations of songs that have been released by the artists individually. Encyclopedic content about the songs, if available, may be included in the articles about the artists. But why would this track listing of compilation albums pass WP:MUSIC? --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete these are those things sold on late night TV. AnteaterZot 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete all single volumes and also the series as there are no sources nor any other indication why this could meet WP:MUSIC.--Tikiwont 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:V is policy, so a lack of sources--after a thorough search--is ultimately a reason to delete. — Scientizzle 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ric Dalby

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ric Dalby

Articles for deletion/Ric Dalby (second nomination)

Fictional character showing no sign of real world notability Pak21 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources attest to any real-world notability or significance to the character. Article is pretty much just a rehash of the WP:PLOT involving the character. Otto4711 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - major character in well known soap opera, like any main character from EastEnders for Coronation Street. The page needs tidying etc, but that is no reason to delete.--UpDown (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Other stuff exists is not a strong argument in deletion discussions; the problem with the article is not untidyness, but the fact that it in no way demonstrates its notability via citations from reliable secondary sources. --Pak21 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete no sources. AnteaterZot 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No sources is not a reason to delete, its a reason to find sources.--UpDown 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So get going. As WP:V says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. [...] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Pak21 08:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Recreated against previous consensus, in which case there should indeed be sources already present or any other strong case per WP:FICTION that I do not see here.--Tikiwont 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tracey Morrison (character)

Fictional character with no real world notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferndale Strangler Pak21 (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete (merge), nn. JJL (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:43, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wise Owl Bookshop

Unremarkable Bookshop, claims notability based on mention of a domain name dispute in blogs. Article in unencyclopedic, and reads like an advert. Mayalld (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Advert, not notable, unencyclopedic. Hammer1980·^talk 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. An ad. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep* Numerous citations on multiple sites. Article conforms to Wiki Standards. Not an add (no advert like language or shilling etc) Gloworm747 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC) — Gloworm747 (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 Speedily deleted for being a hoax. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GTA 5

Seems like massive WP:CRYSTAL or a hoax, not sure which. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete crystal vio -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Bláthnaid 11:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Completely without sources. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Smells fishy.Hammer1980·^talk 12:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I might also add that the author of the article, Hugo94, has a short and storied history of vandalism. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete almost certainly a hoax, if not then certainly a crystal - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, very likely to be a hoax. 96T (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Koweja (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax/fan-fic/crystal-balling. GTA 5 will probably exist at some point, but this is not it. - Koweja (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per this. The article has absolutely zilch in terms of verifiability and the presentation is quite bad. Rudget _talk 17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, obviously. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was this not speedily deleted in the first place? It most definitely fits the criteria --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim to notability (that it is a game developed by Rockstar) excludes it from most CSD criteria. G3 (vandalism) can be used for blatantly obvious or recurring hoaxes, but it's unclear whether an admin would delete this page based on such a nomination. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Crystal ball/hoax/no references, you name it. Chris! _ct 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom/CRYSTAL/etc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Shouldn't we wait for Grand Theft Auto IV to come out before an article is created for GTA5? Doc Strange (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleting, this has no source; the above are assuming crystal balling, whereas this is merely a hoax. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 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 per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid club

Neologism, as far as I can tell said by one person, one time only. Speedied once already but recreated by original author so i'm bringing it here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete A very, very strong delete Not in any way encyclopediac or useful, enjoyable or helpful, the only things that can come out of this is violation and irritation. AFD only voting account (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:V and WP:OR; assigning people membership to a non-existent metaphorical entity is mind-bogglingly unencyclopedic. -- The Anome (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Given that it lists Mia Zapata, who was murdered, among the members of the "club", I think it's safe to assume that this article is a blatant attempt at trolling. Speedy closing
Delete possible speedy. Non existent grouping of people based on a statement by Kurt Cobain's mother. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural close, article completely rewritten with sources. This does not prejudice a later AfD. Sandstein 07:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R&B Punk

Seems to be a neologism; note that it's an unreferenced orphan, and was created almost exactly a year ago. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Article is clearly in better shape. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable pseudo-genre.--Michig (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Coudant find anything about it on a quick google search. Tiddly-Tom 09:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Much to my surprise, I actually found some sources on this from Google Books. As the article is headed for deletion, I'm going to blow it up and start from scratch with the sources I've found. Don't know if it'll save it, but I'll give it a go. faithless (^speak) 10:00, 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 (non admin, {{db-afd}}) Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belhifet

Non-notable fictional character. Too few substantial, secondary sources exist to write a sustainable article about this character. Mikeblas (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TheRingess (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Icewind Dale (series). --Brewcrewer (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Not worth merging, since it's completely unreferenced original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Merge into Icewind Dale (series) if required. Hammer1980·^talk 12:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge - Material is useful to keep in wikipedia. This should not be deleted --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-encyclopedic write-up, unsourced. AnteaterZot 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coot (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page doesn't serve a proper purpose. There's the main article subject - coot birds, and external links to a dicdef, what looks like a non-notable university project, and a type of four wheel drive vehicle, only the last of which looks like it could be worthy of creating a new article - and that wouldn't require this disambiguation page, it'd require a link at the top of coot (for the vehicle, see coot (vehicle)). h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Three of the four entries are external links. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The second listing, refering to an old man, is a legit listing. The external link attached to that entry just has to be removed. As a matter of fact, I will remove the rest of the links. Coot doesn't redirect to Coot (disambiguation) so there isn't a major problem here. --Brewcrewer (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still a dicdef, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be serving a useful purpose now it has been cleaned up. Bringing this to AfD shouldn't really have been the first course of action. --DAJF (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This old coot says Keep. I've added a few more items. There seems to be some conflicting info out there about the codenames of the Soviet planes, so hopefully an expert will wander by and make any corrections that may be necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn - speedy keep due to this being made into a valid page. Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:58, 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 — Caknuck 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Current Exchange

(contested prod) Article claims that this 11-minute film won an award, but it's unsourced, and the festival where it supposedly won the award doesn't seem to be notable. Barely gets any ghits. Brewcrewer (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Can't see anything to make this notable. Not much content in the article to help establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 12:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am Romain Basset, Bloody Current Exchange's director and I do not understand why my short film can not be notable. It shows famous french actor Philippe Nahon, premiered at the Cannes film festival (in the short film market), won 2 awards at the "Week End de la Peur" film festival and has been added as a bonus in the Jonathan Yudis' "Pervert!" french DVD, published by Neo Publishing. It also will be shown at the 2008 Gerardmer fantastic film festival... What could I add to satisfy these notability criteria ?Jason13myers (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources, non notable Chris! _ct 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Director should refer to Wikipedia:Notability (films), which this article currently fails completely (no sources). A1octopus (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn subject. Fair Deal (talk) 03:25, 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 delete. Pigman☿ 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shopping Centres in Dublin

