Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 27

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable EPFL robots

• E-puck mobile robot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Keep. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (reasons below) nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Khepera mobile robot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Keep. The cover page of Nature makes it notable enough to me. Engelec (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (reasons below) nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn for this article; see below. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• S-bot mobile robot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Keep. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (reasons below) nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn for this article; see below. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a deletion nomination of three articles about robotics projects. They are part of a walled garden of related articles by Nct (talk · contribs), who appears to be involved with these projects. None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, failing our notability guideline. I will also be nominating the articles about the scientists involved in these projects for deletion for the same reason. Sandstein (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

These robots are notable robots which are used in a number of laboratories which were not involved in their conception (while mobile robotics is a highly competitive field). I am sorry to say that I cannot imagine any excuse "None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources". Sandstein, you should read the sources provided in the articles before making such statements. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am from the EPFL indeed, yet I have not been involved in the Khepera at all, and not really in the e-puck (I only fixed a bug). I have moderately been involved in the development of the s-bot (I wrote its API). I think those robots have their place in Wikipedia, because they all were used by several different laboratories and produced dozen scientific publications. The Khepera, beside its Nature cover, returns 2220 hits when searched on google scholar (khepera mobile robot). The S-bot returns 107 hits on google scholar (s-bot mobile robot), was featured on Wired [1] and Slashdot [2]. A list of S-bot related coverage is available here [3]. Finally, the e-puck is newer, but already lead to several publications (22 hits on google scholar with e-puck mobile robot), including a SIGGRAPH one [4]. The two producers and several sellers is also uncommonly large for a research robot. --nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Khepera and S-bot, per the multiple laboratory usage and press mentioned by nct. Weak keep e-puck for the same reasons; I note that, beyond EPFL, the Future Applications Lab in Göteborg appears to be using it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I withdraw the nomination for the first two robots, as sources indicating their notability are now accessible. I remain unconvinced about the E-Puck. The coverage in the SIGGRAPH article is not substantial, and just being used in laboratories does not confer notability under WP:N. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the e-puck is notable because it is an educational robot, used in courses in several universities (google search (not scholar)), both a the level of undergraduate courses and during summer schools [5]. It is implemented in three simulators [6] [7] [8]. Nevertheless, even being an education robot, it has been used in research. Finally, there is several sellers worldwide. I agree that the article should be improved, but there is enough links on google for people to improve the article and not just throw it away. --nct (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Munday

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

Delete non-notable, has not made the requisite appearances in the Football League under notability guidelines for football players. Jonesy702 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Just a quick note on the reason behind this Afd. Jonesy702 has listed this article for deletion in retaliation for the fact that I instigated an Afd on an article he was heavily involved with (see the deletion discussion here). For his future reference I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a battleground.

However, I cannot argue with the Afd- under current guidelines Munday fails notability criteria. It is worth noting that under the new guidelines proposed in this discussion Munday would meet the notability criteria, but consensus has yet to be reached on this matter. Either way, I won't be losing any sleep over this. Simon KHFC (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - With regards to Simon’s above childish comment, my nomination to delete this article has nothing, whatsoever to do with the recently deletion of one the pages I used to regularly update.

I’m sorry if I’m coming across a bit bitchy, but I can’t believe what I have just read in the above comment. It's nice to see you have taken the time to check me out... any chance of a christmas card do you think? Jonesy702 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Three appearences in the Conference aren't notable either by the old or the proposed guidelines. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment- The first of the proposed guidelines states "has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure". Munday has met those criteria. Simon KHFC (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Since when was the Conference National a fully professional league? Jonesy702 18:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say it was. He said "has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure" - Kidderminster are a fully pro club and the Conf Nat is a nationwide league..... ChrisTheDude 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know... but what has that got to do with the price of fish? Point is, it doesn't qualify. Jonesy702 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't meet current WP:BIO criteria. - fchd (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin R. Reyes

Martin R. Reyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Verifiability in question. I can't find anything about the subject's notability. There is not even a mention of the subject in any University of the Philippines sites or the "Father of Selective Logging System of the Philippines" claim aside from the sole external link Lenticel ^(talk) 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Just searched google and can't find any secondary source asserting its notability. The sole link is a primary source which, I think, is not accepted due to the page's unestablished notability. Secondary must be sourced first. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)}00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Web of Science lists two of his articles, each cited by about half a dozen other articles. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know if two articles satisfies notability rules. Besides, it still does not satisfy the subject's original claims. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Neither do I. I offer the information for what it might be worth. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit. We can edit the article using his website as a reference and add his findings he wrote in his articles instead. Besides, I've seen A LOT of articles using a single site as its reference. Starczamora 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I know many articles relies on one references. However, for this article, the source is not independent nor reliable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete can't verify much except for the little that are also unsupportable. --- Tito Pao 04:47, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

