Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Fatality (Mortal Kombat). The redirect will be tagged with Template:R to list entry based on the consensus that the topic is insufficiently notable to support a stand-alone article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animality

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

Wikipedia is not a gameguide, nor does it allow for an in-universe repetition of gameplay information culled from the different Mortal Kombat games. It has no notability, and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete game cruft, no encyclopedic content Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), which already has a section about this. Pinball22 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per pinball22 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is encyclopedic content concerning an aspect of one of the most notable and popular game series in history and served as a major plot element of a major motion picture (the second film where Kang transforms into the dragon). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be mentioned in the plot of the movie article and in the gameplay section of the Mortal Kombat game articles, but that still doesn't assert its notability to have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As it appears in both the film and game, it has greater notability that if it just appeared in one or the other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat). Pagrashtak 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 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 delete. Keep arguments presented here do not address Wikipedia expectations for articles on fictional topics. Mangojuice^talk 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mortal Kombat species

List of Mortal Kombat species (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable list of the species of Mortal Kombat, and is thus a repetition of plot and gameplay information from the Mortal Kombat game articles. It is thus entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is important to the MK universe... --Dekabreak101 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• But it needs reliable out of universe sourcing to show that its notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles need to have real world context. This maybe very important to the context of the game universe, but it has no real world context at all. Ridernyc (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because the topic completely fails to utilize secondary sources per WP:FICTION. As a result, it's merely a compilation of plot detail with no real-world context, which is a violation of WP:PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC) *Delete. No secondary sources, no evidence of notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a discriminate and verifiable list with real-world notability of characters from one of the all-time most influential video game series that has been adapeted into toys, comics, and films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Really? Post a real world reference to establish that that is true. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• The video game series is popular, but it does not permit a compilation of mere in-universe information. WP:NOT#PLOT states, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:Plot, WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:RS. Ridernyc (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Includes relation between in-game characters and real-world similarities, contains valid and useful information about elements of a highly popular video game franchise. Sources are in the form of the actual video games themselves. Not being a fan of the game or showing interest therein ≠ games utter lack of importance. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but the video games are primary sources. According to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), "[F]ictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." This article has no secondary sources, so there is nothing to prove notability in the article. Pagrashtak 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Listify in Mortal Kombat and Delete—Create a short list with one- or two-line descriptors in Mortal Kombat as a new section; sourcing such a list in the context of the larger article from Primary Sources is allowable if the overall article topic has been established as notable via Secondary Sources; this is an aspect of using Primary Sources for verifiability but not for notability. The arguments for retaining the article are WP:ILIKEIT-based (either primary or by proxy for fans) and don't hold up under the requirement to have real-world relevance supported by Secondary Sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:02, 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. Davewild 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Rebellion

The Great Rebellion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is an in-universe repetition of plot points from the He-Man universe, and has no notability on its own. It is therefore entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as overly generic title for non-notable subject. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of collaborative software

List of collaborative software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list with no clear threshold for inclusion. ?Original research and doesn't seem encyclopaedic Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The concept of collaborative software is not original research. Given the descriptions and comparisons on the page, I think this article is highly encyclopedic and useful. I think more references could be added, however. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see how this is somehow original research, given that the article is encyclopedic. Per Steve above, references could be added, but even the exclusion of that doesn't warrant a total page deletion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep An encyclopedic list and lists are acceptable articles in WP. Certainly not an indiscriminate collection as the inclusion criteria is exactly stated. Does the article need improvement? Of course. So improve it. Hmains (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are a lot of lists on Wikipedia. I happen to find this one, along with others, pretty useful. -Christopher Kraus 02:13, 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. Davewild 12:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise social software

Enterprise social software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Marketing nonsense - seriously - does this make any sense to anyone? Oh, its also unsourced so presumably original research. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep seems to make sense to enough people as indicated by the number of edits and editors contributing.... notable article, needs improvement, list easily discriminates what is and is not on it. --Buridan (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comments: 1) could certainly stand to be re-written, but I'm not sure what the nom thinks it's marketing nonsense for, exactly; no particular product or service is advocated. 2) For those unaware, this article has a bit of a history; a previous AfD on a previous incarnation became the subject of a Harvard Business School case-study. 3) in what way does four references and a heap of outside links count as "unsourced"? -- phoebe/(talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep Perfectly understandable, part of ongoing efforts to re-structure business and government organizations to make them more useful and responsive to their stakeholders. Well documented compared to many WP articles. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems like an article could be written with reference to reliable sources, but the article needs to change from how it is currently.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:38, 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 Keep, but references must be added. Davewild 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of social software

List of social software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indicrininate list with no clear threshold for inclusion. Unsourced so presumably original research and appears to lack encyclopaedic value. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep reminds me of some of Diderot's lists of things, also uncited, but citable, and thus clearly encyclopedic, also this is a notable list of things to have. --Buridan (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A beginning of a useful and encyclopedic list and WP accepts lists as legitimate articles. Hardly indiscriminate: exact inclusion criteria is stated in the article. Can the article be improved. Of course. So improve it. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This list is a great resource. It ought to be reorganised, not deleted. --Veeliam (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Veeliam, this list could be developed into a great resource. It is an impartent field that needs to be tracked on wikipedia. -- M.Breum, Berlin, Germany, 10:57, 2 December 2007 (CET+1)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Metroid (series). Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid Prime (creature)

Metroid Prime (creature) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has no notability of its own, and so it is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the three Metroid Prime game articles. It is entirely duplicative, and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, as you can see from the last Article for Deletion nomination, the article was deleted, so it shouldn't have been recreated in the first place without the demonstration of lots of references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It went through a small deletion review, so it was brought back. TTN (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect/Delete - This is a non-notable character that needs little to no coverage on this site. Go with whichever one gets the most attention. TTN (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge what little information (probably the Dark Samus bit) can fit in Metroid (series) with little issue, then Delete the article. I understand that the article's original deletion was overturned due to the lack of people involved in voting, but that doesn't make this article any less non-notable than before. Arrowned (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Plot and a ton of other polices/guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with much reluctance - only sign of notability a quick Google threw up was http://www.comicbookbin.com/Top_5_Female_Antagonists-003.html - if not deleted, I feel the article should probably be renamed to Dark Samus as any notability comes from that incarnation of the character, rather than the Metroid Prime incarnation, which is merely a final boss in a single video game, remarkable only for its reincarnation as Dark Samus. It's also not implausible that Dark Samus will develop further notability in future - in which case it should be revisited then. Rmsgrey (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've played the games Neither Metroid Prime, nor Dark Samus are very notable. Both of them can have very minor mentions in other articles. Ridernyc (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- MightyWarrior 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included on the talk page for WikiProject Nintendo. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 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. The original research issues were not responded to, and the arguments to keep failed to address reason for nomination, which strongly suggests the reasoning for deletion is valid. Neil ☎ 10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of rich Internet applications

List of rich Internet applications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information with no threshold for inclusion lacking sources so is presumably original reasearch. Appears to lack encyclopaedic merit Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep 'Rich Internet application' is a precise kind of software. The inclusion criteria for this list is clear and the list is not indiscriminate. Lists are acceptable to WP. It would be helpful if the articles and their terms were first understood before trying to delete everything beyond the immediate knowledge of the nominator. Does the list need improvement? Of course. Improve it! Hmains (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Lack of sources? So do you really mean each entry should have a reference to prove that the application is a rich internet application? A bit overkill if you ask me. There are many similar lists like this on wikipedia so I do not see why this should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete—This is not an indiscriminate list, that is certain. However, I skimmed through several of the list entries and the articles themselves do not self-describe the applications as being of this kind of software. That is a clear sign of original research on the part of the persons building the list: the list creators are interpreting the properties of the application and saying 'this belongs in the list' rather than the application self-describing as belonging to a class that is reflected by the list. The same problem crops up on categories as well, but in that case an editor of the article being categorized must push the article into the category; by contrast, articles are pulled into lists, and the burden of demonstrating proper inclusion rests on the person(s) creating the list. As I noted, that burden has not apparently been satisfied in the case of the present list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Random, unsourced, red-linked list. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 5 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 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of web applications

List of web applications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate incomplete list without sources so is presumably original research. Appears to lack encyclopaedic merit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Utterly pointless list. As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I had good intentions for this article, but it has gone nowhere after such a long period of time. I almost want to apologize for creating it. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 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 - Even ignoring the apparent sock and/or meatpuppetry, the arguments in favor of keeping seemed to mostly boil down to WP:USEFUL. While there are other comparison lists of software, the problem is that hardly any of these seem to be notable.—Random832 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of GTD software

Comparison of GTD software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list. No clear basis for inclusion. Unsourced and presumably original research. onerous to maintain and doesn't appear to serve an encyclopaedic function. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded Shahar Goldin (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep looks encyclopedic and notable to me, just needs citations. improvement is not a reason for deletion unless it can't be improved. here, all they need to do is cite the product descriptions. --Buridan (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, please keep it. I'm glad I found it, and will be happy to help improve it. But: I don't see why it's called GTD comparison. It should rather be called "time management software comparison". Implementation of GTD principles could be one parameter in the list, for those who care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.119.127 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep Please! Is very useful. May not *yet* be encyclopedic, but is certainly a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.221.14 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep I was looking for "comparison of GTD software" and this article has made a start. It can also refer to this GTDSoftware list on another wiki. --sabre23t (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep There are plenty of comparison lists, software and otherwise on Wikipedia. Useful resource for especially for people just getting started with GTD and looking for tooling to support them. Could do with a tidy up tho... ShaneNZ (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep It's useful. Should be a candidate for improvement - not deletion. --neverflake

• keep This article fulfills a function that no other location in the world even comes close to fulfilling. This is bar none the best list of GTD friendly software on the web. I'm certain a significant amount of traffic runs through this page. The content could be improved reasonably easily by adding a half dozen columns which identify critical components of the GTD system, (such as processing and "next steps") and then contacting the owners of each product and requesting that they update their row accordingly to indicate in each column the level of support their product has. Owners that don't update their row will be left with empty values in these columns, and then after a few weeks any product with these columns empty can be deleted. This quickly distributes the burden, adds more value to the article, and abbreviates the list. As for documentation, I think it's self documenting. Each row points to a web site where the product mentioned can be found, thereby documenting the assertions about the product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.125.55 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep Important resource, should be expanded. Many encyclopedic articles contain lists; it's the most effective way to communicate comparative information. Let's expand the article by adding a text discussion of general groups, methodologies, and philosophies employed by GTD-like software, including trends over time. Table should appear first for quick reference and summary. Add a timeline. I think it would be a mistake to add general time management software here. Create or link to a separate, parent article for that, because GTD-like software is a phenomenon in its own right that is receiving focused attention. Lumping everything together would make the article huge and hard to digest. Kcren 16:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOCK (see above). _{But actually because it's an indiscriminate list.} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Me and my 5 puppets say delete as a "bunch of software" list. SkierRMH (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete—I did a revision job on column 1 of the table that dominates this article so that I could see which applications had articles and which did not. Of those that do have articles, none of them mention GTD let alone being particularly useful for conducting formalized GTD. This absence of mentions of the classification that holds this list article together is a hallmark of original research. Regardless how utile the content is, being excluded from Wikipedia does not reduce its utility; it just means you need to find another place to host it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Chase me ladies. -Carados 17:26, 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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of personal information managers

List of personal information managers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

indiscriminate list of information. What is this list actually for? Unsourced and presumably original reasearch Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete I don't see the whole being greater than the sum of the indiscriminately collected parts (is GPE Palmtop Environment PIM not included because it fails to meet some criterion for inclusion, what is the criterion for inclusion? What is this here for?) Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment—Lists are often incomplete; that is what Template:Expand list and Template:dynamic list are for. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's nothing indiscriminate about it- it lists PIMs and gives information about them. The article should be kept and expanded. Lurker (said · done) 18:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lists of xy are an important part of the wikipedia experience for me. Consider a situation when I know the name of three distinct PIM-systems and I am looking for their main competitors. With the help of lists like this one I can find them easily. I'd be grateful if the list is kept, expanded and if the community looks after it to maintain it's quality. Oltsw 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—This is not an indiscriminate list of information. Unlike some of the other lists that were nominated on 26 November, at least this one has the potential for being populated by articles that self-describe/self-categorize as PIM applications (based on spot-checks of articles and the existence of Category:Personal information managers). The content over-reaches the strict boundaries of PIM self-description and the information in the table needs to appear in the respective articles (sourced) prior to inclusion here, but these are content issues and should not contribute to consideration of whether or not to keep the article per se. Categorization alone is insufficient as the information in the table is not easily reproduced in category form. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep— This is an invaluable list, if you can find a similar, current list on the web then deleting this list *might* be arguable but identifying, telling about, and being able to sort a list of PIMs is supremely useful. -Gaiko --58.147.133.10 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)--58.147.133.10 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is useful. User:cooltobekind 18:37, 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 Redirect→Fatality (Mortal Kombat)#Variations—The redirect will be tagged with Template:R to list entry, thus indicating the topic is insufficiently notable for inclusion as a stand-alone article. During a due diligence search of the web to look for supporting material for notability, I found a couple of reasonable links for inclusion in support of verifiability, which will also be added to the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendship (Mortal Kombat)