A simple list of shopping centres in Dublin. The page was sort of a place holder where all the shopping centres listed were going to be merged. There was no consensus to merge, so this page is kinda unnecessary now. The talk page contains the merge/deletion discussion. Rocket000 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Article has potential for expansion. It can have a discussion on the effect of shopping centers on Dublin, how the shopping centers evolved, etc. Maybe one day it can look like this great article: Shopping malls in New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcrewer (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is the potential for expansion, as Brewcrewer says. Bláthnaid 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Can't see any point in this; it is a fairly random list of just a few of Dublin's shopping centres. (Sarah777 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of info, nor a travel guide. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as what Brewcrewer says. Redrocketboy 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - After considering the above comments, To me it would make more sense to make individual articles about each Mall, then a 'parent' article describing their overall effect on the town/area... not the other way around. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete this doesn't meet the classic purposes described in WP:LIST--it provides no "valuable information" beyond a name (which violates WP:NOT#DIR), and has no "navigation purpose", as the malls don't appear to have articles (or be individually notable). Finally, per WP:LIST, "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." — Scientizzle 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Scientizzle. Violates WP:LIST. Editors wishing to keep this have had since 25 November to rescue it. Bearian 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Charlotte

Non-notable wrestler. No sources, even the wrestling federation he claims doesn't seem to exist, or at least has no reliable sources for its existence. I couldn't find anything on him or the World Federation Wrestling. Corvus cornix_talk 06:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 11:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I suppose some people might feel that being the "Self Proclaimed WFW Extreme Champion" might make him notable. I'm not one of them. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per all above. With sources, could be notable Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN per nom. tomasz. 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as he coulda been a contendah. Seriously, this violates WP:V and WP:N. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 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 Editions of Dungeons & Dragons, from merge already done. --Tikiwont 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4dventure

This article covers a marketing term that the publisher only used for several months. The publisher no longers uses it. The core topic (4th edition Dungeons & Dragons) is more appropriately covered at Editions of Dungeons & Dragons along with previous editions. Since 4th edition isn't even published, it's not possible that it's independently noteworthy enough for a stand alone article where the previous editions weren't. . — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Editions of Dungeons & Dragons#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, later if they need a main article, they can create one. --ZacBowling^talk 06:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per ZacBowling --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
ZacBowling has a good point; since links in historic articles would break, a Redirect is probably a better solution. So I'm no longer in favor of outright deletion. I'd just do it, but since there is an outstand AfD I'll wait until there is consensus. I'm not seeing anything in the article as it stands that's really worth Merging. — Alan De Smet | Talk 20:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing relevant remains after WP:AFD rules applied. Speedy deleting as empty. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Alan Turing

Seems to be well-sourced (and is), but Kenneth Alan Turing does not come up in any searches, and while he MAY have been a scientist involved in high-level areas of work, but this is unknown, and probably just a vanity article. The searches DO turn up an "Alan Turing", but they do not seem to be one and the same. Jmlk 1 7 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I can't find anything in Google and Ask. None of the references or links on the page mention his name. --ZacBowling^talk 06:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - mmmm. tastes hoaxalicious--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I can't out-and-out say that this is fake, but it certainly has the feel of a hoax about it. Lankiveil (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Delete WP:HOAX. --Brewcrewer (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:V as well as the smell test. Sounds like a background for a comics villain. Probably some kind of WP:COATRACK for Echelon. ("They do not seem to be one and the same." D'ya think?) --Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. References included demonstrate no notability for the article's subject.--Michig (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: unverifiable, none of the cites given support this person's existence, zero Google hits for name, looks like a probable WP:HOAX. -- The Anome (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I just deleted all of the questionable, unreferenced claims as per WP:BLP, and nothing is left in the article. Sancho 11:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Previous version looked like a hoax. Current version fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 11:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Junk. Nick mallory (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Speedy deleting, as article is no longer about subject, after WP:BLP procedures have been applied. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 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 redirect. east.718 at 03:03, December 1, 2007

[edit] Splicer

Non-notable game character. The crufty contents of the article resemble a plot summary and/or a game guide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (Warcraft) for a similar deletion. MER-C 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to BioShock, or delete -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect or Merge to BioShock. These are not notable enough on their own, outside of the BioShock universe. Lankiveil (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Merge and Redirect to BioShock. --Brewcrewer (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to BioShock. Hammer1980·^talk 11:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've copied this page over to StrategyWiki:BioShock/Enemies. -- Prod-You (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to BioShock, splicers are just the bog-standard enemies from the game and need no more coverage than they receive at that article (which AD and others have crafted into a featured article, no less).Someone another (talk) 18:21, 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, nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cody's Books

Deletion nomination: Local bookstore that does not appear to have much in the way of independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Unless and until such sources can be produced, it should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment This bookstore has have troubles in the past, so much troubles, that it has made refs on local newspapers and blogs. I have added those refs as sourced notability. The article should be deleted should the remaining store close. Someone will eventually recreate it, so, let me say keep. -Goodsh op ed 05:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would the article be deleted if the last stores closes...? • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep Seems at least marginally notable for a small stub and a historical footnote. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, its only notability is that its stores are closing? Did no-one notice this bookstore before it closed? This seems to fail the "multiple" standard of WP:N, as the only reliable references are to the closing of the store, a single event. I would gleefully withdraw this nomination if any other extensive coverage exists. A single columnist at a single paper lamenting the closing of their favorite bookstore is a tenuous claim to notability at best. If other sources could be produced, that would be a different story... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Hence the "weak keep" instead of "STRONG KEEP". :) • Lawrence Cohen 05:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Change to Keep Take a look at these results. There a good number of "4pm! Event at Cody's!" type entries, but look at each, and ignore most of those--there other reliable sources, even New York Times coverage. • Lawrence Cohen 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraw Nomination Sources are evident. These should be added to the article, as there are numerous and extensive sources. Thanks for providing those. No issue here. There's some good stuff here going back many years. I would recommend expanding the article using L.Cohen's sources. Good catch. No more problems. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to McLeod's Daughters. Spebi 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tess Silverman McLeod Ryan

This article contains nothing of importance on the character it purports to be about. There are few edits, none of substance. I don't see any reason it should be kept, as the original McLeod's Daughters article covers the characters well enough. Lenky (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to McLeod's Daughters. No indication that character has extensive, non-trivial coverage on their own. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect As mentioned; the character on their own doesn't warrant a stand alone article. • Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect, not notable outside of McLeod's Daughters. Lankiveil (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Apparently McLeod's Daughters is a big hit in Australia. If Tony Soprano can have his own article so can Tess Silverman McLeod Ryan. Article has to be expanded, however. --Brewcrewer (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Brewcrewer, note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. I would suggest that given Tony is clearly the lead character in a series which sells quite well on DVD it is likely there are more than the one secondary reference to warrant an article regarding him - so far there is no indication at all of any secondary references asserting the notability of this one specific character from a series which AFAIK isn't quite an international hit.Ga rr ie 10:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect Character on their own doesn't warrant a stand alone article. Hammer1980·^talk 11:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
DeleteROxBo (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to McLeod's Daughters - it's a reasonably popular show in Australia but it's one of those ones where the characters have no independent notability outside the show. The contrast would be with shows like Home and Away and Neighbours. Orderinchaos 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect Agree as per Orderinchaos Retarius | Talk 03:36, 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 — Caknuck 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp belknap