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

Source of many major vandalism attempts on Wikipedia. See WP:DENY. Notability questioned. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Please not again. Of course it's notable. Rocket000 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, please keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is a bad faith nom. --Jedravent (talk) 00:06, 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. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ladderman

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

Article is about a non-notable comic from a single university campus. The only relevant result from a simple Google search was the link to the Wikipedia article. The talk page stated that the motivation for writing the article was to inspire the comic's creator to write more episodes. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If there was an A7, unremarkable comics, it would be a speedy candidate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability. Unlikely to see any reputable sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources. Essay. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 21:57, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoopy

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

Hardly notable. I couldn't find any secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per allAfrica.com, IOL Technology, and MyBroadband/MyADSL --Toussaint (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Toussaint's 3rd-party sources make it look notable enough to keep. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the third party sources which Toussaint has located. RFerreira 07:07, 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. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mediterra Naples"

"Mediterra Naples" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable planned community. Page used for marketing purposes most likely. Article created by Director of Sales of planning group. Leeannedy (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I've tagged it with db-advert. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Lucifer

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

This page has no sources, and there are no hits for a graphic novel called "Bloody Lucifer" anywhere on Google. It seems to be bad fanfiction at best, vandalism at worst, and should thusly be removed from Wikipedia as quickly as possible. TheJoust (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Exorcise. The graphic novel, as the term is commonly used, didn't exist in the early 1800's, when this article claims it was written. There were some interesting collections that could qualify, depending on what kinds of definitions you're using, but there's no way that the book described in this article existed in 1795. This is just a terrible short story by someone who can't spell 'Martin,' disguised as an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with FisherQueen, graphic novels didn't even exist in the 19th century. Chri$topher

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

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

The result was speedy keep per criteria 1, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions present. GRBerry 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Courts for Violence against Women

Spanish Courts for Violence against Women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic collection of newspaper articles, including extensive copyright violations (direct translation of copyrighted articles from the spanish media) and a final section named "editors comment" (now erased) which confirms that this is nothing else than an essay. It has been deleted 6 times from WP.es Varano (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator had placed a {{prod}} tag, and then put it back after it was removed. Oops. The article creator has been blocked 24 hours for use of a sockpuppet; which use may have been triggered by the nominator's error in putting the prod tag back. The article creator won't be able to improve or comment for that period. GRBerry 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Specialized courts are usually notable, in the same way that government departments are. Consider the "gun courts" or "drug courts" of other jurisdictions. --Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course the courts are notable. This AfD proposal is not on the base of unotability but that this is not an encyclopedic article but a personal essay supported on newspaper clippings. --Varano (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Newspapers, in most cases, are given the benefit of the doubt as reliable sources, though some are spotty. The question here becomes, is the subject notable enough to warrant cleaning up the article and removing POV and Copyvio? If the article is to be kept for cleanup, and then sits for six months before being deleted at another AfD, then I'd say we should just delete it now. But, if someone plans to go through non-english sources and come up with an neutral article, even if a stub, then I'd say it should be kept. Also, a 24 hour ban on the author shouldn't hurt too badly, given that this debate should ideally run for 5 days or longer. But it's still a concern. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a worthy topic which has a fairly detailed, moderately sourced article which appears to have been written by someone with a strong interest in the topic. As a consequence, they inserted some of their personal commentary into the article. Perhaps they were not fully aware of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? In any case, there doesn't seem to be too much issue of whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic, only if this can be made into a policy-conforming article. I decided to take a first stab at it by nuking some sections which were either commentary or belonged on Wikisource or Wikiquote. There is still a lot of work to make this conform stylistically, but it's really not that hard to just delete the stuff that doesn't belong. —dgies^t_c 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have wikified the article and eliminated all of the POV and unrelated parts of the article (ok changed it completely)--Zape82 (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Changed my "vote" after Zape82 and Dgies good job (note anyhow that the article has little in common with the original version). --Varano (talk) 11:14, 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 deleted by User:Melburnian (CSDG10). Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 00:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aboriginal Liberation Army

Aboriginal Liberation Army (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

With members such as Gavin Wanganeen and Neville Bonner, I suspected a hoax. When I saw one of this editors previous contributions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian anti communist organization - this suspicion was strengthened. No evidence of actual existence, let alone notability can be found. Mattinbgn\^talk 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsey Hancock

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

In my opinion, the sources don't show that this actor meets the notability criteria. The only reliable source cited isn't about this person, but about Matt Riddlehoover. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm adding Jonas Brandon to this AfD- it's an article about another actor in the same film with the same problems. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fratricide (band)

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

Article was previously deleted as CSD A7 (when listed as Fratricide (Band)), after moving to the correct title, another editor re-tagged the article. I elected to move the article to AfD rather than re-deleting in order to allow discussion.