Friendship (Mortal Kombat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article has no notability, and as such is repetition of the gameplay sections of several Mortal Kombat games that already cover this. As such, it is entirely duplicative and unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete game cruft, no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), where this is already mentioned. Pinball22 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pinball22 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and verifiable aspect of one of the most notable game series of all time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it notable? There is not one real world assertion of notability, and it would need many to sustain a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Millions of people saw the Johnny Cage friendship in the first movie and millions of people around the world have executed friendships while playing the games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically what you said is that the games are notable, the movies are notable, and that people play games and watch movies, but that still doesn't make friendships, which is simply a gameplay mechanic from the series deserve its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Friendship are innovative concept introduced by the series that made fatalities an aspects of game play that other games would similarly use. The concept was significant enough to be used in a major motion picture as well. As we are not a paper encyclopedia and as we don't want to turn away volunteer editors, we should not be stingy on factually accurate and coherently presented material. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And how do we know any of that is factually accurate? How do we know that is as influential as you say? Without references, its just your word, and its not self evident, so it has to be considered just your opinion. Either find references or realize it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Millions of game players and movie watchers can attest to its factual accuracy and notability. Type Friendship and Mortal Kombat on a search engine and you'll be able to see numerous pictures and videos of these things. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That only proves that the fighting technique exists and that people saw the movies, not that its notable and deserves its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Large numbers of websites on the topic has to indicate some degree of notability. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Only development type information would prove notability, and if they are just fan sites they dont count. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Game magazines can also verify friendships as mentionables. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please list them here and when they were mentioned so we can all be enlightened. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look through old copies of Tips & Tricks for example when Mortal Kombat II game out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And will that explain how this idea originated, or provide a developers perspective on it? Will it actually add anything encyclopedic to the article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do a search to see if Boon or Tobias mention them in interviews, perhaps. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as this article has no redeming features. Firstly, it has no primary sources, so trying to verify its content will be like looking for a pin in a haystack. Secondly, it has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat) Pagrashtak 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pinball22 and others. Rray (talk) 20:31, 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 'keep without consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership election

Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership election (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable transfer of power - this sort of thing happens to defeated governments every election. Orderinchaos 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: article has undergone major changes since nomination; see nominated version for context. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: article moved during AFD; new title is Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Actually, this is quite notable, as I suspect many Australians will be following the procedures and the candidates, and the ongoing event tag is quite appropriate. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The transfer of power is actually quite notable, but not in a way that merits a separate article. It's a part of the fallout from the campaign. In any case, they'll be choosing a new leader well before Christmas, possibly as early as the first week of December, so the life of the article is extremely short. Get rid of it and incorporate its contents into other relevant articles. (Later comment: There have been probably hundreds of such post-election party elections in Australia; do we want an article about all of them? If yes, who's going to do the work? If not, how can we justify one out of hundreds?) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with an appropriate article. Useful information, but not deserving of a separate article. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) After the changes, i've changed my mind, Keep. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, let's keep the article as is for now, and when the new leader is chosen just rename the article after him and delete the redirect created by the page move. Okay, that's not the best idea I've ever had... --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Every one of the candidates has a comprehensive article - they've all been senior ministers in the outgoing government. Orderinchaos 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can't really see any harm in the article. It's not spam or original research. Andjam (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- yes, this happens to defeated governments after every election, but why should Canada, Ireland, Japan and the United Kingdom regularily have articles on this (see Leadership election) while Australia should not? —Nightstallion 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a news item, not an encyclopaedia article. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Relevant information can be quite easily covered in the relevant biographies and in the Liberal Party of Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jack of OZ's and OrderInChaos'scomments and because wikipedia is not wikinews! (noting edit conflict with MattInBgn = same opinion --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The claim that this falls under "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" is quite obviously wrong, IMO -- we've got twenty-something articles on leadership elections in political parties. —Nightstallion 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - see WP:WAX - Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Also from Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability: If editors fear that an article is being unfairly nominated for deletion, their arguments will carry more weight if they are couched in the notability guidelines or the relevant deletion precedent. How does this article deal with the issue that inclusion of the subject matter in the articles on the Liberal Party and the candidates will not - I don't see the need for a separate article and am unconvinced by the fact that similar articles exist elsewhere. This topic is unlikely to be article worthy in the future - ie it is a current event from which everybody will move on and only the fallout will be worthy - ie who the leader is and who missed out and that should be dealt with in the articles of those persons.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Nightstallion, or at the most smerge. This is a little different to many such relections in that the outgoing leader publicly endorsed a successor (Costello) whom everyone already expected would become the next leader, only for Costello to announce he wasn't standing. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and rename to 2007 Liberal Party of Australia leadership election. Important event with plenty of sources and with precedents in other countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the rename: It should be Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007, if it takes place this year. —Nightstallion 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - if it stays a single paragraph non-event, we can merge later on. If it gets to be a bigger story, no point merging it now then realising we have to split it out again later on. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - BTW, the counter examples of Canada and UK aren't necessarily relevant because they often have delegates from around the country, not closed party meetings. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Actualy the main UK parties now ultimately elect their leaders through postal ballots (albeit with different rules on apportionment, candidate nomination and even prelimnary rounds to cut down the candidates with just MPs voting). However both major parties and the Liberals used to have MP only leadership elections (and the Liberal Democrats currently have an MP only election for the deputy leader) and we have articles on Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1965, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1975, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1989, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1997, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1922, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1935, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1955, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1960, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1961, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1963, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1976, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1980, Liberal Party (UK) leadership election, 1967, Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2003 and Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2006. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now A leadership election for a major party in the Westminster System is often not just chosing someone to head the party in the House but about selecting a de facto Prime Ministerial candidate - why they were chosen (and how decisively) to head their party is encyclopedic. Leadership elections can often be key moments that determine the direction a party will take as well, whilst also often generating a mixture of deals and resentment that linger in the party. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You do realise the sort of useful information you're talking about will never be made publicly available? Unless there's a leak - and the parties always officially deny such leaked results - we will never know by what majority they became leader, or what reasons were given. May be different in other countries but the above is definitely the case in Australia. Orderinchaos 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Emphatic Delete. In default of violent conflict (:-)), only the outcome is of potential notability and surely the only place in which to record this is in the Libs' ongoing list of federal leaders. Motivations, relevant personality and/or policy issues, etc, can be enshrined in articles on noteworthy persons, if any. Bjenks (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and many others. Many examples of "similar" articles have been provided. I would favour deletion of many of those examples also, but this case is even less article-worthy, as Orderinchaos points out. Even if the election were conducted publically, however, the fact is better documented in other articles than depicted as a stand-alone event. JPD (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand to cover the National Party of Australia leadership election as they are pretty permament coalition partners and the Liberal party deputy leadership election which are both also taking place. Leadership elections are studied for the effect they have on parties policies, personalities and electoral fortunes. Contested leadership elections for major political parties can generate plenty of comment and will be analysed by political historians for a substantial period. This leadership election clearly meets any notability criteria that has ever been drawn up and as for the WP:NOT#NEWS argument -this clearly states that 'topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial' and a quick google search already show substantial sources are available. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have expanded the article somewhat to demonstrate its potential, with plenty of potential for more expansion and would hope people would take another look at the article. It clearly needs to be moved to Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007 but am reluctant to do it during this AFD. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done Davewild. This makes my strong keep even stronger and I hope make some people who have voted delete to change their mind. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Even though I've voted to delete the article, I've just made some edits to it in case we decide to keep it. I've made the point that under Lib Party rules (and I think the ALP has a similar rule), after every general election all leadership positions are always declared vacant. Even if Howard had been returned with an increased majority and a 20% swing in his favour, this election would still be happening. In that sense, there's nothing particularly special about this election. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the election would almost certainly have not been contested in that circumstance and would not have received the substantial coverage in reliable sources which is what establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this competition, and its outcome, will likely determine the political direction of the country substantially in the future. The title definitely needs to be changed though, as per Davewild above me. Lankiveil (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
• Comment: I've moved the article, hope that's okay. —Nightstallion 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay by me. We just need to speedy delete the redirect once we've decided the fate of the article itself. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, no problem -- if noone else does it, I'll do it then. —Nightstallion 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is clearly a notable event, and I can't think of anything which it could be merged into. As it stands, the article is actually pretty good and well worth keeping. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect→Australian federal election, 2007#Post-election—In reading the commentary above, it is clear from all parties (no pun intended) that the notability of the events related in the article are inextricably tied to the Australian federal election, 2007 and that the outcome of the Liberal Party internal election is notable but that the process for achieving that outcome is transient, mundane and not particularly notable. Therefore, I would argue that the internal post-election election (poor wording) should be confined to a subsection of the Federal election article rather than having its own article. As it stands, the Federal election article does not cross-reference this article up for deletion; I will rectify that momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any salient and sourced information into the article on the 2007 election, then Delete. _Jame§^ugrono 06:25, 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 Nominator withdrawn (leaning toward keep) with "in-universe" still an issue (& so tagged). SkierRMH (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strogg

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

This article asserts no notability, and is thus an in-universe repetition of plot points from the various Quake games plot sections. It is entirely duplicative, and doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Easy keep. The Strogg are the chief antagonist of the massively popular Quake game series, particularly Quake II, Quake 4, and the new game just released recently, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which is doing extremely well. The notability of this subject cannot really be in question (which would be a valid issue for an AfD); it clearly is notable. That the article does not assert its own notability is a valid issue which should be corrected, but is not a reasonable criterion for deletion here -- the obvious solution is simply to include references (what would they be, by the way, just links to the idsoftware.com site indicating that they're the bad guys)? There are commonalities between this site article and the other Quake-related sites articles, but that's not a bad thing; this article isn't purely repetitious if you're familiar with the series. Xihr (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, game related websites would not count; you wouldn need creator commentary, demonstration of fan reaction to the Strogg, the design or creation process, stuff like that, only then could the Strogg be said to be notable in an encyclopedic sense. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course those things exist, and you have to know that, so you're essentially admitting that the AfD is unwarranted. (If you know so little about the Quake universe, you should have stayed away from the AfD.) P.S., Are you going to bicker with every single keep vote that gets made in one of your AfD nominations? Xihr (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the article for deletion process is a discussion and an opportunity to assert notability or the lack thereof. And if a good number of reliable out of universe sources exist, please post them here so I can withdraw my deletion and we can make a good article, but if you can't, please acknowledge that it indeed has no notability, which would make sense as it has shown none so far. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources such as this, this, this and this? I alluded to this in the Doom enemies AFD, but how can you possible support Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series whilst nominating other such lists for deletion. It seems to say that "in-universe repetition of plot points" is fine, if its sandwiched between some generalised character creation and reception paragraphs. - hahnchen 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eurogamer article is pretty strong, but that makes me feel that a "development of doom" or "universe of Doom" article could use this information, but not necessarily its own article. I think we should look for a merge target for this information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice goalpost shift. Xihr (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am being honest! It shows the topic has some notability instead of none. However, I would love to withdraw the whole thing and keep it as is, with the new references added of course, if we could just establish a bit more notability for it, maybe like reaction of reviewers at IGN and other development stuff. Otherwise, I think I'll just withdraw it and start a merge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked for references in order to withdraw the AfD. After given four, they're still not enough, and you want more. That's a goalpost shift. Further, your hypocrisy on these matters as demonstrated by User:Hahnchen with respect to the Castlevania article -- in which it is impossible to assert more notability than a vastly more popular Quake-related article -- makes it awfully hard to maintain the assumption of good faith here; you appear to have an agenda. Xihr 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, just stop the crying and the name calling, it is unseemly. I will say yet again, some notability has been established, so it should be merged, not deleted. I would ask you instead of making accusations, take a moment and get a few more references, and we can close this happily as a notable article. Judgesurreal777 22:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You've already been given more than enough satisfactory references. They weren't enough. So why bother? Xihr 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have changed my mind, I don't think this article should be deleted any more, that is a lot! As you seem to be very good at finding references for this, I'd just thought it would be good to get a few more so we can keep the article as is, and not merge it. That's all, if that's going to cause trauma, I guess we'll try to pick a merger target. Judgesurreal777 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, I think you, not being a new user, would know by now that four good references does not make a whole article, we need a bit more. I guess we can take this discussion outside of AFD, but I thought we would like to help build up this article.