Non-notable camp Mhking (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Though the author of the page claims citations on the article talk page, there are no citations to independant sources. All citations are to the camps own webpage. Unless and until such sources materialize, this is a non-notable camp and should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Not a notable business. Sounds like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacBowling (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no third-party references or citations. Lankiveil (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
DeleteReads like an advert.Balloonman (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
DeleteAdvertisement. A speedy may not have been out of place. Hammer1980·^talk 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of notability exists. "Significance" is nice, but not the standard for WP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as previously-deleted material. Old AFD is here. android 79 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Vernon (radio personality)

Article was previously speedied from different author-name; subject is not notable, article appears to be created solely for the purpose of promotion of subject Mhking (talk) 04:59, 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 03:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StationRipper

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to StationRipper. Was was prod deleted previously under WP:SOFTWARE. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.
I am also including the following because they have no other purpose outside this article.

Soft keep - Not a huge product but slightly notable. Was linked to by Slashdot and USA Today when it was still open source back in 2004. Something funny is that this wiki article was created about the same time their site added wiki to their own site according to their news page -ZacBowling^talk 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, appears to have sufficient third-party coverage... just. Lankiveil (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Keep Yeah, it's pretty promotional but it has third-party sources. Rocket000 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
comment. What coverage there is, does seem to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I read, it was just trivial mentionings of the product, but still, being mentioned in USA Today, Slashdot, and Boston Globe means something. If anything, it shows there's a very very good change more info. is out there. Rocket000 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep My initial reaction was to delete as it is written like an advertisment. However, reading the sources it does look like it is a pretty notable product. However the article should only be kept if it is rewritten. Hammer1980·^talk 11:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I agree with Hammer1980·^talk. The product seems to be legitimately noteworthy, and the writing needs to be more neutral. Tim Ross·^talk 01:19, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. "Cruft" is not a persuasive argument for deletion. Merging the article does not require deletion; it can be done independently from this AfD if there is consensus for it. While ~~Web Warlock~~ Rray is wrong to state that being unsourced is not a reason for deletion (it is), some sources at least have now been provided. Sandstein 07:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (fixed name in above statement, Sandstein 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Book of Shadows (Charmed)

Article about a fictional book. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to mention it is a fictional book? That is not a reason to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So people understand the relevant policies and guidelines before reading the article. They should still read the article though. Jay32183 (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete more Charmed cruft. JuJube (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge - with the main series' entry. That is already referenced, and primary sources are OK in detailing an element of the show even though not generally enough for a stand-alone article. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge. A major and important part of the series. I would be surprised if no one was able to find more sources. At least a merge is recommendable. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Importance to the plot is not relevant as Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fancruft; no assertion of notability outside of the show; no secondary sources. •97198 talk 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: No reason to keep it, as it is not notable. If it plays a major role in the show, then merge. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Charmedcruft. Lankiveil (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Keep - needs to be expanded. The charmed article is really long already and merging more into it would be probably be bad. I can understand someone wanting to create a page for this piece of it as Charmed is a pretty huge show and the book appeared in all 180 something episodes. Just about all the characters and episodes have been cataloged on wikipedia as well(which probably isn't all that encyclopedic), and "Book of Shadows" section is included in most of the Charmed episodes (see List of Charmed episodes). After the very least create a page for props and sets or charmed magic and merge and possibly it in so that term can have a wikilink to describe it. (I know it sounds like a fan, but i'm not; just forced to watch because of my sisters growing up). --ZacBowling^talk 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Without sources its importance to the plot is meaningless. There aren't sources for Charmed magic as a whole so creating a list would also be a bad idea. Jay32183 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm not a fan of the series, but it seems to be of more than passing importance to the series.Balloonman (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Charmed. --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep/Merge. Keep, or merge into the series article.--Michig (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge I know nothing about the series. However I cant see anything that shows a stand-alone article is needed. The information on here may well be worth keeping in the series article (Charmed). Hammer1980·^talk 11:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge. If this book is really as important to the plot as ZacBowling states but is otherwise not real-world notable, then it deserves a paragraph or two somewhere, just not as a separate article. (Charmed editors will know of a better merge target than I.) – sgeureka ^t•c 13:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A bare mention at Book of Shadows (disambiguation) with a link to Charmed should be good enough. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Merge. Put this information in another charmed article. Definitely not notable enough for its own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- We can't delete and merge. If any content is merged the edit history must be hidden under a redirect for copyright reasons. When an article is deleted none of the history is kept. The main article is already bloated, so merging is probably a bad idea anyway. Jay32183 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as excessive, trivial fancruft. Biruitorul (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this fictional book has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. There is no good argument for merger as the article content fails WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Being a fictional book is not a criterion for deletion. Sources can be added to the article any time. There is no deadline. Rray (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are no sources to add. Unsourced content is subject to removal at any time, and should be removed aggressively, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, there are sources to add. The article has multiple references. And no, unsourced content should not be removed aggressively. It should be sourced aggressively. Rray (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    - No editor but you should be providing sources for the information you add. Do not add content without citing the source immediately. Jay32183 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Anyone can and should improve articles by adding sources. Of course, that requires a real contribution, which takes more work than nominating something for deletion or voting in a deletion discussion. Rray 14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        No content should ever be added without sources and it is the responcibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources. Those wishing to remove material do not have to show that no sources exist, WP:PROVEIT. Users should never be offended that content gets nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the reason for deletion is valid, such as being unsourced, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, then there really isn't anything to be complained about. This is not a vote, you have to have a point when declaring keep or delete. "You should have added sources instead of coming to AFD" is not a valid reason to keep an article, otherwise no article would get deleted. Wikipedia is not a fan site, however some other wiki may be. If that's what you're looking for, use that wiki. Jay32183 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        You should review the list of reasons for deletion. The reasons you cited in the nomination don't apply. Being a fictional book is not a reason for deletion. Being unsourced is also not a reason for deletion. (You need to understand how to distinguish between something that isn't sourced and something that cannot possibly be sourced.) You stated that reliable secondary sources do not exist. They do exist, and they have been added. I'm not complaining, I'm not offended, and I do have a point, which is simple: reliable sources exist and your reasons given for deletion were incorrect, so the article shouldn't be deleted. Rray 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Being a fictional book is not a reason for deletion, and I did not intend it as one. Being unsourced is the ultimate reason for deletion. To someone reading Wikipedia there is no difference between no sources listed and no sources existing. Content should never be added to Wikipedia without sources, and no Wikipedian should show that behavior any tolerance. The sources provided are not adequate. They do not show significant coverage. One-line mentions do not allow us to build proper articles. There is no significant coverage in mulitple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject beyond detail of the plot. That means the article gets deleted. This isn't Charmed Wiki. Jay32183 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The notability of this plot device is demonstrated by a real book (The Book of Shadows: The Unofficial Charmed Companion) about the TV series named after it, which includes much information about the fictional book; the authorized companion book The Book of Three, containing even more information about it; and Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three, a collection of essays which also provide coverage of the subject. DHowell (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Fancruft is not a reason to delete, it is an opinion it is an essay. As to there being "no sources to add" I seriously doubt the editor thoroughly exhausted all the research avenues. I say keep it on the grounds of Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion. Now speaking to the article itself, it is notable within the series AND (this is important) it is one of the most easily recognizable fictional versions of the real Wiccan Book of Shadows, of which this was named. For real world uses, there is enough of a demand to merit a market for full sized replicas[19], discussed by real world pagans at WitchVox, and mentioned in various books (of which I’ll get the references for) in books by Llewellyn Publications, a third party, independent of Charmed, publisher. Web Warlock (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I added ~~two~~ three independent, third-party sources, and one quasi-independent. I have at least three more to add. Web Warlock (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Still no significant coverage. A couple lines doesn't mean anything. Jay32183 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    - According to your ~~PROD~~AFD "There are no reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context." I have shown there are secondary sources and there is real world context. Your "significant" coverage is not the same as Wikipedia guidelines, it is your opinion. Web Warlock (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Significant coverage is required by both WP:N and WP:FICT. Also, this is AFD, not PROD. Jay32183 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        And I have provided that with critical reviews, cultural and popular impact in terms of the culture of wiccan representations in the media by giving examples what various pagans and critics has said about this issue. Working on the merchandise and even sales figures aspects now and still have a book and couple of scholarly articles to track down. Web Warlock (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        You have not shown significant coverage. You have shown minor mentions. To get its own article there needs to be significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Added another one. A critical review of the misuse of the Book of Shadows by a noted wiccan media critic in a peer reviewed book from a New York Times best selling author. Web Warlock (talk) 15:18, 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. Haikupoet - let me know if you want the article userfied for possible merger or transwiki.--Kubigula (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One-hour Thanksgiving dinner