Looking over the primary author's talk page, there seems to be a question of whether this band's subgenre actually exists. In any case, the article seems to be mostly WP:OR and doesn't establish notability. No references exist. Looks like a delete to me. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN and throw in some OR and COI for good measure. Rocket000 (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above comments. Sting_au Talk 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. nn subject. Fair Deal (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reason already stated above. Seal Clubber 01:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Neville

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

Both the actress and the event described appear to have only occurred in the creator's head - 0 Ghits, for example - but the article is being recreated as fast as it is deleted and, strictly speaking, "hoax" isn't a CSD criterion. So here it comes.➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax/unsourced cruft. Also apply WP:SALT. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unverified--needs WP:RS. JJL (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - tried to speedy in my inexperienced ways. Definitely non-notable. Cricketgirl (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like nonsense to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It looks very much like this is false information.Paste (talk) 16:33, 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. Tikiwont 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Entertainment

3D Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was speedy deleted before, and while it looks a lot nicer, it's still blatant WP:SPAM. Dougie WII (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article and all the images. They are contributed by Benjfilms (talk · contribs) who has no other contribs and a likely conflict of interest. This supports the suggestion of spam. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article violates neutral point of view, and reads like an advertisement. Chri$topher

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compressive Rock

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

Made up genre of music. The only hit on google is this article. All other hits are about geology. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the magazines start writing about compressive rock before this AfD finishes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Everyone's gotta make up their own genre... Rocket000 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's insane I just spent 4 hours going through everything listed in list of rock genres, amazingly this is the only I found that was totally made up. However out of the dozens of pages there are maybe 5 that are well written and sourced. I plan on doing some major editing to industrial rock. What really bothers me is that there is a wikipedia project for music genres and they seem not at all concerned that most of the articles in the project are trash. Ridernyc (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was the only made up one in the list. Anyway, thanks for going through that, and I know what you mean about the WikiProject and the state of the articles. It is one of the harder areas to work in, though. Rocket000 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I know, I'm the person who took on cleaning up concept album. I would just like to see more projects be like the Tolkein project group, realize you have a ton of issues with the articles you already have so stop everything and just clean and merge everything. Ridernyc (talk) 01:23, 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 Delete per BIO & SNOW SkierRMH (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leah Herz

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

Creator contested prod. Only claim of notability competing in the "Blue Team" of a reality show. The notability claim makes A7 unaplicable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. She doesn't appear to have gained any particular critical attention for her part in this series, and I couldn't find any independent nontrivial sources discussing her in any way that would verify her notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete famous for 10 minutes, non-notable Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that means she still has 5 minutes of faim still ahead! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete couldn't get much more non-notable. RMHED (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I apologize sincerely, but I'm not used to the policies of Wikipedia. I added a link to a site that lists the cast of Scaredy Camp (including Leah) and I hope that's a step to making this articl legitimate. (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7. Pretty uncontroversial. From above (now blocked) user's edit summary "I will edit this article to make it more suitable for wikipedia's purposes. I know Leah personally from school and can assure you that all of the information provi..." Rocket000 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Users blockstatus is irrelevant for the AfD discussion. I understand you want to use it as an argument, but it really doesn't have much to do with this discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  um.. no. Did I say that's why it should be deleted? Rocket000 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm bad at coming out of my words at the moment for some reason. That was in no way meant as an attack or anything. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  lol. It's cool. The only reason I mention the user was blocked is because he/she commented above me (the one with just the talk page link). I figured it would be good to know if someone was going to reply to them. (EDIT: By the way, it doesn't apply in this case, but user's blockstatus is relevant in some deletion cases → CSD G5) Rocket000 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  G5 is about banned users, not blocked users Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  One and the same. Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ok, I'm done :) Rocket000 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The two "sources" (naked URLs in the article) given are tv.com, which is not a reliable source, and I was unable to find a single source about this person not related to this small appearance in the Nickelodeon show. Ariel♥Gold 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual pretty clearly falls short of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:55, 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. DS (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astra serpent plant

Apparent hoax. No Google hits for "Astra serpent plant" or the binomial "Phalaenopsis sirtalis" (which seems to have been constructed by combining the genus name of an orchid with the species name of the common garter snake). If this plant were real, there would be material about it all over the Web. Deor (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:HOAX. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete hoax as above. Also not found in Carnivorous plants database. Xymmax (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A most entertaining hoax. :-) Bits of fact intermixed with complete fiction. Too bad the author isn't working on something useful. Tim Ross·^talk 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball delete as an obvious but mildly amusing hoax. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayoub Al-Jawaldeh