Calling an AfD on the basis of notability means that the notability of the article is in question. I've already pointed out why it clearly cannot be, and why an AfD is inappropriate -- and your involvement with Castlevania-related AfDs seems to confirm that you know this. You're even half-granting the point, so you're just looking for excuses not to withdraw your AfD at this point (which, by the looks of it, will very likely fail anyway). So by all means, keep pushing forward and asking for ever more references, even as they're given, but this is all just gamesmanship. Xihr 07:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was very much in question until you provided references, and as you will see below, I have withdrawn the AFD. In the future, I would recommend reading what I have typed, as you continue to repeat the same things over and over that have no relation to what I have already said. Judgesurreal777 08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability and reliable references demonstrated by hahnchen. It is long enough to need its own article. In-universe style could use editing, but not deletion. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - with these criteria one should try suggest the deletion of the Klingon page. Duplication only is a criteria when an entire page is duplicated, not when bits of information are collected into a new consistent whole. Wikimam 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATOR WITHDRAWING - Notability, in at least a limited fashion, has been established, which was the reason for this AFD. Judgesurreal777 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in light of the withdrawal by the nom, plus any of the content concerns are just {{sofixit}} matters. RFerreira 07:02, 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. If someone really really wants the material for a merge into Strogg, let me know, but with no references whatsoever, I wouldn't advise merging. Neil ☎ 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stroyent

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

The article has no notability, and is therefore an in-universe repetition of plot elements from various Quake video games. It is entirely duplicative and therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Stroyent is a fundamental concept of the very popular [[Quake (series)|Quake] series, in particular Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. The notability of the article is self-evident given the massive popularity of the series. Xihr (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, as notability is not inherited. For example, just because Master Chief (Halo) is notable, an article on Master Chief's toe nails would not be just because he's famous. This article needs to prove that it too is notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Xihr (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I found this article very useful for further clarification on a key and central topic for the Quake universe. User talk: Skullmush. November 26, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.228.81 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Useful" isn't a reason to keep an unencyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in this article establishes real-world notability, and there is no out-of-universe information. This article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge→Strogg—The topic is intimately related to the Strogg. As Strogg recently eluded deletion and the nominator considered notability established, this merger would seem a logical by-product of that article's retention. Further, I do agree with the notions presented by those arguing for deletion that the lack of referral by secondary sources in content focused on the topic is a fatal flaw for fictional items such as this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a merger would be in order, but it would be very good for this article to assert its notability. Judgesurreal777 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 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. Neil ☎ 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quad damage

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

The article is simply a lengthy repetition of gameplay elements from the Quake games and asserts no notability outside of the game. It is thus duplicative and lacking in encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my previous nom. User:Krator (t c) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dabify there's already a dab section on the article. And it's a dicdef masquerading as a Quake article right now. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Split-to-Merge and Dabify—The material related to Quake should go into Quake (series) as the seed for a new section entitled something like "Common elements". Thereafter, the article should be converted to a standard disambiguation page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 15:53, 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 merge to BFG9000. Done. Neil ☎ 10:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BFG10K

BFG10K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability, and is thus an in-universe repetition of bits of the plot and gameplay sections of several Quake articles. It is entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to BFG 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with BFG9000 EvilCouch (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with BFG9000. That weapon is more notable, despite both being MFG by ID Software.--WaltCip 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge→Quake (series) into a new section, as suggested in another Quake-related AFD, entitled something like "Common elements". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 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.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slipgate

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

This article is an in-universe stub that asserts no notability, and is such a brief repetition of gameplay sections of several Quake game articles. It is therefore entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a signficant part of Quake and is prominent as Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (as it's a major part of a map there), but there's really not much more to say about it than what's already mentioned in the articles on those subjects. It's notable but it's already covered in the other articles and there's not much more to say about it; a redirect will be sufficient. Xihr (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there are other fiction that use "slipgates" and they would be better served with this deleted. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:01, 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Realm

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

The article is an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of several Legend of Zelda articles, and has no encyclopedic content to speak of due to its lack of notability. As such, it is unreferenced and entirely duplicative of the information already in the game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Hyrule... or a Universe of The Legend of Zelda series-type article might be more appropriate, but I can't see something such as this ever attaining more than a few sources, it's too obscure. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there are many places where Sacred Realm is used, some of them not fiction, and they would be better served with this deleted. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, might as well, it seems every other Zelda article is being deleting. Soon we'll only have one article for LoZ, because everything else will be 'non-notable' :(. Knowitall (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh stop whining, do you know how much effort it people to took to keep Link (Legend of Zelda) at Featured article status Twice? There are several non-game Zelda articles that will be featured over time, and a host of stubby ones that don't have a future, but that's not our fault. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It just seems like everything is being deleted. Bulbasaur was a featured article. The deletionist's deleted so much from it that it's practically a stub now. It can't even get a nomination to be a "good article". I wouldn't be surprised if it lost it's article soon and got merged into a generic "list of pokemon".Knowitall (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is a weird case; I remember when it was nominated to be featured and what a nasty fight that was, but I supported it. As to whether it is now meets notability guidelines I don't know, but I am staying away from that debate until I have an opinion. This article however, doesn't have notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, most of the info is inappraite for wikipedia, all of this seems just like a plot summary of the games, which the game page is where that goes.→041744 13:28, 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—The general consensus is that the topic is notable. There remains a dispute over what form the notable information should be in: a stand-alone article, a redirect to another already extant article containing the material (e.g. merge), or creation of a new umbrella article for which this would be a sub-topic. This means that we are now in 'content dispute' territory. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proton pack

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

The article already has all its notable information at the Ghostbusters (franchise) article, and does not have enough notability to stand on its own, as there are very few out of universe information sources for it. As such, it is just a duplication of the other article and is unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Real-world information is available. The toys based on this prop were tremendously popular [1], and the article already contains some "making-of" information, which could probably be sourced to books like this. Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No I agree that it is notable to a limited extent, but this can still be deleted as all the notable information is already in the other article, and there isn't enought referencing to justify a whole article just to this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How much content would you require for an independent article? Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The info about proton packs in Ghostbusters (franchise) is little and mixed with other matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's all its going to be, as a full article would need lots of references, enough to fill out a development section and a reaction section, and the few that it has justifies its presence in the mother article not one of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're judging the article on the references it currently has. Other references could potentially be added to this article; we need to focus our discussion on those. In addition to what I mentioned above, there are the following (not available for free online):

• Rachel Porter. "Toys were us". The (London) Express. 22 September 2005. (lists the Proton Pack as Toys R Us' most popular product of 1988)
• "Briefly put..." The Roanoake Times. 31 October 2003. (about a young man who was arrested at a Florida airport for wearing a home made Proton Pack)
• Ted Delaney. "Ads often make us feel like babes in toyland". Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. 24 December 1988. (about the difficulty of finding a Proton Pack in toystores)

There's probably more, if I keep looking Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect to Ghostbusters (franchise) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• New Article It'd be best to have one large page that goes over all the equipment (Packs, traps, PKE meter, Giga meter, containment unit, etc) Dr. Stantz 29 November 2007
• Strong keep. it does have notability, and has some pop culture status. this should be kept. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Again, it would be great if any of the Keepers would actually read this discussion, because I have not argued that this article has no notability, I have said it doesn't have enough notability to have its own article, and all of this material is already in the Ghostbusters franchise article, so this can be safely deleted, as we don't need the same information in two places. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite; there's a good amount of info in this article that's not in the other, and there's more information about the proton pack that could be added here. You could argue for a merge, I suupose, but that wouldn't require deletion tools. Zagalejo^^^ 01:50, 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 speedied. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conor regan

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

Delete notability asserted. but no evidence whatsoever Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• article was speedied during the nomination process Mayalld (talk) 22:22, 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 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Marley

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable model, unreferenced, reads like an ad. Dougie WII (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I speedy deleted it before you added the template! Deb (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It asserted some importance, I will undelete so the AFD can run. --W.marsh 22:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely must be an ad, website linked to appears to be a paid porn site. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G11 (spam). Although I would support a stub that contains no reference whatsoever to these pay sites. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Spam.Hammer1980·^talk 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteWP:SPAM. Tiptoety (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:10, 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. The strength of the delete arguments is stronger that the Keep arguments, but with a !vote of 5-3, there is no way I can close this as delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hendley Associates

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

Article fails to show real-world notability. Hammer1980·^talk 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There numerous other articles on fictional intelligence agencies. "Hendley Associates" is a part of the plot of the novel The Teeth of the Tiger, which is a notable book. -- Voldemore (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, we know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, in-universe article is mostly plot summary already covered in the book article. Fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Disagree with Dhartung. This organization isn't covered as detailed enough in the book article. -- Thefreemarket (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is significant data in this article and relatively none in the Jack Ryan page or Teeth of the Tiger page. If it is to be deleted, ALL information should be incorporated into other pages.Wikistoriographer (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Wikistoriographer's point. -- Reid1967 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is an inappropriate article on a plot element of a single book, reflecting absolutely no outside importance per WP:FICT. Admittedly, as the three comments above note, there is not much plot synopsis in Teeth of the Tiger. However, that isn't fixed by going into this extreme level of detail on one element of the story. Merging is not a good idea; hardly any of the info in this article would even be useful in writing an appropriate plot summary. Mangojuice^talk 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I completely disagree with User:Mangojuice. Nothing remotely inappropriate about the article. The subject matter is a major aspect of the book's plot. In fact, it IS the book's plot. -- Deaniack 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I sure hope the book's plot isn't the contents of this article: there's no story described there! Regardless, you may find it notable but that doesn't counterargue against Wikipedia official guidelines lik WP:FICT. Mangojuice^talk 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been listed with WikiProject Novels --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 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—This group might have a significant fan following, but they appear to be part of an amateur musical movement that, as of yet, has not led them to recognition outside of their fan base and that of the dōjin-related music genre. No prejudice for re-creation with reliable sources that reflect broader recognition (whether those sources are in Japanese, English or some other language). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MintJam

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

Non-notable Japanese band. Seeing some proliferation of associated articles about individual albums, they should be considered for deletion as well based on the same. Avruch^Talk 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They're one of the most prolific doujin bands out there, who have actually released a few actual game soundtracks as well. Why are they not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.67.65 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Nothing really shows notability in the article.Hammer1980·^talk 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete From what I've heard, they're more notable than this article does justice to. Having said that, the article does not particularly seem to assert that notability, if indeed it exists, and I can't really expand the article from Japanese sources, so I have to vote delete on this one. If some of the stuff in the lead/major part of the article were expanded, it might be notable, but I can't tell if that's possible currently, let alone do it with my current knowledge of Japanese (ie. zilch). Would be willing to reconsider if notability is expanded upon. Cheers, CP 05:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just want to point out the Japanese Wiki has less information, yet its not opted for deletion >.> Also I believe it has valuable information for fans of the Doujin Music scene, as it does list all released albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.97.245 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:35, 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 per WP:SNOW SkierRMH (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and sport

Race and sport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is clearly original research and has racist undertones. Identical content has previously been PRODed from Sport and Race. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. No need to address the other (numerous) issues that are making a mess of this article. Frankly, I am surprised I can't find an appropriate CSD criterion for it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original essay. I tried to find a CSD for this the first time it came up, but it went as a prod. Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not much here, and could turn into a lightningrod. DJ Creamity (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced OR (explicitly: "through research, I have found out that ..."). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and the additional catalog of stereotypes just added to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete OR non notable, well covered in other articles, and not even worthy of a merge. This is probably a joke.YVNP (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As per nom. Looks like a 'fishing trip' essay to provoke trouble. Hammer1980·^talk 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously OR. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:57, 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 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth)

Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, OR, smells of copyvio. "Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan" -wikipedia Google search gives 10 hits, all Wikipedia mirrors. Makes outrageous claims "More than a million individuals (members and non members) have been directly treated, operated and healed by Archangel Raphael, [1] together with Archangel Michael, for free." Cricketgirl (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Any chance of tagging it for speedy? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are lots of cults that have that outrageous claim.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Edit/merge. The spiritist religions in the Philippines is a legitimate topic. The problem is that this article was so poorly organized and written that it is hard to even determine its relevance. Take a look at the new religious movements in Japan as an example of a short article format that could be a model for spiritist movements in the Philippines. The is also another spiritist religion article, Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. that this article could be merged into. Vontrotta (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or at the very least merge with Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. It is difficult to tell if this subject is notable or not since the article is so unclear. Under normal circumstances I would vote to keep and improve, but this article appears to be the pet project of one editor who will revert (or at least work against) improvements to the article. I tired editing this article at the end of August and was quickly reverted by user Espiritista. This user seems to only edit these two pages and I suspect does not fully understand Wikipedia's standards. I applaud Vontrotta for having the endurance to consistently work on and clean these two articles, but I suspect that this one is a lost cause. Sbacle (talk) 00:09, 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 a weak keep. The references added by Ceyockey help, but it's still pretty thin.--Kubigula (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colt David

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

Does not seem to be notable. thisisace (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep David is pretty well known in the Collegiate Football circle's, better safe than sorry. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. When a kicker beats a record for the most field goals in a season, it usually reflects the fact his team gives him a lot of opportunities (i.e. inability to score touchdowns). Still, he does the job, and that makes him notable enough. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without references. If references added them Weak keep.Hammer1980·^talk 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep—Apparently an up-and-coming college kicker with at least one primary news article and additional incidental references (I have added one of each to the article). My feeling is that this person barely scrapes past the notability threshold as "one for the record books". If he is drafted to professional sports, I would feel better about the keep. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — He's an up-and-coming player who will no doubt be the subject of several news reports in the future, and is a key part of one of the teams competing for this year's college football national championship. Imagine if this were an article about a character in a popular television show. It'd be notable then, and as college football is one of the consistently most popular things on American television today, and as LSU is one of the more prominent teams in college football, it only makes sense to have articles for their players. Precedence has been established in the past, and all this article needs is a little expansion. JKBrooks85 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of College Football articles being considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:26, 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 Redirect per consensus. May at some future date need to be a disambiguation page, but not as yet (closed by non-admin). RMHED 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurel Park School

Laurel Park School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded as "Non-notable school which wasn't even in existence for very long. Unreferenced" Since I was reminded that schools are always tricky, I put this here to generate a consensus. Tone 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hutchesons' Grammar School --TexasDex ★ 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirecting to Hutchesons' Grammar School seems to be the best idea. Jacek Kendysz 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Jacek Kendysz 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A redirect does not work here since this is a very common name for schools. A redirect would lead many readers to the wrong article and that needs to be avoided. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect→Hutchesons' Grammar School—Vegaswikian is correct in noting that there are other schools of the same name (confirmed by a quick Google search), but the need for disambiguation is not supported by the "what links here" for this article title nor an internal search for the phrase. Should additional school articles be added that result in a name conflict, the Laurel Park School redirect can be converted to a disambiguation page easily enough. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 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. Davewild 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Glaister

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

The whole article is based on paper sources which can not be verified: neither the paper sources titles nor the article subject can be fetched through Google. Cross-references in other articles have been added by the author. The general terminology sounds more like an hoax than like facts. Raistlin (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds like a hoax, but even if everything were true, he would still fail WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the hoax .. no hits in Google (except wiki mirrors) and nothing in books. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Best hoax I've seen so far. The books don't even turn up on the British Library catalogue; the article, far from asserting notability, asserts "his exploits remain unknown or unpublished"! --Paularblaster (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the latter was exactly my point in proposing a speedy, but let's do it as a full-optionals AfD... --Raistlin (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the books do come up in the british libary cat. i understand that you are trying to protect wiki, but in doing this i think you are losing alot of valued articles. this is not a hoax and i would read more into it. thankyou Lady234 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, one of the papers is listed in my university library. It would seem to be cartographical information though, so I don't think it will be much help here. I have my doubts about the veracity of the information. That being said, we cannot delete something because it does not use web sources, quite the opposite. Finding the books used referenced though, is proving troublesome. To be honest, I think deletion is a better course of action at the moment. Woodym555 20:39, 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 Delete. BLACKKITE 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Association of Couples and Family Therapy

American Association of Couples and Family Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Org's website, aacft.org, gives the impression of having been recently and hurriedly set up. I can find no mention of the organization by full title elsewhere on the internet or by searching on "aacft.org -wikipedia". While Google isn't all, you would expect an organization that is supposed to be all about web communication to have a slightly greater presence if they were in anyway effective. In any case, there do not appear to be any independent sources to verify this is anything other than one person's pet project, or that any significant number of therapists (or any at all even) have anything to do with it. All edits of the creator, appear to be to promote this and other websites registered to the same person, indicating that it was probably written as advertising. Prod was deleted without comment. SiobhanHansa 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no claim of notability, reads like advertising copy, contains no encyclopedic material. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dhartung. Hammer1980·^talk 23:10, 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. Neil ☎ 10:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seekda

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

This article got deleted a couple of times in the process of creation, citing A7 and G11. This was largely improved in fact so a deletion review was filled. There were some suggestions to afd the article instead in order to generate a wider consensus. So here we go. --Tone 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Tone 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: version at time of AFD nomination→permalink --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing in the article that makes subject notable. First source not comprehensive and second source in German. Still reads like an advretisement in places. Hammer1980·^talk 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Second source is in two languages (either switch the locale or select language in top bar). Can you also be more specific and point me to these parts, which read as advertisement so I can get them fixed. Mzaremba 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand now about which particular source you talk. I will do some search for other English sources. Anyway I must say it is quite difficult to come with English sources in a country, which does not speak this language. Mzaremba 09:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unremarkable company. There are millions of websites out there and this ones certainly not notable. Sting_au Talk 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I give a try below to justify that this is the remarkable company and the subject is notable, as the proposed innovation aim to enable the web of services (as envisioned by Semantic Web research community, by open SOA and in particular by Semantic SOA; the vision, which has been presented in many scientific publications, but not yet realized, although attempted, by commercial companies). Please let me know if the information below could get included in the article, or it will again qualify it as an advertisement.

Asserted remarkablility is irrelevant, notability and sources are important. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Existing solutions for Service Discovery include UDDI and ebXML registry, standards that allows programmatically publishing and retrieving a set of structured information belonging to a Web Service. Several companies have operated public UDDI repositories (IBM, SAP, Microsoft, etc), however due to several shortcomings of the approach such as complicated registration, missing monitoring facilities, its success was limited and only few repositories are still publicly available. At the same time a number of Portals (wikipedia is providing articles about several of them e.g. Strike Iron) dedicated to providing a repository of services have appeared. However, all of them rely on a manual registration and review process, which implies limited coverage as well as inherently outdated information. Alternatively one can use the classical search engines; however they do not provide effective means to identify Web Services. For now, there exists no standardized file suffix, such that a query like "filetype:wsdl" does not match all service descriptions (e.g. the wsdl description Microsoft Services will have the ending ".asmx?wsdl"). Moreover a standard search engine does not make any pre-filtering based on availability and other service-related parameters. Their retrieval model is optimized for finding content and not dynamic services.Mzaremba 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All of this is original research without sources, and will not help the page. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you can add that into the article if you want. You currently have two votes to delete and only one (yours) to keep. Not a lot of people rushing here to have a say on the matter? (that says a lot about the notability) The whole article reads like its been copied from a brochure. Is it a neutral point of view encyclopedic article? Not yet in my opinion. I suspect you may have some personal involvement with the company? Not that that's a bad thing mind you. If the article stays plenty of other editors can come along and add to it and that's when the "spin" starts to disappear. I'm sorry but my vote to delete still stands. It has improved a bit since I first tagged it with a speedy though. See if you can drum up support to add some "keep" votes? Sting_au Talk 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussions are not a vote, deletion is based on reference to policy. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. But I never even tried to hide that I am not involved with the company or that I have been working for the research organizations, which carried out work related to current innovation of this firm. It is enough to check my nickname and list of people on the company website. But please do not tell me that the profiles of hundreds of other companies and organizations, which can be found on wikipedia, have been created in such a collaborative process as you mentioned, and additionally to it, they have been created purely by external contributors, because I will not believe in this. I also do not see "plenty of other editors" editing articles of other smaller companies. Anyway if there is a notable innovation (what I am trying to show in here), wikipedia keeps these articles, and I would like to happen the same in here.

WP:WAX - other pages are completely irrelevant to this discussion. WLU (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, what I am trying to prove now, is that this article is notable and I am asking you for comments and suggestions how it can be improved to meet appropriate standards and to stay on wikipedia.

Greetings Mzaremba 14:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more arguments which make this article notable:

• This company offers basically a new approach to what is described at Web Service Discovery]

• It is notably since other approaches like Universal_Description_Discovery_and_Integration, which I have mentioned already above have been discontinued for publicly available Web Services Microsoft UDDI shutdown

• As noted on wikipedia entry for Web Service one requirement for Web Services architecture is a broker or search engine. This service is provided by seekda. It is similar to XMethod (also referenced from Web Services wikipedia page, what can be also classified as advertisement) but of a much broader scope (about 30 times as much services). So actually it should be seekda referenced on Web Service as the most comprehensive engine available in the world (already more than 16K services indexed and monitored).

Greetings, Mzaremba 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What does the "OG" stand for in Seekda OG? I see you have the article title as Seekda but having Seekda OG in the first sentence? There are also three red links further on in the article. These are, SOA4ALL, Service finder and Service detector. I think having them as dead links looks terrible. I'll tell you what. If you can explain those terms on the actual article page (there's no need to create pages for them just yet) I will change my vote to "keep". No need to reply on my talk page as I am watching this page. Sting_au Talk 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OG stands for Offene Gesellschaft, which is a legal form of company in Austria (I do not think it is smart to make a translation). That is why I removed it in the first sentence, but still keep it as a type of the company in the box form. I will extend the abreviations for project names as requested. Thanks. Mzaremba 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as is, none of the sources assert notability, none appear to be independent of the entity, none appear to be reliable and none are substantial. <2200 hits on google, the majority are the company's website, and the first wikipedia website to pop up is, amusingly, the deletion review. How does this page pass WP:CORP, the only criteria that matters? The only that comes close is the conference presentation, but that is hardly substantial. If the entity becomes notable, no prejudice against re-creation, but should be on a sub page first to avoid re-visiting the deletion debate. If it truly is notable, the page will be created eventually. Right now it's not, and even the sole reference for an assertion of notability (focussed crawling) doesn't appear to justify the statement. WLU (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to give a try and challenge these arguments. First you claim that almost none of the sources is independent from entity. I almost have to agree (with a couple of exceptions) with this particular statement. If you take a look into domain registration of seekda, you will find out that it happen just a couple weeks ago. If you check the blog on the website, than you will learn that the service went online only four weeks ago (although available from June 2006, so more than a year with limited availability). That is why I referenced DERI and STI (and also a couple minutes ago I added two scientific projects) to show that the results and innovation available through this company are actually the compilation of several years of work of many (in case just of DERI, we talk about hundreds) scientists coming from various contributing organizations. Please do not than search for seekda, but search for DERI, search for names of founders of this company (just to mention prof. Fensel, who is the most cited computer science professor in Austria and the major driver behind semantic research in the world), search for WSMO (Web Services Modeling Ontology) and in particular for wsmo mediators or wsmo composition (which are realized in products of the company). I did not list all of them in the body of the article, so not to be accused again of advertising something. If somebody will feel to add it in the future, than he/she will do it.

Today/Tomorrow I will select the list of the most relevant publications (I will try to find even something that mentions focused crawling) and links which explain innovation and then the notability. But please be aware that seekda name will be not on them, as seekda is absolutely a new name given to something that existed for a long time solely in scientific projects. Answering yesterday to Sting_au I have already made a quick search for a related work in context of seekda innovation (or rather research behind it) to other articles in wikipedia and tried to show why seekda in this context is notable (e.g. seekda finally succeed to put an infrastructure for brokerage of services, which Microsoft or IBM admitted to fail).