Lacks WP:Notability; seems to be an expansion or attempted article on Rachel Ray's 30 Minute Meal Thanksgiving specials. The simple premise would fit fine in that article and the idea of the "one-hour" Thanksgiving dinner doesn't seem to need its own article. Collectonian (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. —trey^{omg he's back}_{Forrmerly Know As TREYWiki} 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep or merge into convenience cooking or Thanksgiving. I actually added the parts about Rachael Ray; the original article was rather less useful. I've actually been on the fence about this article for a very long time, and while I think it would be a shame to lose the information that's in there, I really don't know how it fits into the greater Wikipedia mission. (Could it perhaps be transwikied to Wikibooks:Cookbook as a last resort?) Haikupoet (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Fails to assert any importance. I am not familiar with Wikibooks, so I don't know if this meets their requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. May be worth a mention in our article on Thanksgiving or Rachael Ray but not as a stand alone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:48, 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 - jc37 07:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patsy (Monty Python)

Please do note: An editor looking over the revision history of this page will note that the number of revisions does not correspond to the number of users participating. This is because of an instance of the first nomination of this article for deletion was overwritten by this one by mistake, and the two had to be separated. Thank you for your understanding. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Patsy, the minor character from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, has zero notability outside of the movie, has no references, and so is just duplicative of the plot section in the movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep You might want to read it again. You missed "In the 2005 musical, Spamalot, Patsy has a bigger role...." DPCU (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep/Merge. Per WP:FICT minor characters that don't warrant their own entry can be combined into lists to establish notability within a context. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
He's not notable. We delete non-notable things. *Clips clops off into the distance* I (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- no reliable sources; not notable. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep One of the three major characters in a major Broadway play, as mentioned above. • Lawrence Cohen 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not one of three major characters. And even if he was, he still needs sources. I see no sources proving he is notable. I (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Importance to the fictional work is not relevant to this discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Patsy is not well covered in the original article about the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.9.169 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC) — 71.104.9.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete no out of world notability, no sources. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the movie. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the above. Sourcing issues, and no real world notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, not so important in the film, but a more important character in the musical. I think it just barely crosses the threshold. Lankiveil (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Delete bigger role than the one line he had in the movie? Doesn't say much. If there was something to show that he is one of the LEAD roles, then I might be inclined to accept it, but as is, it is not notable.Balloonman (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've not seen the show but the character seems more notable there, e.g.Standouts in the talented cast included ... Jeff Dumas as Arthur's long-suffering sidekick, Patsy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've added nine sources. The role of Patsy is larger in Spamalot, he has more lines and sings. Real world notability: Michael McGrath played Patsy in the original production, and he was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical. Bláthnaid 11:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Added sources establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 11:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How? The articles are all about the musical itself, and only briefly mention Patsy, they are not coverage of the character himself. I (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep enough coverage to deserve an article. Hut 8.5 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, apparently has a major role in the musical, Gilliam's main role in the film, well sourced, written from a real world perspective (more fictional character articles should be like this one). 96T (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gianna Driver

It's questionable if this person meets notability guidelines. Reads more like an ad for her and her organizations and interests than encyclopedic biographical content. Dougie WII (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the nom's reason. I don't find this woman to be notable; fails to meet WP:BIO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the sources provided do not appear to indicate her notability. Lankiveil (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Delete Non notable individual of a non-notable companyBalloonman (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTE. If her company would have a Wikipedia entry it might have helped. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 11:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Guerin

Not particularly notable and content not encyclopaedic. Pishogue (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable. The show itself doesn't even appear to be notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't yet meet notability standards. • Lawrence Cohen 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, effectively a successful game show contestant. Probably a bright kid, but not that notable really. Lankiveil (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Delete game show winners are rarely notable.Balloonman (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. One substantial article in the Sunday Mirror and one shortish mention on BBC Newsround make him a borderline case. But there are only 6 non-WP ghits for brainy OR brainiest "Christopher Guerin", which is not promising. Expanding the search to IQ OR brainy OR brainiest "Christopher Guerin" throws up several more brief mentions, such as this in the Daily Telegraph or this in the Times. All are from a few years ago, so I see no likelihood of further substantial coverage. He's a bright lad and may well do something in future which gains him more coverage to make himself notable, but so far he hasn't got there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 November 2007
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:52, 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. Carioca 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yozons