Ayoub Al-Jawaldeh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination by 86.146.198.25 (talk · contribs). S/he writes on talk page: "The person in this article is not famous at all, nothing interesting about his achievements; he is a nothing more than a common person living in a Jordanian village". Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He gets 10 hits on google, several of which are due to this article. No hits on google books, news, or blog search. Not even a UN bio. Wait till he moves up the ranks ; ) Joshdboz (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The google hits (12 when you add "-wiki") indicate that he actually lives in Egypt, so the nominator might have him mixed up with somebody else. All the information is accurate, and his activities laudable, but it doesn't add up to 'notability'. Given that the page was created by User:Aljawaldeh it also looks like there's a COI issue. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced bio, even if true he's still pretty non-notable. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 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 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ta'a Chume

Ta'a Chume (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of real-world notability. Article is entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:12, 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, Caknuck (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of real-world notability, no out-of-universe perspective. Pagrashtak 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Needs to assert notability through out of universe referencing and appears to be unable to do so. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-worldnotability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 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. Pigman☿ 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active pause system

Active pause system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a neologism. I can't see this expanding much beyond a dictionary definition. Pagrashtak 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's more than a dicdef now. It's adequately referenced. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really, after the removal of unreliable sources. A random quote in an internet forum in not an appropriate "praise" section. Pagrashtak 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There was also a criticism section. The praise section was to keep it NPOV. Jecowa (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This article can't really go anywhere. Plus, can citing sources saying that some random games have this feature really demonstrate any encyclopaedic treatment? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm inclined to agree. Any mention and explanation of this feature should be in articles relating to games that use it, but only then if the use of the feature in those game is notable. As Pagrashtak said, I can't see this going anywhere further than a dictionary definition. -- Sabre (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be an article at all. Its just a definition with random games so a person would think the article is reliable. 1yodsyo1 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What is this? Are you a psychic? Are you telling me that you know for a fact that I referenced articles mentioning games with an active pause feature in an attempt to somehow decieve you? Please assume good faith! The references for these games only serve the purpose of providing easy access to additional sources to verify that these games indeed have this feature. Jecowa 07:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While a definition article doesn't inherently need deletion (they can often be expanded well beyond that), in this case, it seems like there's nothing more to it. Furthermore, I'm not convinced this isn't just a term the creator made up -- at the least, the one weblink doesn't specifically call it an "active time system", which makes me doubtful the others do. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not very nice. I don't like being accused of making things up. I did not make that word up. I read it in an article and did not know what it meant, so I tried to look it up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't have an article on it, so I searched the internet for explanations, and I typed what I found out at this article. The first reference mentions "active pause mode," although not "active pause system" as this article is titled. I was thinking about moving this to "active pause," but thought that would not be a good thing to do while a AfD is in progress, but maybe I should have. Jecowa (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's accusing you of having made up the term; rather, the term was created for a single game and hasn't been used by anyone since. It was made up for that game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was made up for which game? There are references to the term "active pause" being used for four seperate games. Jecowa (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Which brings up an interesting point about print references. They are allowed of course, but it's also easier to use them when it's not really true. Anyone reading this have any of those mags, and can check? I'm not by a long shot calling you a liar or anything, but it still seems a bit ORish as it stands now. If nothing else, it's still basically a definition and nothing more, as it stands now. EDIT: Yeah oops, I was misreading those as print refs. Sigh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You can check them all yourself. The links are all on the article. Here's them for you again if you are having trouble with the reference section.

• http://www.pcformat.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=31826&subsectionid=680 - mentions "active pause mode"
• http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/14134/New-Fallout-3-Site/ - mentions "active pause system"
• http://www.forlornworld.com/index.php?lang=uk&site=game&cat=faq - mentions "active pause"
• http://scats.cn/game/gunlok/English/Gunlok.htm - mentions "active pause" and active pause mode"

Jecowa 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Here are some more articles which discuss the topic: [9][10][11][12]. I'm not sure how reliable the second site is. Also, the last two links are interviews with developers. I believe the WPVG:Sources article says that dev talk is OK as long as they're talking about their own game. SharkD 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with hypothetical article discussing Real-time game—specifically the term "Real-time with pause", which is the same thing as "Active pause", but more notable/commonly used (see here). Personally, I think the concept is notable, even if the actual term used for it isn't. I think it's notable just for the controversy surrounding it; e.g., many games that use this system are frequently called "turn-based", when in fact they aren't (see here, here, here, here, here) SharkD 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is also the "smart pause" system which is a (supposedly) advanced version of real-time with pause used in Brigade E5: New Jagged Union (see here). SharkD 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per adding of sources as noted above. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 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. Davewild 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Solomon