Greetings Mzaremba 10:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing quickly, I made one typo. I mean not STI, but STI2 or STI International, or Semantic Technology Institute International (or alternatively STI Innsbruck, which is the branch of STI International) Mzaremba 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Page still does not pass WP:CORP. I see no reason to change my reasoning. New source does not even mention SeekdaWLU (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We must be taking about some different sources. STI Innsbruck website mentions it in at least two places. You have an info on the front page about it, and in the spin-offs section. Additionally to it, you have links to projects and working groups whose results and ideas have been exploited to build this first global web services search engine. Just to only mention selected (seekda name cannot be found there, because the name did not exist at the time when these documents get accomplished, but other keywords/names from the article can be found there): WSMO Web Service Discovery; Focused Crawler for Web Service Discovery; WSMO Discovery Engine; WSMX Discovery. You will find many references to related work through standardization organizations e.g. W3C WSMO Submission; WSML Submission; WSMX Submission or in OASIS OASIS SEE Technical Committee. I can come easily with hundreds of other links, which reference the work done (including cited scientific publications), anyway as I said before the name seekda came just recently to label a commercial entity which is build on the top of the innovation done by DERI, WSMO, WSML, WSMX, OASIS SEE TC and many, many other research projects (several of them listed at active project and archive projects pages of STI Innsbruck, but of course you can find on google hundreds of independent to STI articles referencing these projects and work.

I know that you said already, that other pages are completely irrelevant to this discussion, but anyway I must notice it, that there are so many pages of other companies on wikipedia, which hardly provide only a link to their own website(s), and actually admins are not challenging their notability. This is my first experience with editing an article on wikipedia and I am really starting to get upset about the whole situation. I was really expecting to get a constructive support to get things through, but so far except with a few exceptions, it is the other way around. I want to get a notable article on the wikipedia relating to fact that the work on the first global search engine for web services get accomplished and there is a commercial company taking over the research results. There are a couple of reasons, why this is notable, what I already showed, when making a reference to already existing articles on wikipedia (I can support this arguments with references to scientific publications or various specifications). I provided now several references, which if find relevant, will get included in the article. Is there anything else I could do, or I am simply wasting my (and yours) time.

Greetings Mzaremba 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of company articles up for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it apperas to have enough reliable sources to document notability. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 5 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zena Jung

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

Has no apparent use for Wikipedia The Helpful One (Talk) 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. So tagged. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 20:59, 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 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection Mary

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

Article contains no sources and has been tagged as such since January 2007. Doesn't assert notability. Seems to be entirely Original Research. Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources being under External links is not the same thing as "no sources", even if it does violate the WP:MOS. In any case, there are hundreds of references found on Google Books, everything from Weird Illinois to a Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings. So, a notable ghost story. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly widespread urban myth in Chicago, plenty of citations. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Dhartung. A casual search of Google Books [2] or Google News [3]reveals sufficient reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article does assert notability (it's the best-known Chicago-area ghost story), and tons of sources are available. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. I have updated the tags. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is the just the result of a misunderstanding. The sources were added as External links rather than inline citations. They support the entry and assert notability. I'll recode them when I have time, if nobody else does it first. They are all sufficient to support this entry if converted into the correct format. - perfectblue (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is a very famous ghost story. Surprised you weren't aware of this, Pdelongchamp. Next time please try a Google search before launching into this exercise, MrHarman (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Winston

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

Unsure - the only role that would appear to get him past WP:BIO is his role on John from Cincinnati and as I haven't seen it I don't know how significant his role in the series was. The vast majority of his credits look to be day-player kinds of things. Ghits and Google News hits don't appear to strongly support independent sourcing being available. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article could use alot of work, but notable enough for here. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:BIO. --Strothra (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. His role in John from Cincinnati was fairly major, as was his recurring role as Crewman Daniels on Star Trek: Enterprise. Pinball22 (talk) 14:35, 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 per NEO, NFT, SNOW, etc... SkierRMH (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frerard

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

Prod tag was removed by the author. This appears to be a neologism with limited notability, i.e., lots of ghits, but most look like YouTube, Myspace, blogs, and fansites. Also, it seems to fall into the category of things made up one day. —Travis^talk 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT, nothing but a neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Hammer1980·^talk 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danvignes

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

Notable? Few articles link to it Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While orphaned articles aren't necessarily non-notable, this car seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I looked for more references to add but can find nothing about the vehicle. Would like to see it expanded but without refs its has to fail WP:V as mentioned above. Hammer1980·^talk 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a reference cited in the article, though none of us apparently has access to the book in question. It's harder to find good online sources for a subject that is less recent. I did see a few mentions in foreign language cites - for example (horrible translation job) - which corroborate the info in the article. I don't think WP:V is so much the issue as WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely passes WP:V. It is easily verifiable by going to a library and looking up the reference cited in the article, or by doing a simple Google book search which finds two further references. I think those refs are enough for notability, but if not then the fact that a 70-year old car gets non-wiki Google hits in eight different languages (I spotted French, Polish, German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian and English) shows that it's pretty widely notable. And btw I did check that those hits are for the car, not Colonel Danvignes. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—I have added to references one of the Google Books citations mentioned by Phil Bridger, above. This satisfies at least the minimum most verifiability standard. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Car models have generally been considered notable as there are typically sufficient sources available. It's more challenging with older models, but we need to be careful to avoid bias against pre-computer age topics. We now have enough sourcing to comfortably meet WP:V, and I have little doubt there are enough sources to meet WP:N given time. As it is, the stub adds value to Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 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 Keep. Davewild 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kappa Gamma Psi

Kappa Gamma Psi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Small fraternity that has more or less closed up shop, only one surviving chapter, questionable notability in the scope of Wikipedia. Poorly written, seems almost promotional. Probabally fails WP:V and WP:N Rackabello (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I will nominate this for speedy deletion as copyvio of [4]. —ScouterSig 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

**Thanks for catching that! Rackabello (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) **Coppied as far as I can tell from the entire KGS website Rackabello (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Copyright issues have been corrected, but now there is not much left to the article and notability is not asserted at all. Delete Rackabello (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Original article author continually removes AFD and CSD notices placed on the page Rackabello (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable fraternity which commissioned a work from one of the U.S.'s most prominent composers and included at least one prominent American composer as a member. Blanking this article's content entirely would do a disservice to our readers. Tagger's policy of "tagging and running" without input (though requested four times to do so) at the article's discussion page shows a lack of considered, thoughtful editing and, one must conclude, bad faith. Tags were removed pending the "tagging and running" editor's explaining him/herself at the article's "Discussion" page, which is Wikipedia's standard procedure in such cases, recommended even by the template itself. One encourages the "tagging and running" editor to modify his/her behavior accordingly. Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. Keep. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to have been notable enough at one time. Even if it was never a very large fraternity it had a more specialized purpose than most. Notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources. One of the external links is the website of Kappa Kappa Gamma, a very large sorority which seems unrelated to the topic of this article. (Probably that external link is just a mistake). This article claims that Halim El-Dabh was a notable member. However his WP article does not mention this society. This society's website indicates that the current membership (in the surviving chapter at Ithaca College) consists of just nine people. Former notability, of course, would remain, but there are no reliable sources to attest to that. No objection to re-creating this article if reliable sources for the past glories could be found. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Sources added--problem solved. Let's move on to enhancing and creating great Wikipedia content, not impoverishing it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sponsorship of the contest, with sources to support it, demonstrates the notability of the organization. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 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. BLACKKITE 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Anderson (Another World character)

Kevin Anderson (Another World character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A couple questions raised by this article - 1) like many TV characters, this article should either be deleted or merged into the main article because this character (by itself) is not notable. 2) Even if the character was notable at the time for some strange reason, since last appeared 14 years ago... Has notability, well, expired? Avruch^Talk 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, yes, notability has expired Rackabello (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Characters should be merged with main article unless something really exceptional causes notability, (eg the Who shot JR Ewing story in Dallas many years ago). Hammer1980·^talk 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot see how this character is notable. (BTW, I found my way here because the creator removed the afd tag.) I suppose a merge might be in order, but he seems to have no relevance. Dlohcierekim 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Further comment" I don't think that notability expires. Either one had it or one does not. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. He has not a mention in the Another World (TV series) article. I don't think a merge there would help much. His character is too minor. I see nothing that would not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT-- no real world significance. Dlohcierekim 14:29, 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 redirected to CSI: Miami (season 1). BLACKKITE 01:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bunk (CSI episode)

Bunk (CSI episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode of CSI Miami. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but this really is but a drop in the non-notable episode article ocean. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. One drop at a time... JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. CSI: Miami is the world's most popular TV show. If any series merits episode stubs, it's this one. I'm concerned that we're creating massive, institutional violations of WP:NPOV through excessive application of WP:N.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

individual episodes have to meet there own criteria for inclusion. For example, pilot episodes, award winning episodes, controversial storylines etc.. Really how many episodes of any tv series merit anything more then a plot summary which violates WP:Plot, Wikipeida is a real world world encyclopedia for things that have real world context. You just can not do that with tv episodes, the series as a whole yes but endless minutia of detail about episodes and charters and plot lines are better served somewhere else. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has enough Star Trek and Doctor Who fans to find something 'notable' about every episode of those shows. We do not have very many crime fiction fans; should crime fiction therefore be pulverised in light of this?--Nydas^(Talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

so you are saying it's bad that certain groups care enough to follow the rules on wikipedia, while others just create cruft.Ridernyc (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One group is tiny, another is huge. Would you support annihilating articles about towns in Africa because no-one can be bothered adding sources?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

one group has a 30-40 year history, one group is a set of shows that have been on for a few years and have no history. You bring up two shows that are considered cultural landmarks, that's a poor way to make a point, now if you had said something about Law and Order episodes you would have a point. The reason those shows have large groups of editors supporting them is because they made a huge cultural impact, that is why you can insert real world context into them. Ridernyc (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The cultural impact of the CSI franchise has been immense; see the CSI Effect. The reason Doctor Who and Star Trek have large groups of editors is down to Wikipedia's systemic bias, not their cultural impact. Notice the minimal number of episode articles we have for I Love Lucy and Dragnet (series), both incredibly influential shows.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When there are 100 conventions a year with prople dressing up like David Caruso, then we can talk about CSIs huge cultural impact.Ridernyc (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Most conventions mean virtually nothing in the real world. Still, your view that sci-fi fandoms matter more than legal systems is probably the majority view on Wikipedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to intrude on this lovely argument you two are having, but the cultural impact of CSI or Dr. Who as a series has just about nothing to do with this debate, which is about an individual episode. What cultural impact does this episode have? Where is the notability for this episode? (And Wikipedia:Television episodes tells us that the same question needs to be asked about any article on any individual episode of any television show. If a Dr. Who or Star Trek episode don't meet the requirements, by all means either fix them or AfD them, just like any other article.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No Doctor Who or Star Trek episode is ever going to be deleted because (a): they have lots of fans to vote 'keep' (b): they have lots of fans to discover trite little bits of 'real-world' information (c): they have lots of fan-orientated publications devoted to documenting factoids. You could argue that "oh well, fan-orientated TV shows just happen to satisfy our episode notability guidelines, and normal TV shows just happen to fail them." In which case, it's OK to eliminate all the African town stubs.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh lord, redirectify. Will ^(talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to CSI: Miami (season 1), as per Wikipedia:Television episodes. No claim that this individual episode meets WP:Notability. (why did this even get to AfD?)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I always AFD things like this, if I just tried to redirect this without going through AFD it would create a huge nasty edit war. Sad but that's the way things are. Ridernyc (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• If the AfD result is to redirect, than you can revert any un-redirect attempts any time, and, if need be, alert an admin to protect the page in its redirected state. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I misread your statement and thought there'd be edit wars despite the AfD. Nevermind. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• yes I know that. TThat's why I send things here to get the AFD result. Without that, issues like this one will tend to turn into nasty edit wars that will end up here anyway.Ridernyc (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I still do the redirect one time with an edit summary that explains why, in the spirit of not biting the newbies. If it gets reverted without meeting Wikipedia:Television episodes then I AfD away with a clear conscience. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. If there was more content, I'd have gone for redirecting, but the one line of plot summary can safely be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to CSI: Miami (season 1) per WP:EPISODE, and please don't bring things to AfD just to avoid edit wars. AfD should be the last resort, not the first. DHowell (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Acalamari 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uses for Vinegar

Uses for Vinegar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A completey random list. Fails to show any notability or encylcopedic content. Lack of references. Hammer1980·^talk 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a howto guide. --TexasDex ★ 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I inserted the PROD just before this nomination. Oh well... --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. List of stuff. Better to cherry-pick the best ones and merge with vinegar. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete looks like a copyvio to me (see article) Rackabello (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:22, 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 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflationomics

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

Neologism of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Another cute neologism. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 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. All bar one of the arguments to keep seem to be centered around it being useful, which is not convincing. A list article entitled List of fiction set in Atlanta would necessitate pruning and researching this wholly unreferenced list of trivial mentions to the stage where it would be simpler and quicker to start a fresh, untarnished, referenced list. Which I recommend doing. Please let me know if you wish this list userfying in order to import the most pertinent appearances into a small section on the Atlanta, Georgia article. Neil ☎ 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta in fiction

Atlanta in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a trivia collection. Some relevant (and important) information should be put in the Atlanta article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge anything worth saving into Atlanta. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and comic books do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a discriminate list that demonstrates Atlanta's notability by indicating its influence and use in various works of fiction. I feel strongly that these "in fiction" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. Appearances of city's in fiction influence the tourism of the area and so there is a real research interest in knowing how popular particular city's are and how accurate the fictional depictions of these city's are. Plus, we clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus mindset over these types of articles lately anyway: [5] and [6]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This isn't a matter of all or nothing. Just because some are kept (or have no consensus) doesn't mean all are. That's not how things work on Wikipedia. We aren't going to assume or just guess (or crystal ball) that all "in fiction" articles will be kept, just because some were. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Y'all delete this'un per WP:Trivia. By the way, I was surprised that the list omits The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo from its list of TV shows. Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:Trivia is a guideline about the organization of the content in articles; it contains no criteria for removal, and should not be misconstrued as such. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The opening sentence of WP:TRIVIA says "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." This article is just that: a trivial list. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: "Avoid creating" is not the same as "Delete". Read further down the page: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page." "This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose." "This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material." "This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not — only how it is organized." DHowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as this is a very handy type of list to have around. Perhaps the name could be changed to something like List of fiction set in Chicago. --Jolomo (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of fiction set in Atlanta. Someone could no doubt write an encylcopedic article about Atlanta as it is portrayed in various works of fiction (a good reliable source might be The Postsouthern Sense Of Place In Contemporary Fiction), but this is not that article, this is plainly a list. But Atlanta as a fictional setting has been commented on by enough reliable sources that the topic is clearly notable. The list as a whole is not "trivia", though certain references like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are probably trivial enough to be eliminated from this list, as the film is clearly not set in, nor does it even feature, the city of Atlanta. But Gone With the Wind and ATL are clearly works that are "associated with" and have "significantly contributed" to the list topic, which meets the criteria to not be a loose association of topics. This list also doesn't fit any of the types of articles listed as indiscriminate information, which are the only types of "indiscriminate information" which have consensus for exclusion. DHowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to category—This is a simple list of instances, which is suitable content for one or more categories, such as Category:Works of fiction set in Atlanta. Lists allow for expansion upon the line items, but that is not done in the case of the present article; by 'expansion' I mean in this case noting the significance of placement in Atlanta, which would be citable to a review or critique. If an author simply places a work in Atlanta without a reason, that would be an incidental usage; the present list does not distinguish between plot-relevant and incidental use of Atlanta as a setting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 5 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. However I will note that no good reason has been given to maintain the list but the article is now more than a list. Mangojuice^talk 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tokyo in pop culture

Tokyo in pop culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a trivia collection. Some relevant (and important) information should be put in the Tokyo article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and cartoons do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. This list is dominated by Japanese media mentioning Tokyo — mentions of Tokyo in such are not in any way an interesting phenomenon. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a discriminate list that demonstrates Tokyo's notability by indicating its influence and use in popular culture. I feel strongly that these "in popular culture" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. Appearances of cities in popular culure influence the tourism of the area and so there is a real research interest in knowing how popular particular cities are and how accurate the fictional depictions of these citites are. Plus, we clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus mindset over these types of articles lately anyway: [7] and [8]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I believe this type of article has potential only if this kind of thing has been observed by a good reference. I am sure that there is an interesting text to be found about how Tokyo is represented in popular culture and that it could be used as a reference. In fact, I would tend to vote keep in hopes that such references are found, but the current article is nothing more than a collection of links, and that does not make it a real article.Youkai no unmei (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edgarde. The topic is far, far too broad to be coherent in this Wikipedia article. There could be prose articles like Cultural depictions of Tokyo in literature, Cultural depictions of Tokyo in film, et cetera, but this is just a list of indiscriminate topics that happen to be Tokyo-originated. The existence itself hardly depicts its placement in pop culture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is much better than Atlanta in fiction which was also nominated, which I also argued to keep. If someone wants to improve this article, a good reliable source would be Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era by Donald Keene. Tokyo as a fictional setting has been commented on by enough reliable sources that the topic is clearly notable (and who doesn't have the image of Godzilla destroying Tokyo somewhere in their brains)?. The list is not "trivia", it avoids trivia by stating "A title with just a brief episode in the city is not listed." The list shows fictional representations of Tokyo which are "associated with" and have "significantly contributed" to the the popular cultural conception of Tokyo (which is the topic of this article), and thus meets the criteria to not be a loose association of topics. This article doesn't fit any of the types of articles listed as indiscriminate information, which are the only types of "indiscriminate information" which have consensus for exclusion. DHowell (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Popular culture", by definition, is extremely broad. Anything could be related to Tokyo through popular culture -- locations, people, cuisine, historical events, politics, etc. Without the lack of criteria, editors can add and remove any entry as they please, making this topic far too subjective and indiscriminate. It would be far more beneficial to narrow the scope, as I mentioned in my Keep comment above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - but prose-ify(?). The current format invites unencyclopedic additions. The Article needs to explain stuff, more than just list stuff. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nothing here is relevant; it's just a gigantic trivia section for the Tokyo page. Sorry.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:25, 5 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 merge to Mountain Dew. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewmocracy

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

I cannot see how this campaign by way of interactive web-game from PepsiCo is so notable as to merit its own article, so I wanted to discuss if it should be deleted here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge some basic facts into Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion, as with other Mountain Dew marketing; no notability for this particular advertising campaign has been established. -- Mithent (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Mithent Jonathan^T•@•C 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom and Mithent. This is an easy one. Xihr (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to ask, if this campaign is not notable, why should we crowd the Mountain Dew article with this type of junk? Surely you must be aware that there are multiple marketing departments within PepsiCo thinking up this crap day in and day out, that doesn't mean we need to document every example of it. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "merge some basic facts", not the whole article - Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion has a couple of lines about other promotions. Something along the lines of "In November 2007, the interactive game Dewmocracy was launched, in which users vote to determine the can graphics, colour and flavour of a new Mountain Dew product to launch in 2008" was what I was thinking. It's of some limited interest in the context of Mountain Dew because this upcoming product is voted for by users, but it's not independently notable and thus not worth an article. However, I don't feel especially strongly about it; I wouldn't mind if the article was just deleted. -- Mithent 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Xihr 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; non-notable unless something actually comes of it, at which point the information on Dewmocracy can be merged into a section on the new flavor. --Golbez 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing of substance to merge. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—I didn't think I would find myself defending this article's retention ... there are a number of independent media stories on this campaign, which I will add as references shortly. It is not uncommon for marketing campaigns to be significant if they involve a major public figure (as this one does) or significantly influence the trajectory of a product (as this one might ... or might not [thinking of the New Coke debacle]). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Is it a notable ad campaign? did it innovate? is it something different? No, no, no. Delete--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:27, 5 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. The otherstuffexits argument notwithstanding. CitiCat ^♫ 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metamorphosis Tour

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

Article about a tour to promote an album. Fails to establish notability. At best merge into artist page but informtaion not encyclopedic. Hammer1980·^talk 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, while Hilary Duff is notable, this article doesn't establish anything particularly notable about this tour. -- Mithent (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. thisisace (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. There are over 500 articles on concert tours in Wikipedia, see Category:Concert tours and subcategories. Some good examples of the article type include Blond Ambition Tour, The Adventures of Mimi Tour, Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour, The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, and so forth. There is plenty to say about this Hilary Duff tour: how long were the shows, was she really singing or was there lip-synching, was the focus on music or on stage performance, how successful was the tour commercially, how successful was the tour in terms of reviews. The current article is a stub and needs expanding and citing, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Slightly weak keep. As mentioned above, tours certainly can have meaningful articles written about them... if good sources can be found that talk specifically about the tour, this should be kept and expanded. I'd especially like to know if Hilary Duff turns into a large insect during the show. Pinball22 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wasted Time R. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete concert tours aren't notable by defult, the keep reasounings is mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, no sources to back up notabilty of this tour. This is a Secret ^account 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the article about the artist, leave merging without violating WP:UNDUE to the denizens of that article. Don't leave as is. GRBerry 17:59, 5 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. Davewild 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rudrasankar

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

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article is valuable.(User: Pompy B)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.29.13 (talk • contribs) )— 146.186.29.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Not to be confused with "Lord Rudrasankar". Couldn't find any non-trivial mentions of this person. Suspect not notable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Poet Rudrasankar is well recognized poet, hence this article is highly notable [Surojit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.204.30.2 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources found in Google. Will change to Keep if reliable sources are added -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article states that "his poems were published in several leading literary journals and collections of poetry in India, Bangladesh and USA". If the author of the article could list these journals and collections it might be possible to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After looking for sources that can establish notability, I have to go with delete. It looks like some people are interested in keeping the article as they have removed the afd tag a number of times and blanked this page. If these parties were to provide some sources from which we can establish notability, I will change my vote. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:04, 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. Davewild 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAENG

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

Looks like a directory. Hammer1980·^talk 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is nothing but a list of members of a non-notable organization. If anyone on that list is notable, then an article should be written about that person, and maybe the list can become a category, but for the time being this does not seem possible nor useful. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since the article is not an article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunnyao (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. The contents have been enriched with the publication of the organization, as well as the main societies that the organization consists of. The list of the co-chairs of the organization has also been removed as suggested.

• Delete Not an encyclopedia article but a collection of trivial information Rackabello (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunnyao (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Thanks again for the suggestion. For the content, different wiki articles have been visited and their styles and contents has been studied as reference sites. As a result, the content has been enriched in such a way that it is of the same content level as the other encyclopedia articles of organizations in wiki.

• Delete unless there is some evidence for real world notability. It publishes journals, but I cannot find them listed in worldCat. It held 2 conferences, but the proceedings, according to WorldCat, [9] are each of them held only in two libraries. this is not yet a notable organisation. Our purpose is not to provide PR to help them get started . DGG (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunnyao 15:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Thanks for your information about the WorldCat. But, besides WorldCat, there are other more traditional academics databases like IET INSPEC, EBSCO, ISI Thomson Scientific, CSA (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts), etc. They have been indexing the journals and conference proceedings books. As these databases may be only available to the subsripted universities, for convenience, this indexing information can be found at: http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/INSPEC.txt http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/EBSCO.pdf http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/doc/ISI.pdf http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2008/csa.html

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lorna Bailey

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

Nominated purely for it being unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist, not to mention that wikipedia is not a buyers/collectors gide. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is asserted and shown, however the cleanup tag should remain in place. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: notability is only shown from primary, non-independent sources. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I find over 100,000 references to Lorna Bailey on google. Many seem to be reliable sources to me. Marcus22 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and keep the cleanup tag. Only one of the countless references is independent. I think there is notability in there somewhere, among all the catalogue and promotion stuff. Is there any way to give a deadline for cleanup - finding independent sources and slimming it down drastically? JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 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. This is a Secret ^account 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Bishop

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

Nominated purely for WP:COI issues within the article as one editor has bought up on the Moorcroft, also these entries unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist. Also looking at the User talk:Websitemad page, who created the article, that previous creation of the same person has been CFD'd before

On a note, I want to nominate Moorcroft, but this needs vast cleanup. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious COI but notable potter: article should be kept and trimmed. --Paularblaster (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who attemmpted a partial clean-up, I declare an interest. I hope I am being objective when I state that a) this person is a notable ceramic designer b)the article needs trimming. The fact that there aren't many references is in part due to the fact that ceramic design is under-researched and many of the notable figures have been overlooked because they are women. --Alan (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Is she that notable? She doesnt look it to me: many of the GHits are not about her. (She looks like she is perhaps becoming collectable, but she is not a big name yet). I also dont buy the idea that she is not famous because 'ceramic design is under-researched' or that 'she is a woman'. What about Clarice Cliff? What about Suzie Cooper? Marcus22 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but I would have no objection to a clean sheet recreation if she is that notable as I have never heard of her, considering I am from the area myself. I do agree with what Marcus22 with his comment about the women and ceramic design. Willirennen (talk) 22:13, 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 Userfy and redirect.. I'll put the article in User:Fergananim's userspace for now, and see if it develops. The article title will be redirected to the main page. CitiCat ^♫ 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leabhar I (Leabhar na nGenealach)