I speedied this under CSD G11 given the borderline promotional text and the conflict of interest seen in the article creator's name (Yozons). After protest, and an attack, I think there will be less drama if this goes through AfD and the community decides. The company returns 185 unique Google hits, 11 websites link to Yozons', no Google news results and the company's website ranks at 1,035,409 per Alexa. Though I didn't scour the web results at great length, I didn't see any in depth coverage in independent and reliable sources. This does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Personally, I think WP:COI should have teeth. That conversation cannot be given a proper airing here, but I do find articles created in this manner offensive and antithetical to our aims.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Clearly non notable. Agree with you, seems to meet G11. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I think you were correct to delete it under G11 in the first place. Happy to provide you with a consensus stick to back you up though. Lankiveil (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
delete make it 3Balloonman (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Blatant ad. Worth the speedy. Hammer1980·^talk 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep after Freechild's rewrite; the previous "delete" opinions are no longer applicable. Sandstein 07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of churches in Omaha, Nebraska

Keep - the article has been updated enough to where it is significant enough to keep, although I would recommend trimming down the list of churches to the significant and/or historical congregations. --Ichabod (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note This AfD is part of a series of AfDs made by the nominator that specifically targets lists of churches across the United States. The AfDs currently include this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the nom, and NOT. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per more policies than we can count.Balloonman (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up---even with the changes, this article deserves AT BEST a rename. The list of churches has to go, the rest of the article can be rewritten into something along the lines of Churches in Omaha.Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per everyone. Punkmorten (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer1980 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. per all above Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as are this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold up. I'm going to work on this overnight to add encyclopedic information that will make this article a useful addition to WP. • Freechild'sup? 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to Keep. I added a great deal of information, and this AfD should be reconsidered. • Freechild'sup? 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep (and Freechild rocks!) ⇔ ChristTrekker 05:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Freechild's edits. I don't like the list (we are not the Yellow Pages), but it shoes the significance of the history in conjunction with how the churches formed a history around Omaha. Good show. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Following the edit, this is now a strong keep. However the article needs to be renamed, possibly to Christianity in Omaha, Nebraska or Churches in Omaha, Nebraska. I note that Churches in Omaha is currently redirected to this article; it might be better the other way around. I note that the nomination is now struck out, presumably withdrawn. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:39, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of churches in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Ichabod (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note This AfD is part of a series of AfDs made by the nominator that specifically targets lists of churches across the United States. The AfDs currently include this, this and this. • Freechild'sup? 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per the nom and WP:NOT#INFO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete just a directory. JJL (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not a needed directory; thats what yellowpages.com is for. • Lawrence Cohen 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete for more policy reasons than I care to countBalloonman (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Punkmorten (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per all above, someone should hunt down any other lists of churches in Somewhere, USA. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomFrank Anchor (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as is this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.• Freechild'sup? 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article does exactly what it says on the tin, and we are not the Yellow Pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - this is a substantial compilation with many links to websites. I note that the list for Fort Wayne has been kept (though only due to no consensus), in which case other substantial lists should follow the same course. It would however be better if there were rather more text. Is not Tulsa not home to the "name it and claim it" vieww of prayer, if so there ought to be a link to soemthing on that. I regard the form of this page as less satisfactory than that for Edmonton. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:33, 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 Delete Page deleted 3 times---including an AFD with no meaningful changes. Suggest taking this to DVR if notability can be established. Otherwise, if this page is recreated, it should be SALTED. Balloonman (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Rowan

Extremely minor character who only appeared in one episode of the series. Lankiveil (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non notable. If the character is important to the show, then merge into The Bill and redirect. Otherwise, just delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment, this page has already been deleted three times, but as I'm not an admin I can't see if this is a recreation of deleted content. Lankiveil (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Delete: if every one-off background character had their own page, there'd be nothing else on Wikipedia. Lenky (talk) 08:34, 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 Speedy delete. - @pple complain 09:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elton John and Bernie Taupin's Songwriting Piano

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Elton John and Bernie Taupin's Songwriting Piano

I heart Elton, but notability is not inherited. To my knowledge, this piano doesn't bake pies or do your taxes, it's just a piano that was used to write some memorable music. Ultimately NN. — Music Maker 5376 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Pianocruft^?. Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutral; I think the argument for deletion misses the point. A piano that was used to write some memorable music is not notable if it's just a piano that no one has heard about. On the other hand, if a whip used in Devo's "Whip It" becomes the issue of a bidding war between George Soros and Bill Gates, and makes the front page of the USA Today, then it's notable. It's not about the item; it's about the perception of the item. In this case, there's some evidence that the item itself has been noted that I suspect it could be notable, but I don't think the article as it stands when I wrote this message proves that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Question Interesting subject for an article, but do we have any evidence of notability for the offending piano? It seems like a plain old piano to me. • Lawrence Cohen 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There really isn't any attribution of notability for this piano to secondary sources. There is a suggestion of notability in that it was temporarily included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Elton John exhibit, but so was one of his jumpsuits -- and a lot of other artifacts of passing importance. There's a tiny mention of the inscription in Elton John: A Biography. Frankly, this reads like an eBay item description more than anything and guess what? It was an auction item. And this looks like a pretty blatant copyright violation of 605 Icons of 20th Century Music Autograph Auction Catalog. Speedy tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, references added article expanded (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Overbeek

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ross Overbeek

Articles for deletion/Ross Overbeek (2nd nomination)

version at time of AFD nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

procedural nomination Article found as an expired PROD though it had previously been considered here. PROD nominator states: Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF standards, nor is it demonstrated that his political activities are notable. Delete. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Computer science has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: I've added a couple of tags to the article. Seems to be even more notable now than he was before, at least talking about the books that he wrote. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Google Scholar indicates his papers are often cited hundreds of times. He was on a major USG task force almost 20 years ago. The article doesn't even mention his business career. According to this in 1972 his posited theorem construct replaced one that had been the standard in the field. He certainly meets the "major contributions recognized by his peers" standard and definitely deserves a better article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep GS shows dozen ofarticle, included multiple ones in PNAS and Nature, with many hundreds of citations each. Not necessary to even look in Web of Science for this one. Citations by 690 artoc;es fpr an article, with many others of over 200, is quite sufficient. Some of the notable papers should be added to the article. This could have been easily checked before the nom. --I suggest a Snow keep on this one. DGG (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep While, I believe this is a no brainer, not quite ready to close it yet.Balloonman (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Dhartung. Hammer1980·^talk 11:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have expanded the article. --Dhartung | Talk 12:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Snow Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Snow keep per Dhartung's expansion, notability clearly asserted. I'll let someone else close this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Danans

Band with inadequate notability, I think. Relatively little-known; the most coverage I could find online was this and this. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability--nothing convincing on Google (one in-passing BBC mention). JJL (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No sufficient notability, and a Google News search doesn't help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 11:23, 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. Sandstein 08:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damon "Tuba Gooding Jr." Bryson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Damon "Tuba Gooding Jr." Bryson