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

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & Delete Redirect as it stands the article fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unfortunately we've been so busy fighting the vandalism of TTN that we have not had the time nor the opportunity to improve articles. This character was one of the main character four characters in the sitcom. The sitcom revolved around the main characters Dick, Sally, Tommy, and Harry. To say he is non notable is to say Kramer or George were not notable in Seinfeld. I was in the process of an improvement drive for the articles in 3rd Rock from the Sun, however have been side tracked defending the article(s) because of TTN's self imposed we must immediately delete all TV episodes in Wikipedia. This article can and will be developed/improved given time without having to fight TTN's vandal edits. --Maniwar (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's just a ridiculous argument. Delete per WP:FICT. Real world notability must be asserted. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Eusebeus 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have a response to my comments below? Real-world information does exist. Zagalejo^^^ 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Real-world information does exist, which shouldn't be surprising, considering this was a major character on a long-running sitcom. Here's some stuff I found on Newsbank that provides behind-the-scenes info or reactions to the character:

• "SPACE CASE: TO 3RD ROCK'S FRENCH STEWART, STARDOM IS AN ALIEN CONCEPT". People Weekly. 13 May 1996.
• Sharon Rainsbury. "Simply French". Sydney Herald Sun. 9 July 2000.
• James Endrst. "CLUELESS, HAPLESS HARRY IS `ROCK' SOLID SENSATION". The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal. 2 January 1998.
• Alan Sepinwall. "French twist: `3rd Rock' has Stewart on a roll". The (Newark) Star-Ledger. 19 November 1997.
• Ian Spelling. "`ROCK'S' SOLOMON MADE A FACE THAT'S STUCK". Chicago Tribune. 16 January 1997. Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do any of those actually go in-depth or is is just a bunch of little bits like the one that you added? That kind of information belongs either on a character list or a general casting section for the main article, rather than a character article. Characters need real meat in order to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think they provide a decent amount of info. If you look at the titles, you'll see that two of them are primarily about the Harry character. I just haven't had time to add everything I could. And I'm sure there's other content available in the DVD extras. Zagalejo^^^ 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• I've added a little bit more. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Zagalejo. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep major character in a major prime time series with reliable and verifiable sources to establish real-world notability. Alansohn 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twin Disc

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

Orphaned, no indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete No assertion of notability, only external links, no wp:rs. Pharmboy (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. —Caesura^(t) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God is Dead

God is Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Caesura^(t) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could you elaborate which points? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — Based just on what is written in the article, I'd have to say all of them. There are no sources cited, no awards listed, no evidence that it is used in schools or that it has a movie adaptation, and I don't recognize the author. Nothing about the current article screams out that this is a notable work. So, personally, I can't really support a keep at this point. — RJH (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Meets the treshold standards for Wikipedia:Notability (books), Awards, not really big, [13], and many sources can be found with google, which need to be sorted out to actualy reference things. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of references available, book is even on CD at independents. Article needs work, not deletion. Author meets BIO, book meets NOTABILITY. Pharmboy (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The page about the book under discussion really needs to make some kind of acknowledgment of the page "God is dead", the better known announcement by Friedrich Nietzsche as seen in Time magazine. Most people who search for this are likely looking for Nietzsche's revelation rather than this book. If this content is deleted, the page should redirect there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO WP:BK, his book has been reviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle here,and the Guardian here. I also found reference to a review that appeared in the LA Times in July 2007, but its no longer available for free. (BTW, I entered the identical text on the Afd for the author). Xymmax (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I still haven't heard which parts of Wikipedia:Notability (books) it supposedly fails. Caesura, maybe it's time to withdraw this AfD? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination. Sorry, guess I didn't do my homework to ensure the work was non-notable. No point in waiting for this AfD to close. Lesson learned. —Caesura^(t) 22:55, 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 merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuice^talk 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian soft rock

Christian soft rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS, so questionable whether this is a "real" genre. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian ska. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Hours of fun for all the family. RMHED (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Quick googling (adding “-wiki” to the search) gives the term as a retail or marketing category here,

here, and here; as a listings category here; there’s a “Christian soft rock station 104.7/The Fish”; the term is used in Maury Dean, Rock ‘n’ Roll Gold Rush (Algora 2003), ISBN 0875862071, p. 377: Pat Boone as a “Christian soft rock crooner” (found on google books); and there’s a rather unflattering reference in the Arkansas Times of Oct. 4, 2007: “after listening to a solid hour of contempo-Christian soft rock, we can tell you that — bar none — it is the crappiest music in the universe”. Also half a dozen peronal reviews on Amazon, and then I got fed up and stopped going through the hits (there were a few thousand). So it does seem to be a genre that people find useful, however suspect it might be in terms of taste. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. DHowell (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with rock(music).IslaamMaged126 11:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:43, 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. Pigman☿ 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Christian music videos