Leabhar I (Leabhar na nGenealach) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Hardly any context, just references.172.142.28.123 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The reference to "Leabhar na nGenealach" is Gaelic, and refers to a book written from 1650-1666 by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh on Irish Geneology. The book was published in 2004. Leabhar I might be a volume of that work, or an individual featured in that work - but there is no context with which to judge - especially since I do not actually speak Gaelic. There is also no evidence of notability, as there is no content. If the author intends to expand the article into a workable stub, now would be the time. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And I see that there is already an article on the Leabhar na nGenealach, created about 7 hours ago by the same author. Two other articles, Díonbhrollach (Leabhar na nGenealach) and Rémhrádh (Leabhar na nGenealach), have already been redirected to Leabhar na nGenealach. Were there any information here to merge, I would say that it should be merged there. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a section of Leabhar na nGenealach that somehow broke out and became an article all by itself by mistake. Simply delete asap. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I apologise for this. I had to leave the article unfinished at the time, and have only now returned to Wikipedia. I feel there is a need to add these descriptions of the divisions or 'books' of Leabhar na nGenealach because I do not wish to make the prime article too big. Please allow me to finish the article, then see what you think. I am happy to accord with your final judgements. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect the chief page for the time being to Leabhar na nGenealach; its current contents seem almost entirely redundant at this point. Preserve the instant text on the talk page of the article in question, where it can be developped, and when it becomes enough to merit a full article, replace the redirect text and keep the new text. It certainly seems a worthy subject that may well be developped into a full article. Note also that the article in chief seems to contain blank sections about several of its other divisions that inspire mild curiosity. Might be worthwhile to fill those in before expanding the section about Book I at length. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, leave merging without violating WP:UNDUE to the editors of the main article. GRBerry 18:00, 5 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. BLACKKITE 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foxfang

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

Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to ahve been no character by that name in Digimon. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be made up. No incoming links, websearch brings up nothing. shoeofdeath 19:38, 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 Speedy Delete by LaraLove. closed by non-admin. RMHED (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slam Dunk The Funk

Slam Dunk The Funk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no real information about minor song Rapido (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete no context, notability not established Rackabello (talk) 19:53, 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 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Alexander MacKenzie

Warren Alexander MacKenzie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Puff piece on non-notable person Mayalld (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Only a few trivial Ghits here and there. His book, The Unbiased Advisor is also up for afd a few entries further up. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as promotional material (i.e., spam) for non-notable subject. Pastordavid (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete he offers unbiased second opinions - Well, my unbiased opinion, like Pastordavid, is non-notable spam. Tim Ross·^talk 01:00, 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 Delete. Davewild 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza

Jeff "ActionJeff" Garza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete non-notable poker player (borderline speedy). Only references are to blogs and the like Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable via BIO or Wiki Poker project guidelines. Would Support Speedy Delete. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I moved the article to Jeff Garza before I noticed an anon had removed the AFD notice. I put the AFD notice back on, but now this would apply to the two different article locations. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 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 Speedy Deleted G7 after being blanked by author and only contributor . ELIMINATORJR 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Wanted Tour

Most Wanted Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a tour to promote an album. Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all subarticles, keep parent (which is moved to Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou) in order to give time for notability to be asserted. No prejudice to re-nomination of that article in the future. BLACKKITE 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou

Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable game, lacking in any sources beyond a Moby Games link. Seems to be completely based on the editors own views, research, etc. Since it is only available in Japanese and in Japan, it seems unlikely that either sources or notability could be established for the English Wikipedia. (Failed CSD) Collectonian (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related articles of the same series and also unnotable and unsourced.

Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Dokidoki Seishun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Ooedo Nikki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Zukkoke Salary Man Hen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all per nom. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Mainichi Shimbun has a (very short) blurb which at least verifies that such a game exists and that it's a life simulator. [10] Presumably more sources exist in the form of early 1990s Japanese video game magazines; someone who's interested in this sort of thing (i.e. not me) and has lots of back issues may come along during the AfD period and point us to some articles, in which case I'd be convinced to vote "keep". There is no such thing as "notability for the English wikipedia"; if something has enough non-trivial, reliable sources with enough information to write a full article, then it's notable, period, regardless of the language of those sources. cab (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I think that I'd vote to have all articles merged into Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou (series). To be honest, never heard of the game. I'm sure it is notable to some place in the world, so I don't want to be too quick to judge. Sources may exist, but only in the Japanese language. I think that putting them all in one article might be the best course of action. Just a thought anyways. DMighton (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While the game was never released in North America or Europe, it probably was notable among Jinsei Game fans in Japan. Wikipedia is supposed to educate and inform people about things around the world, even about stuff that are unfamiliar to the English-speaking world. GVnayR (talk) 04:53, 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 UNDER WP:SNOW. Manning (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Property Dictionary

Spanish Property Dictionary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:DICTIONARY by its own definition. Hammer1980·^talk 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I prodded it for precisely this reason simultaneously with your AfD. ~Matticus ^U_C 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does the Prod come off during AfD, or do they run together? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the prod tag, as I was the one who put it there using Twinkle (mere seconds after Hammer1980 completed tagging it for AfD - we both clearly had the same objection to the article). It's not necessary to have both. ~Matticus ^U_C 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE invoking WP:SNOW. Does anyone strongly disagree with that idea? Manning (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Let it snow. Hammer1980·^talk 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot be speedied per WP:CSD, but can be snowballed: that's not the same thing. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom! Oh, the weather outside is frightful, But the fire is so delightful, And since we've no place to go [with this], Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy snow delete: Fails WP:NOT#DICT. Tiptoety (talk) 23:39, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Manning (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut nation

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

non-encyclopedic essay (IMO, should have been speedied, but was told it was not eligible) Mhking (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, nonsense. I agree it should have been speedied. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's actually a work of fiction... is there not a speedy category for this? Let me go check. If I can justify it I will speedy the article and close this AFD.Manning (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. This isn't patent nonsense by a strict interpretation, but considering WP:SNOW perhaps this could be speedied in any case. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. Should easily be speedied, but looking at article history not entirely suprised it hasn't been. Hammer1980·^talk 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from admin closing AFD
The article was a lengthy short story and clearly was a work of narrative fiction. I invoked WP:SNOW and took the position that this constituted "nonsense" within an encyclopedia framework and so deleted accordingly. Manning (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete—I have added a copy-to-wiktionary tag and will wait for that automated process to complete before deleting this article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoo

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

Fails WP:DICTIONARY. Hammer1980·^talk 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article has no content. --S.dedalus 00:15, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW, third tier league inherently notable Woodym555 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese Third Division

Maltese Third Division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Third football division of a small country. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fourth tier, even. I'm leaning towards delete, we don't cover such amateur leagues. Punkmorten (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst I accept that Malta is a small country with a comparatively poor standard of football, a recent AfD !voted to keep an article on a level 16 league in England, which is essentially simply a city league. The Maltese D3 at least has in its favour that it's a nationwide league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No problem with an article on the league itself, though I am concerned about articles on the clubs at this level. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. – PeeJay 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - We need to come to some general criteria for the notability of football competitions, but in the meantime I think that being a football competition organised by the national football association is sufficient notability for Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. National level of competition, this league article should not be deleted. King of the NorthEast 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for obvious reasons BanRay 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with 57 on this, the League is notable enough to have an article. Woodym555 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all of above especially ChrisTheDude's reasoning. This is a national league at a pretty high (3rd / 4th) tier in albeit a small country. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all above. Jonesy702 (talk) 20:28, 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 redirected.—Random832 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tohko Aozaki

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

Fails to establish real world notability. Hammer1980·^talk 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per author request. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect; since this appears to have been turned into a redirect, this debate can close. I'll non-admin in a little bit, unless someone who didn't discuss the deletion does so first. Thanks! ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:23, 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 keep. John254 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley High School

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

Notability Rtphokie (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. See discussion at WP:SCHOOL. Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the general priniples of school notability rather than go over the same ground every time a high school AfD comes up? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as passing WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Over 900 Ghits [11], notable alumni at [12], large enrollment, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on reasoning by Bearin, the rationale for not keeping needs some improvement as no real argument was made. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - perfectly notable high school. Article tagged for expansion for which there are plenty of sources. We improve such articles not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep notable school with an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:02, 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 - Highland Games are as much about music as they are athletics. I'm quite satisfied that Notability has been established. Nick (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan McFarland

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

Biography of an accounting student/part-time musician who does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or any other notability guideline. The individual has competed in a number of national music competitions associated with Highland games, but it is unclear if any of these qualifies as "a major music competition" (criteria 9) instead of athletic events with added musical and dance components. Cited sources are lists of competition winners with no information beyond the names of individual winners instead of the non-trivial coverage normally expected for verifiability purposes. Allen3 ^talk 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Article may have copyright/plagiarism issues as it appears to have been a straight copy from User:Ryan McFarland. Issue is not completely clear as account creation time for Fing Yon (talk · contribs) combined with a rapid recreation of a speedy deleted article suggests that he may be the same person as Ryan McFarland (talk · contribs). --Allen3 ^talk 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appalling vanity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Thank you User:Allen3 for notifying me of this discussion. Winning the B March at the Cowal Highland Gathering [13] alone places McFarland amongst the top competitive pipers in the world today and satisfies WP:MUSIC guidelines and other numerous notability guidelines. Barring a few exceptions, the greatest professional pipers in the world are all part/time musicians and have full time jobs as well. Entry to the Argyllshire Gathering see [14] is one of the premier piping competitions in the world with rigorous entry testing based on track record of past results and there is no question it meets (criteria 9). To gain entry to this competition places you in the worlds top 100 pipers and to finish in the prize-list at this competition is notable indeed. Please also notice link 8 ([15]) which talks of McFarland as being a 'well known piper' and further evidence of notability.

Please also notice a direct quote here form McFarland published on PipesDrums Magazine ([16]) regarding Bleary & District Pipe Band. Please also notice in Category:Bagpipe_players only 5 of the 25 names listed have achieved more competitive success than McFarland. Please also note that there will be a steady increase in this list over the coming weeks as more of the top competitve pipers in the world from Priemier, A Grade and B Grade will be uploaded such as prize winners form the Argyllshire Gathering and the Northern Meeting[[17], Cowal Highland Gathering [18] to wikipedia. Successful Solo Pipers are cleary defined as the most competent Highland Bagpipers in the world. Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please notice latest updates to the page providing albums McFarland has appeared on and radio broadcasts he has appeared on. Thanks Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Just a further note about the reliability of the links. Allen3 stated “Cited sources are lists of competition winners with no information beyond the names of individual winners instead of the non-trivial coverage normally expected for verifiability purposes”

Pipes Drums Magazine is the world’s largest Piping Publication and is totally independent! ^[1] If Allen3 had taken the time to look through the links thoroughly he would have found this. To be an individual who gets published on PipeDrums Magazine clearly defines that individual as notable and newsworthy. Just to add to Allen3, quote above, these “names of individual winners” as he calls it are indeed news articles of the biggest solo piping contests in the world.

Allen3 also stated “The individual has competed in a number of national music competitions associated with Highland games, but it is unclear if any of these qualifies as "a major music competition" (criteria 9) instead of athletic events with added musical and dance components.”

Please see links to [19] and [20] and make up your own mind these qualify as “a major music competition” (criteria 9). Allen3 also stated that “the individual has competed in a number of national music competitions” If he had have taken the time to look trough the links thoroughly he would have found that McFarland competes at International Level against the greatest pipers in the world at the top solo competitions in the world.

In conclusion I think Allen3's argument is weak and not thoroughly researched. I have proved every one of his points wrong here in this discussion! Don’t take my word for it, just look at the cited sources and you will see for yourself. A strong Keep.Fing Yon

• Keep Whilst the competitive bagpiping world may be geographically contained, achievements within it are no less notable for that. The article could do with some work but I do believe the subject to be worthy of inclusion; in amongst the laundry list of achievements are wins at Highland and Island Young Piper of the Year, an event which the BBC describes as 'prestigious' in a note about another previous winner - Griogair Lawrie [21] and at the All-Ireland Championships a competition which BBC Northern Ireland considers important enough to televise [22]. I think this qualifies them as "major music competitions" and is enough to satisfy criteria 9. nancy ^(talk) 17:33, 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 merge. —Random832 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InVANET

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

A duplicate article exists - Intelligent Vehicular AdHoc Network E_dog95 ^Hi 07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - clear case. Both articles were started by the same user Netresearchlabs (talk · contribs) within a minute, but not as duplicates. Lars T. 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes. The articles share the same author. It's clear to me these articles are related; they use the same terms. It could be said that they're saying the same type of things which, as it turns out, is not much. Both pages have a lack of notability. So ...these get merged. Then what do we have? An article that still doesn't qualify as encyclopedia material with no notability or references.