Nothing to show notability. 1 non wiki hit on Google. Hammer1980·^talk 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to meet music standards. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete touring with a grammy award winning group---not even a part of said group!Balloonman (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I created this page. I probably shouldn't have included the nickname ("Tuba Gooding Jr.") within the name (Damon Bryson). There should be a listing for this musician, but he should be listed as "Damon Bryson," with a later mention of his stage name. Do we need to delete this page to set that up? Help. I'm new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeEss (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this musician has been written about in reliable sources, and so any information in the article would be unverifiable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep! He is a current member of the Roots, and he has done work with other artist as well^[1]. Its easier to find stuff on him searching just Damon Bryson. Article just needs to beimproved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerRichter (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about not signing--DerRichter (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to the sources that you found when you searched for "Damon Bryson"? I searched using that name and didn't see the reliable independent sources, but I'm open to the possibility that you found something that I missed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit its hard to find reliable sources using Google but I have yet to search hard or non-internet sources and don't have the capability to do so as I am abroad right now in a country that probably has nothing on this artist. It turns out that www.theroots.com is really just a link to their myspace, which I agree is not a reliable independent sources. If I were to reshape this article, I would include this info box: {{tl|Infobox Musical artist}. I would also try to find as much biographical info and works that he has contributed to. However, he is a part of muscial group the Roots. Personally, while the current article does not meet wikipedia standards, I think we need to help new wikipedians improve their articles to wikipedia's standards rather than searching google for the topic and then nominating it for deletion. Deletion may be the decision of this discussion, but I think this article could work out in the future.--DerRichter (talk) 21:22, 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/redirect The company website is grossly misleading. The company is but a sales hub of Mexican giant Comex Group. I will write an artice shortly. `'Míkka>t 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comex

Fails to establish notability. Reads like an advertisement. Speedy already refused. Hammer1980·^talk 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I don't think being a sponsor of MLS is sufficient notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 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 Evaporating Cloud. I just redirectd, since I don't see much that is mergeable. Sandstein 08:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Core Conflict Cloud

Fails to establish importance. Maybe merge with Evaporating Cloud if sources found. Hammer1980·^talk 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. I guess it could be merged to Evaporating Cloud. ~~somewhere, but I don't know where (NOM: Please correct the article you suggest a possible merge to~~). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Corrected possible merge. Thanks for spotting Rjd0060. Hammer1980·^talk 01:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Evaporating Cloud. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Evaporating Cloud. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 21:47, 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 redirect. The page was already a redirect, until somebody decided to add some information about a non notable company. If it hadn't been for the redirect, the page probably would have qualified for speedy deletion anyways. Non admin closure. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continua

Article fails to establish importance. Hammer1980·^talk 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Close: Article fails to assert any notability. Restore the page to this version. At 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC), I went ahead and did it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:13, 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. Carioca 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Mark Killick

Fails to establish notability. 75% of article irrelevant to the subject itself. Hammer1980·^talk 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to be notable, and I cannot find any sufficient, reliable sources to help. Per the nom, most of the article isn't even about the person anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN. (I have removed the irrelevant material from the article.) --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V and WP:NN. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO: no evidence of any substantial coverage, let alone multiple substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 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 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coinflation

Article, although interesting does not really establish importance. Hammer1980·^talk 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Google News search brings back about 10 articles, from reliable sources including The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Connecticut Post . However, I cannot read the complete article's listed, as I don't feel like getting a membership to some of the websites they're listed at. The headlines appear to indicate that the articles' themselves are specifically about the subject here (Coinflation). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per above. JJL (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough for a short article. It could eventually grow, too, but its got enough now to merit inclusion. • Lawrence Cohen 05:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Rename The Criminalization of Coin-Melting or Delete/Merge into future article The Criminalization of Coin-Melting. The aforementioned is the notable issue here. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep The page did have a role in the melt ban. Their logs and the popularity of the site proves this. If there are mainstream news articles mentioning the site (as what rjd0060 said), then it's even more notable. UPDATE: I found a full USA Today article metioning Coinflation. -RedBlade7 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep as above - a small article seems justified. --.Tom. (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Eliz81, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford Duffy

Fails to establish notablity. In fact may not even exist ! Possible speedy ? Hammer1980·^talk 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

SDelete: No assertion of notability, and I'm tagging it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as above for not even asserting notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:01, 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 redirect. east.718 at 03:02, December 1, 2007

[edit] Soulidium

This article reads like just another run of the mill MySpacebandcruft for the most part. The article was created by RSamg (talk · contribs), who also created the articles Rocket Science Music (RS in the username?) and Adrenaline Music Group (Soulidium's record label, amg in the username?). There is one assertion of notability in the article: the band is featured on Saw IV (soundtrack). This is enough to avoid WP:CSD#A7, and probably WP:PROD as well, but I'm not sure it meets WP:MUSIC. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Saw IV (soundtrack) for now. They do meet criterion #10 of WP:MUSIC, which states "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a.... notable film... (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)". ~~I would say that a redirect is in order, possibly to Saw IV (soundtrack), but I'll wait for further commentary first.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Saw IV (soundtrack): This is what the notability guideline suggests for this. Per TenPoundHammer's above comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as above. If the band makes notability outside of that particular film, then we can always recreate the article. Lankiveil (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Redirect as above. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:43, 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 No consensus. Whilst there were a large number of opinions along the Merge and/or Redirect routes, many of these were added before the article was substantially improved and more importantly referenced, and as such it should at least be given more time. If, after allowing that further amount of time, there are still significant concerns about the article, then it can always be referred back here. BLACKKITE 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trans-bashing