List of Christian music videos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Irrelevant intersection, how exactly is a Christian music video special or what intrinsic noteworthiness does it have? And why should WP have a list of every music video? Furthermore a list is often a collection of articles, i.e. links, but this is just a directory. Punkmorten (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Christian video killed the Morning Star. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. More non-notable listcruft. Axl (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please be careful to not use the "cruft" term. Its connotations of uselessness is insulting to fans of things. Cruft to you is golden to others. Royalbroil 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, certainly "Christian music videos" is a notable topic (a Google news archive search will confirm that); the bands and albums are certainly notable, even if the individual songs might not be; the list serves a useful navigational and informational purpose. DHowell (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Might warrant a category, doesn't warrant an article. A1octopus 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Don't Delete It! It's Great!! Helps when you don't know what videos bands have, come look them up and then youtube them :) JustMe
  • Comment See WP:USEFUL. A1octopus 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the list is too large to ever complete. There are very many Christian musicians who have no videos on this list. Where are BarlowGirl's videos for example? Right now the list contains a list videos from random artists. Artist's videos are best placed on their article only. Royalbroil 14:57, 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 merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuice^talk 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian electronic music

Christian electronic music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

"Christian electronic music is Christian music which employs electronic music." Wow! Totally irrelevant intersection. Reads like a directory. Punkmorten (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. I prefer Hindu industrial music myself. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a term that appears to be in any sort of wide circulation. Might warrant a line in Contemporary Christian music but certainly not a whole article. Otherwise a rather dangerous precident is set that if any band of any genre happens to be of a particular religion then an article can pop up saying, eg Belgian Protestant (Lutheran) New Wave. A1octopus (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. DHowell (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:43, 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 merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuice^talk 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian bubblegum pop

Christian bubblegum pop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another self-invented "genre" that fails WP:RS. Just someone who put two things together. Punkmorten (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Not a patch on Buddhist bubblegum bebop. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. DHowell (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:42, 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 merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuice^talk 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian girl group

Christian girl group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

How is this different from any girl group - someone just made up a combination - fails WP:RS. "Christian boy band" was prodded out of existance as early as last year. Punkmorten (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Anybody want to start a Zoroastrian girl group article?... anybody? RMHED (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As for the Zoroastrian girl group... I think I'd be more content with Buddhist monk death metal.--WaltCip (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have no knowledge of the notability or otherwise of the phrase or the genre. I do think that the sort of imaginary examples being given are not a suitable way to discuss anything, if only because making fun of a subject is not an argument. DGG (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. And what DGG said. DHowell (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:41, 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—The statement which was taken as an admission of the list being arbitrary was placed by the first editor and reads "Because classifying music by genre can be arbitrary, these groupings are generalized and many artists appear on multiple lists." This does seem to be an admission of creating an arbitrary list. The suggested merger is not a doable proposition as that list article is a meta-list, a list-of-lists, and not an item-list which would support in-merger of an item-list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Christian R&B/soul artists

List of Christian R&B/soul artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-admitted arbitrary list. Don't be fooled by the reference, as it has nothing to do with this specific subject, really. Punkmorten (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete oh good grief this is getting silly, who in Jehovah's name makes up this nonsense. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Christian bands and artists by genre. DHowell (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. —Caesura^(t) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Currie Jr.

Ron Currie Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. —Caesura^(t) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Easy to find enough references, published author, book is registered and available. Meets BIO. Pharmboy (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO, his book has been reviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle here,and the Guardian here. I also found reference to a review that appeared in the LA Times in July 2007, but its no longer available for free. Xymmax (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination per above. Sorry, guess I didn't do my homework. Lesson learned. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God is Dead, nominated concurrently with this and also withdrawn. —Caesura^(t) 22:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in the Sims 2

Characters in the Sims 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Simple fan cruft Pharmboy (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete list fancruft or fan listcruft, either way it fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Impossible to maintain. Simulator games cannot have "character lists."--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Walt, you don't know the Sims at all do you? these NPC's are fixed and they aren't archetypes - they are pretty much all there is. There are a couple not included (Drew Carey and a couple of other entertainers).Garrie 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I have all of the expansion packs of Sims 1 and Sims 2. I download custom objects daily and I have armies and armies of families created from eons ago still waiting to be played. The NPC, Townie, and premade character list is so massive, that the article becomes a catch-22: too few invokes WP:OR, too many invokes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.--WaltCip (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable outside of the in-game universe.Garrie 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable list of characters. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - one of my favorite games, but this is a completely non notable, game guide-like, list of characters. Knowitall (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:28, 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. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hive (Resident Evil)