Look it up - (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) E_dog95 ^Hi 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:35, 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, ~Eliz81^(C) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or merge if it has anything not already in the other article. Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and delete. Add any useful information or sources to Intelligent Vehicular AdHoc Network --S.dedalus 00:18, 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 all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballin' Underground

Ballin' Underground (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Public Enemy No. 1 (Cam'ron album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Gunslinger Volume I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Harlem's American Gangster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fort Minor: Sampler Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:Music#Albums. It's pretty well established that most mixtapes aren't notable. No in-depth sources asserting notability. Unlike typical albums, these have no reviews or anything to expand from a track list. At most, they should be mentioned in the discographies. Spellcast 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Public Enemy No. 1 - This is not your typical mixtape, as it's more of what's known as a street album. While not "official", it's more polished than a standard mixtape. It's arguably one of Cam's better albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.232.17 (talk • contribs)

If it's not even an official work, that's all the more reason to delete. Spellcast 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep One of them - Keep the B-Real mixtape and remove the rest. B-Real has not got any albums yet so this should be kept, I was thinking to create article for his other mixtape too. But remove all other one's. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 11:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support recreation if in-depth sources are provided. At most, it deserves a mention in the discography. Spellcast 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:40, 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, ~Eliz81^(C) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The only citations, which might at first seem to establish notability, are to promotional downloads. ENeville (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons given above. Seal Clubber 01:26, 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. John254 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Donkey Kong characters

List of Donkey Kong characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a huge in-universe list of all the Kong characters from the Donkey Kong games. As such, it has no notability, no referencing, and is just duplicative of information from the characters sections of various Donkey Kong game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I'm not crazy about the multitude of Donkey Kong game articles either. However, in the interests of consolidation, I think the better practice would be to delete individual articles (Dinky Kong, Dixie Kong, Cranky Kong, etc.) as well as many of the other, and to keep the "scorecard". Loath as I am to write these words, Donkey Kong is eminently notable. He and his progeny have been players for nearly 30 years in a multi-billion dollar industry. Mandsford (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, this isn't a list of all the Donkey Kong characters, this is a list of the Kong characters from Donkey Kong. I agree, an article about the Characters of Donkey Kong, meaning all of the notable ones, might be worth having, but a list of Kongs just isn't. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You two do realize that this actually is a list of all Donkey Kong characters, not just the Kongs, right? Lord Crayak (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, there are no enemies or boss characters listed here. It is at best Donkey Kong and his allies article, which would still be unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Its just the way the discussion was going, it seemed like you were saying the article was a list of the Kongs and nothing else. Anyways, couldn't the Kremling/Animal Buddy/DK Enemy articles be deleted and anything noteworthy from them integrated here? Those were made before this article was changed from a list of nothing more than redirects to an actual character list, explaining why its composed of essentially nothing more than "good guys". And this article does have some potential for improvement, considering Rare often has commentary on the creation history and such on their characters (for example, the DK Jr./Diddy thing). Lord Crayak (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be best to just to create on from scratch, as there is way to much cruft and other junk in this one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's the best option available, so delete per Judgesurreal777. Lord Crayak (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep please donkey kong is important so why would we not want a list of the characters yuckfoo (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But I do favor having a Characters of the Donkey Kong series article, but this isn't that. This is just the "Kongs" and friendly characters, which has no how of being a good encyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles just Kongs now; now that I think about, they, along with K. Rool, are pretty much the only noteworthy characters, considering the rest of them have only ever appeared in two games at max. Lord Crayak (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Eliz81^(C) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this is a reasonable list to carry is it not Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Donkey Kong is classic, and its charcters are too. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to closer; please take into account those who use actual wikipedia policy in their arguements. The last two comments show no understanding or regard for wikipedia policies, like notability not being inherited, and "I like it", neither of which are valid arguments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can start showing under what policy this should be deleted under rather than cherry picking comments YOU like Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Donkey Kong is a major series of video games, and spinning out the characters into an annotated list into a separate article, a well-annotated list, is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, and just because Donkey Kong is notable, doesn't mean every Kong friend of his deserves his own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know where else to put all that good infomation of characters to the respective character's game. Really, its too much info to merge or delete. 1yodsyo1 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete as unsourced for 8 weeks, no evidence of notability, which is not inherited by its stars. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Fish

Let's Fish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

notability. Only a single episode aired. Merge to Adult Swim? Rtphokie (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, merge if you think fit. It's poorly written and isn't explained in terms an unfamiliar audience would understand. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Merege if there is anything to actually merge. Hammer1980·^talk 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The pilot aired on a national cable channel and had one very notable star. That alone is sufficient for WP:N. The series has not been officially canceled (or approved). At the very least, it's premature to delete this. Torc2 (talk) 09:46, 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. Will put a suggestion to merge on the article. CitiCat ^♫ 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Six Feet Under deaths

List of Six Feet Under deaths (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is completely unsourced and primarily fancruft that tacks on original research and editor statistical analysis of the show. Yes, death is the major focus of this particular show, however if these deaths are of great importance, they should (and mostly are) be covered in the plot summaries in List of Six Feet Under episodes. Having a second article just to list off the deaths for each episode is unnecessary and redundant. (relisting of earlier withdrawn multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft at its worst.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect I added the merge tag 2 weeks ago when someone protested that the article had been redirected as "trivial list. These should be covered within the episode list anyways." About a week ago, I pointed out that those wishing to keep the information should start the merge soon, or the list could be AfDed any day. Well, nothing happened, so the (non-notable) list should no longer have its own article. I could/would recommend a merge, but I don't want to be the admin who closes this nom. Merging can be done as an editorial process later, either by keeping a redirect, userfying, or someone asking later for a copy (if deleted). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as some of the cercumstances of the deaths that begin each episode are not covered in the episode synopsis, are central to the episode theme over many episodes, that are difficult to explain except as an 'arc' of the show. Examples: the death of 8 Chloe Anne Bryant Yorkin played into the tackovers of Kroners taking over the skills of Diaz. The death of 13 Lilian Grace Montrose was also by Kroners in not having care of its actions. Death of 32 Callie Renee Mortimer related to the thoughtless actions by her friends vis a vis Diaz wanting to see how care was delivered to the dead's family, as shown in difference culturally with death 68 Pilar Sandoval (cacasuan v. hispanic funeral patterns)
  Anyway that is what the list says to me and why it should be kept. rkmlai (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question Excuse me for not understanding what you just said (really), but it seems like you're arguing from a position of plot relevance. However Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (which also applies to lists) requires real-world notability and/or significant coverage from the secondary sources, which I doubt exist. Now, I don't object to the wish to keep the in-universe information (and actor names), but why is a separate article needed for the deaths? (Especially since the episode list is a fine merge target if someone wants to do the actual merge.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would be fine with Merge or Improvement of article. I object to outright deletion as was originally done here and here. I am working on a way to merge the articles but writing takes time. I dont want to change the page (on wikipedia) while the debate is in progress especially as I find out these messages, such as yours, days after they have ben posted. rkmlai (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Non-admins cannot delete articles. The article was just redirected. You can merge articles while they are redirected, but as long as progress is made, a temporary keep is alright. As I said, the lack of secondary sources makes article improvement very hard to imagine, but merging into the episode list is IMO the perfect way. If you volunteer, great. I would change my recommendation to keep/merge depending on how soon you'd begin. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As explained in the previous AFD just two days ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep this is one of the main elements of the show 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics. First of all, WP:N requires for a topic to establish notability through significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. The article simultaneously does not meet WP:V with the lack of secondary sources, which leads to WP:IINFO. In-universe information is supposed to be supplied to complement real-world context of the topic (and the topic cannot exist here due to lack of notability). Instead, there exist statistics without verifiable explanatory text at List of Six Feet Under deaths#Statistics. I recognize that death is a common theme in Six Feet Under, but this non-notable list of indiscriminate in-universe information gives no encyclopedic insight about this theme. A better approach would be to use academic studies of how the TV series has depicted the deaths, which would qualify as real-world context. This existing list does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion for this multitude of reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment These are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said, there is no notability for such a list. WP:NOEFFORT does not apply if the list is not warranted to exist on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reason I gave last time and also because it is a discriminate list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not discriminate at all. Under WP:NOT#PLOT, this fictional topic fails to contain any "sourced information on the works' real-world context"; also, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." Additionally, it contains statistics, and under WP:NOT#STATS, "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." There is no verifiable explanatory text for the statistics, only original unsubstantiated calculations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 100% discriminate in that it only lists deaths from one show whose centered on death. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no verifiable indication that such a list is discriminate. You say that the show is centered on death, I say the show is centered on homosexuality, someone says that the show is centered on character development. Even if an aspect of the show is verifiably relevant, it does not immediately warrant a list. Death in the show, if it is thematically relevant, can be explored in prose passages using secondary sources talking about its real-world context. Here, there's no verifiable distinction that death is anything more than a plot point. It does not warrant listing any more than any other plot point that may be subjectively deemed by you or me as discriminate. Ultimately, the list fails to address any sort of real-world context; it is still a compilation of plot points, which I've indicated is clearly not appropriate per WP:NOT#PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Six Feet Under" refers to people being six feet below the ground when buried. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of secondary coverage to show notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Also, without secondary references discussing "deaths in Six Feet Under", the article's whole approach is original research (not just the statistics), because treating the deaths in isolation from the rest of the plot is an original method for studying the series. EALacey 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as considered in the nom. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 5 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 per improvements during discussion. Davewild 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beatty Secondary School

Beatty Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Secondary school that makes no claims of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. See discussion at WP:SCHOOL. Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the general priniples of school notability rather than go over the same ground every time a high school AfD comes up? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - agree Victuallers (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to parent district (or equivalent administrative body in Singapore) article if it exists, else delete. Solely a directory entry, which Wikipedia is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DIR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, until the proposed guideline becomes a real one. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge what little there is and redirect. I suspect that the result here after a new guideline would be exactly the same as this suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV. It is now properly sourced. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of awards to establish notability and the key facts are now sourced to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - more material now added. TerriersFan 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per expansion and addition of references/new info. LordHarris 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per expansion.--Aldux 13:39, 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. Manning (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CRap

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

this is a non sense article Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• {{db-empty}} - This article has no content, so I tagged it for speedy d. It was created as a redirect to Hip Hop Music. {{db-vand}}. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedied by Manning (talk) 15:30, 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 01:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2007-08 season

National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2007-08 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pointless list. Not an encyclopedic article. Hammer1980·^talk 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is deleted then many of the other NBA on ABC articles should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathugo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's not really a strong argument to keep this article, as it's possible that the other articles in question should be deleted. This debate is concerned with whether this article is or is not encyclopedic. A list for list's sake is probably not, while a list that discusses the notability of the topic is. Is there information that discusses ABC's coverage of the NBA? Specifically, why is their coverage notable, beyond the fact that the games are being played? Are there unusual or notable commentators broadcasting the games, or is there some novel marketing angle that increases notability? I don't know - but, for the article to remain, it should show why this season's broadcast coverage is notable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete unless improved per my comment above. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is Wikipedia, not TV Guide. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Couchpotatocruft. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless some argument can be made as to why there is some unique association here, there is no place for this. Next will come every other network's sports listings. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pointless listcruft. Wikipedia is not TV Guide or TV IV Doc Strange (talk) 14:29, 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 Speedied as was determined to be SPAM. Manning (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilandi.co.uk

Ilandi.co.uk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article been speedied once. I can't see if its a recreation but still seems spammy to me. Hammer1980·^talk 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: A7 as tagged, possible G11 as well. It is a recreation, but that doesn't really matter as G4 doesn't apply to speedily deleted articles anyway. --Pak21 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not establish notability, and has spam/COI issues. --DAJF (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if no improvement in next day or so I removed it from speedy as the creator appears to be sincerely trying to conform to guidelines, so he gets the time benefit of an AFD over a speedy. However I remain unconvinced for the moment. Manning (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update to above: Pak21 has confirmed to my satisfaction that there is a blatant COI going on here, and the article is thus clearly spam. Hence I have Speedied and closed this AFD.Manning (talk) 15:43, 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: Speedily deleted - promotional, partially copied from the website of the winery ([23]). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)