This neologism article has no sources/references or assertion of notability. It may be that it is notable, but its adherence to WP:N is not established and the article hasn't been edited since 6/07. Avruch ^Talk 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Bashing (pejorative): This is a non-notable neologism, and there is no need for a separate article. What next?....Anything, and everything gets "bashed". - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NEO. Would also support it being redirected to Transphobia. Lankiveil (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Merge into Gay bashing, which already professes to cover LGBT bashing in general. I think that "tranny bashing" (I've never heard the term "trans-bashing") is notable enough for its own article, but I don't have the time now to expand that article with history and instances, and the gay bashing article is short enough that a merge-in shouldn't hurt it. It may not be necessary to have a seperate article for the trans issue (although if anyone can expand the trans article, I'll change to keep). Kolindigo (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, What is there to merge though? The article in its current state boils down to "(neologism) is victimising transsexuals". There's nothing there particularly about violence at this article, which leads me to believe a merge to Gay Bashing would be inappropriate. As I said above, I don't see how "Trans-bashing" is different to "Transphobia", and if there is going to be a merge or a redirect, it should go there. Lankiveil (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Merge into Transphobia and add a link to it in Gay bashing --ZacBowling^talk 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into gay bashing. While I like ZacBowling's suggestion, that is the more similar topic, and transphobia is linked in the sidebar template and could be linked inside the merged content as well. Gay bashing is also a (surprisingly) slim article, that probably survived a previous threat by getting a ton of "further reading" that nobody ever bothered to incorporate into an improved article. I fail to see a substantive difference between the two types of harassment and suspect it is largely one of opportunity as well as indifferentiation by the bashers. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Transphobia. Article doesn't add anything to the latter. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Transphobia, not gay bashing (trans people are not necessarily gay people). Keep, per Benjiboi's and my comments below. Fireplace (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect Valid phrase, and semi-notable. Notable enough for at least a redirect to Transphobia as suggested. • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Very weak keep or merge per Lawrence Cohen. Rescue? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Transphobia, it would be nice if a source could be cited for the "There are those who believe.." sentence. --Stormie (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Transphobia - it's pretty content-free and I don't really see much point in it - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Transphobia No evidence that this is an actual term aside from the "hey, you can stick these words together!" aspect. Keep the redirect just in case someone does look for the term; redirects are cheap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into gay bashing, which already mentions transgendered victims. It's a notable term and a notable phenomenon (try googling on it). 81.168.80.170 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Transphobia, not gay bashing. Trans issues are not synonymous with "gay". Phyesalis (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect into Transphobia seems the best option I see. Not much here to salvage. Pigman☿ 05:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Transphobia per above, since the neologism itself does not warrant a page. GlassCobra 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Nonsense. trans-bashing is a well-used phrase and concept in LGBT communities and reliable sources are readily available including 800+ hits in Google, 600+ in Google scholar, and nearly 200 in Google books here and here. If the new rules are that an article has to be edited within the last 5-6 months then we have a lot of deleting to do. Article should have been tagged for notability and sources not AfD. Per WP:AfD if an article can be improved with regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Benjiboi 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Changing vote to Keep per Benjiboi. Trans-bashing isn't as commonly heard about as gay-bashing, but there are plenty of reliable sources establishing that this is a real, discrete, and notable phenomenon. Brandon Teena and the film Boys Don't Cry are standout examples. I've added more content to the article as well. Fireplace (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've added quite a bit of sourced content. Fireplace (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm happy to help if needed but instead am addressing another AfD. Please feel free to message on talk if any assistance is needed. Benjiboi 04:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Rooney

Nothing to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable athlete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable, although don't be fooled by the google search. There is an ice-hockey player (by the same name) who appears to be notable (at least more notable than the football player). - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No sign of the substantial coverage required per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not yet sufficiently notable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 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 delete. east.718 at 03:02, December 1, 2007

[edit] CenterIM

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable, and I cannot find sources that are relevant and reliable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:59, 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 Kaya. Tikiwont 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carmilla (Kaya album)

Article about a 3 week old music single. Fails to establish notability. Could easily be merged with Kaya article. Hammer1980·^talk 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Kaya until further notability is asserted. Doesn't seem notable enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge: As stated above. Although the person is notable, this album does not meet WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:48, 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 AFD withdrawn by nom thanks to work of Haemo. Whitstable (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Hair Day

Speedy delete refused, reads like advertising, lack of proof of notability Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - I did Google news searches, and could come up with almost nothing that establishes notability. While searches do prove the product exists, they do establish its notability. It's a hair straightener, right? One of hundreds made. Nothing in this article demonstrates why this is unique among its class. Jeffpw (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per my prior speedy nomination of the first revision of the article + the nom. Consider moving it into user space to let the creator work on it from there. Main space is not a sand box. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No no no don't delete it... its better now!
and OH MY GEE! how can you say its like all the other hair straighteners?! Its like the most famous one in the UK ever! and anyway you have all the other hair straightener brands on here as it is... Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

well this can be ended now, as we know for definite that the information is going to be kept in one form or another... rite? Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment No, that is currently a suggestion - that the article is merged into a new article about the Jemella Group. The notability of the Jemella Group seems to be verifiable, the notability of Good Hair Day still remains to be demonstrated Duke of Whitstable (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG I KNOW HOW I CAN PROVE ITS NOTABILITY! Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

comment I have seen the ads for ghd and it is only referred to by the initials there I think- so I hadn't heard of the 'good hair day' products, but I do know of ghd, if that helps people's search terms. Look here they simply refer to it as 'ghd' [20].Merkinsmum (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete nn; looks like just another hair straightener. Jonathan^T•@•C 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the point... not only have you also got a page for all the other hair straighteners anyway... (which counteracts your arguement saying that just because it is just another hair straightener, we should delete it), but it is a very very famous hair iron brand. MORE famous than the others! And yes it is usually reffered to as GHD by the way... Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this should Duke of Whitstable (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This arguement is so unfair! how am i meant to prove this to people who are so stubborn to listen because they have not heard of them. If there is anyone else who has heard of the product and understands just how embedded into english lifestyle they are, then please join in! Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've been working with the creator of this article - She's very new, and doesn't really understand most of the policies on wikipedia, so can people elaborate their arguments so she can follow the conversation better? She doesn't quite understand notability very well, so rather than just say "non-notable", please elaborate on what makes it not notable. I confess I'd never heard of the subject before now, so I'm not a good one to judge notability, particularly as I don't live in the UK so I don't know how "embedded into english lifestyle" the brand is. Kuronue | Talk 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment As a show of good faith I've made the Article Rescue Squadron aware of this article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep — this is a pretty famous brand of hair straighteners in the UK. For instance, the The Manchester Evening News quotes the brand as being "iconic" — for instance, they're so iconic that the Irish Independent quotes the brand name as a verb for "straightened hair" (like how Chesterfield is used in Canada and the UK). You can find lots of other examples from reliable sources. The company won the The North Region Consumer Products Entrepreneur of the Year in 2005 for their product, and ended up sponsoring a Reality TV show called The Salon. There's also press coverage of a recall of a batch of faulty irons. I think this is a sufficiently notable company/brand. --Haemo (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Haemo's research. • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment — The Yorkshire Post calls the product "one of the most successful in history". --Haemo (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

hey... thanks for the research. I tried putting some stuff like that in originally, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to back it up. Do you think you could incorporate your sitations into the article? Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Google News, mostly; I've re-written article to reflect the news sources, so hopefully people will change their opinions. --Haemo (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Thanks to Haemo's rewrite of the article. Notability is now established. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Only Wish (This Year)

The article has no use Olliyeah (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, Olliyeah? You give no specific reason for deletion. I say this should be kept. This is a special release by Spears. 138.202.56.203 (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - notable and no convincing reason for deletion was provided. Though, the campaign on itunes should be removed. --Philip Laurence 17:36, 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 delete. east.718 at 03:02, December 1, 2007

[edit] (I Got That) Boom Boom

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/(I Got That) Boom Boom

The article has no use and doesn't cite any reference Olliyeah (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN. RMHED (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete The creator of this article provides no references. It's all original research Chri$topher