The Hive (Resident Evil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Resident Evil: Genesis 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a site from a notable game/film series played/seen by millions of people internationally. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, and you need to show its notable on its own to sustain its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost the entire film of Resident Evil is set in The Hive. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it appears in the game series, and is a major location in the films. The data needs clean up, however has been referenced in numerous video games including Outbreak, Umbrella Chronicles, and Resident Evil 4. Empty2005 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But it needs to demonstrate actual referencing, like development and creation information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, there isn't much info known about construction and development as it was briefly mentioned in Apocalypse, however there is more info given out in the first film, which suggests that the facility was the HQ for finding out the T-Virus, and is also important as it is the origin of the outbreak in the film series, considering 3 films have been released, which reference the facility in all 3 films, with a sequel also planned. And the outbreak has also played a major role in Extinction, as a replica facility was recreated in Las Vegas, and also features almost the exact laser corridor sequence as the first movie. So this article has enough information regarding the facility, however if you feel like pestering and nominating articles for deletion, why not try, The Simpson House, considering not much is known about it's construction, or why not Arkham Asylum while your at it. Empty2005 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if following wikipedia guidelines is such a bother, but some people feel articles actually have to be good at some point to stay on wikipedia. And as you point out, nothing is known, so it has no hope of being improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge could arguably be a part of the Resident Evil article, but is definitely too noteable for deletion. --.Tom. (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no valid argument for merge. Firstly, it has no primary sources to verify its content, so merger will just move this problem elsewhere. 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) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow talk about aload of shit, why not place 742 Evergreen Terrace on afd?, it also has no sources to back up the content, and it pretty much uses plot points aswell! Yeah thats what i thought ! Empty2005 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Knowitall 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see why you'd delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrx9898 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then read the nomination and discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, as far as I can see, the page has a fare amount of information. There are also various references. I'd say that you shouldn't delete the page and just clean it up. Mrx9898 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But if its not notable, what is there to save? How do you "clean up" an article that cannot be referenced? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is notable. It's the primary setting of the first resident evil film, and also features again in extinction. I think it's also referenced to in some of the games? even so, I think it's good enough to remain an article. If you wanted to merge it into the resident evil article then you could, but I think it would make it look sloppy, and long. Mrx9898 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the primary setting for an important game is notable. What is being challenged here? That it is an important game? that it is the primary setting? that a primary setting is notable? I was at first skeptical of some of the attempts to erase the distinction between primary and secondary sources, but if it is being used to create artificial barriers to articles on topics like these, I am glad to see that most of us are becoming more flexible. The nominations seems to be using the same arguments for both the notable and the les notable elements. That's against the core principle, that we are here to build an encyclopedia and the guidelines are intended to guide us, not to prevent common sense. DGG (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt your agrument holds much water; without reliable secondary sources, this fictional location has no notability outside of the game. The artifical barrier you are refereing to is called Reality. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• weakest of Deletes Liberty City is notable because it became part of pop culture outside of the game. This hasn't really, and if it has, we need Reliable Sources to document that.--CastAStone|^(talk) 18:29, 6 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 is a Secret ^account 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service

Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is an organization from a notable game series played by millions of people internationally that has been made into three films also seen by millions of people. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References, not "being in a movie" justify notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to get a lot of hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly wikipedia mirrors, so not that impressive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The shear number is really impressive (admittedly, I didn't even expect that many hits). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL what's impressive? There is not one reference in the hits! :) Please be serious if you want to keep debating this articles notability, or any other for that matter. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the topic has attracted that much interest is impressive. Besides, why focus on deleting stuff people worked on rather than improving articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have an encyclopedia filled with trivia and junk? And besides, I know a lot of the people who help delete articles, and they are some of the most active people in building up articles, especially fiction ones. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that so many of our contributors are willing to volunteer time and effort to these articles suggest that a lot of our editors and readers do not regard them as "junk." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And when its gone, they will contribute to articles that actually improve the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, some may just be turned off from the project. Plus, in many's opinion these sorts of articles do improve the encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, there's only so much space here for video game trivia. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just trivial plot information. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every little plot detail for a video game (or any subject for that matter). RobJ1981 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Umbrella Corporation, and than hopefully salvage that one. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:01, 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. Technically, consensus leaned to "keep". However, I found the delete arguments stronger in this case. Article is over 20 months old, does not have a single WP:RS or WP:V citation in the whole thing, and does not meet the guidelines of WP:FICT. While some participants said they would add citations, as of now, three days past the end date of this AfD, none had been added. If you think I've made a mistake in this decision, please take it to WP:DRV for consideration. Pigman☿ 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raccoon Police Department