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:01, December 1, 2007

[edit] Girl in the Mirror

The article doesn't cite any reference Olliyeah (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN. RMHED (talk) 19:45, 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. east.718 at 03:01, December 1, 2007

[edit] That's Where You Take Me

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me

The article doesn't cite any refernce Olliyeah (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 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. east.718 at 03:00, December 1, 2007

[edit] Thinkin' About You (song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thinkin' About You (song)

The article doesn't cite any refernce Olliyeah (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't seem to be a notable song. Lack of references alone isn't usually a concern for deletion, but this page doesn't assert notability either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN. RMHED (talk) 19:43, 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. east.718 at 03:01, December 1, 2007

[edit] Who's Gonna Love You (Nicole Scherzinger Song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Who's Gonna Love You (Nicole Scherzinger Song)

The article doesn't make sense Olliyeah (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete only consists of navboxes and infoboxes; no text Jonathan^T•@•C 17:21, 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, but may be recreated if song charts or is otherwise made notable. Otherwise, do not recreate this article except through deletion review. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If (Beyoncé song)

The article has no use and doesn't cite any reference Olliyeah (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom (and actually, it does have one reference). Jonathan^T•@•C 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Save this is a single but the article deffinitely needs sources. Ratizi1 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Save instead. Sourcing is one of the best contribution a single person could do so why not. The page does make sense though so short that notability of the page wasn't yet established. (note: I am not subjective though I am a fan of Beyonce). The "single" wasn't released yet so it's hard to find sources. Anyway, if nothing could be done to elevate this one to a more encyclopedic article, go ahead, delete. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

delete the only source of information for this article is some fan club website. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not "some fan site" it's the official Beyoncé fan site "We Love Beyoncé" as it mentions in the inside liner notes of her B'Day album. Everything there is legit. Ratizi1 06:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article can always be recreated if song charts, or if Beyoncé dies while singing it. AnteaterZot 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Jonathan^T•@•C 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William george nicholson geddes

Doesn't seem to be an A7, but he doesn't seem notable. Jonathan^T•@•C 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom Jonathan^T•@•C 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Didn't see the President of Structural Engineers thing. Closing. Jonathan^T•@•C 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I think a single person who served as President of the Institution of Structural Engineers, and of the Insititution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, and of the Institution of Civil Engineers amounts to notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Being president of the institutions is no mean feat - and means that the person will have made significant achievements in engineering which make them notable.Tkn20 (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems plenty notable. President of three major engineering organizations (each with tens of thousands of members), receiver of honorary doctorate and commander of the Order of the British Empire. henrik•talk 18:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments put on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/William george nicholson geddes by Gordon Masterton:

This is my first proposed article for Wikipedia, and as you can see I have made an error in using lower case for middle and surname where upper case letters are appropriate. My apologies, but I have not been able to edit the title to correct this. Advice (if the article survives the deletion challenge) would be welcome.

As regards eminence, George Geddes was undoubtedly the leading Scottish civil engineer in the latter part of his career, and until his death. He was senior partner of the largest Scottish firm of consulting engineers, Babtie Shaw and Morton (now part of Jacobs Engineering) and was responsible for the engineering of many major projects, including shipyards on the River Clyde, Belfast (Harland and Wolf) and dams such as the prestressed concrete dam at Allt-na-Lairige, still one of the pioneering uses of this technique. As President of three professional Institutions, and an Honorary DSc and CBE, he was clearly recognised by his peers as an eminent engineer. I recognise that the article does not do him justice and hope that I may be permitted a little more time to add to the credentials for inclusion.

Gordon Masterton

I've copied his comments here; please can everyone remember WP:BITE? Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I am working on the basis that all presidents of the ICE are notable for my target of having an article for all that I have listed at List of Presidents of the ICE, I am grateful for User:Gordon Masterton's creation of this article as another step towards this. Dumelow (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per above, certainly notable. I also renamed it to William George Nicholson Geddes. Not sure why it was all lower-case. • Lawrence Cohen 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete. (However, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zackary Flansberry for the deletion discussion on the actual article about this person.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision history of Zackary Flansberry

Definitely not notable. Already speedied once under A7. It has also been orphaned by the author. Registered 48 Ghits. jj137 (Talk) 20:05, 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] The Bride (band)

[edit] HONK T1R4

[edit] Libby Folfax

[edit] Nuke Dukem

[edit] The Mall at Sierra Vista

[edit] Desert Ridge Marketplace

[edit] Tournament Season 1

[edit] Springdale Mall

[edit] Eastern Shore Centre

[edit] Home alone 5

[edit] Martyr (band)

[edit] Andrea Dätwyler

[edit] Reggie Sears

[edit] Eddie Estrogen & the Hormones

[edit] Glenn barden

[edit] 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers season

[edit] Intown Suites

[edit] George Wozniak

[edit] Proyecto 'ace

[edit] Neil Cartwright

[edit] List of churches in Edmonton, Alberta

[edit] Niagara basketball association

[edit] Custom ps3 themes

[edit] Zackary Flansberry

[edit] Miss America 1994

[edit] TextTwist

[edit] Phat Policeman

[edit] The Simpsons Movie 2

[edit] Education for Ministry

[edit] Bulgarian_views_on_the_Macedonian_language

[edit] Mega Trouble For Megaland (Captain N episode)

[edit] Brian Thornton

[edit] Condiment Pen

[edit] The Status of Medjugorje

[edit] Calabrese (band)

[edit] Sex2ube

[edit] Capture bonding

[edit] Martina Keibler

[edit] Kenneth Alan Miller

[edit] Marion Van de Wetering

[edit] Number One Rand

[edit] July 2005 Jerusalem Peace March

[edit] Whorld

[edit] April Eden

[edit] 東北大學

[edit] Roy Bradshaw

[edit] List of churches in San Marcos, Texas

[edit] Accumulator (structured product)

[edit] Space Shuttle missions table

[edit] Swalwell, Alberta

[edit] Josh Hoge

[edit] Spitfire (Bangalore band)

[edit] Jacek Tylicki

[edit] The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

[edit] Sangala palli

[edit] S.M.K. Sultan Abdul Samad, Petaling Jaya

[edit] Look to the Sky

[edit] Rockingham Vipers

[edit] Pagan House

[edit] The Rhythm

[edit] Ric Dalby

[edit] Tracey Morrison (character)

[edit] Wise Owl Bookshop

[edit] GTA 5

[edit] Stupid club

[edit] R&B Punk

[edit] Belhifet

[edit] Coot (disambiguation)

[edit] Bloody Current Exchange

[edit] Shopping Centres in Dublin

[edit] Scott Charlotte

[edit] 4dventure

[edit] Kenneth Alan Turing

[edit] Splicer

[edit] Cody's Books

[edit] Tess Silverman McLeod Ryan

[edit] Church of the Holy Comforter