Raccoon Police Department (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resident Evil (series) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is an organization from a notable game series that was made into three movies played and seen by millions of people internationally. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not an assertion of notability for the police department, but only for the movies and the games, just because they are popular doesn't mean that this department is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If millions of people are familiar with it, then it is notable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the sources to make it meet WP:FICT otherwise you're just spouting nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sources, see this and also, please remember to maintain civility. I may strongly disagree with people, but I am not accusing them of "spouting nonsense." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A list of Google hits hardly qualifies as significant reliable sources. You are right, nonsense was entirely the wrong word to use, you are spouting irrelevancies. RMHED (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They're relevant in that they demonstrate considerable interest in the subject. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, here's another subject of considerable intereset.[14]. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to main article. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Merging this to the main article(s) would make it too long and unwieldy. This is clearly a sub-article of a notable subject and really shouldn't be judged as stringently as a main article. You shouldn't have to reinvent the WP:N wheel every single time an article splinters off because of length. Torc2 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But I don't propose merging I, I'm propsing its deletion due to lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say merge if the main article wasn't already so long, but it is, and clearly trying to merge that much information into an already-lengthy would be harmful, so the vote is to keep it as a sub-article. I think the topic is clearly notable when viewed as a part of whole. Torc2 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is notable, all it needs is referencing. I'm currently referencing Dynasty Warriors character articles because they relate to another project that I am involved in, but if this article isn't deleted I will add them when I have the time. Unless, of course, Judgesurreal777 would like to offer a hand. I firmly believe that people should at least attempt to better an article before trying to delete it entirely. Gamer Junkie 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Post them here and I will help, post a bunch of them and I will also withdraw the nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

References will come from the game, just as the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII article has been constructed. This is actually an FA, so I'm assuming they will suffice? Gamer Junkie 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No that wont suffice at all. As you can see in the Featured article you linked to, we need development commentary, design sketches, that kind of stuff, simply citing the game would show a lack of notability, which is the current issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are already in the article and the commentary referencing only applies to the section regarding character development, which isn't a part of this article, so how is that a valid reference? And this article is notable because you'll find none of this in the main context. Searching for R.P.D. and getting Resident Evil is akin to searching for Pontiac Firebird and being redirected to an article about cars. Gamer Junkie 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But the lack of development and creation info is the whole point of this nomination, if it doesn't have that, it isn't notabile enough to have its own article, because notability says it will have that stuff. And I didn't suggest redirecting, I said was should delete it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16

17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say that it can't be- or won't be- added later? If you delete it, it might simply be created again. I'm also becoming very tired of people applying parts of policy and guideline information that they agree with and simply ignoring what they don't. Notability also states that:

• "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable."
• "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines."
• "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Not only this, but guidelines are not policy. They're not absolutely compulsory and aren't set in stone, meaning there is no specific rule applying to the notability of any one article. I reiterate, the article needs to be improved. Deleting information is detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Gamer Junkie 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether policy or not, Wikipedia should not be an indescriminant collection of information, and this is just plot recitation without reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe it to be, and allow me to emphasise what YOU believe it to be, there's nothing to say the article can't be improved with a little effort and time. It falls within notability and therefore the purpose of this nomination is null and void. Gamer Junkie 07:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you knew anything about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you would realize that you have demonstrated no proof that this is in any way notable, and you need to in order to save the article. Read this WP:FICTION, and you will understand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article is beyond redemption as there are no sound arguments for keeping or merging its content. Firstly there are no verifiable primary sources to identify where the article content comes from; secondly, there are no reliable secondary sources which would indicate that this fictional police department has any notability outside of the Resident Evil franchise; lastly, its content is almost entirely comprised plot summary which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. In my view, this article should be transwikied to a fansite or fancruft.net where its content would be welcomed and appropriate. --Gavin Collins 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very notable and no good reasons given to delete.--Needslevel 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Falls within notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.252.133 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof it has notability, unless you can establish it, there is no point to voting "keep". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:58, 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 same old Wikipedia game. DS (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia game

Lacks verifiability and notability. Already exists in the Wikipedia namespace, where it belongs. —Caesura^(t) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rocket000 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need an article about something that's in Wikipedia namespace; that's like having an article on Criticisms of WP:NOT.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If I was looking at Wikipedia for the first time, I would be really confused if I saw this article. Besides it doesn't even belong in the mainspace as specified above. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per CSD A9, "clone of Six Degrees of Wikipedia in article space". (I'm not adding a smiley, I did that already a few days ago. It's not funny this time... =( ) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, though it's mentioned in Wikipedia: space. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Resident Evil characters. Neil ☎ 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Trevor

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It has also been previously nominated for deletion two years ago and has not improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to a relevant character list. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Lenin and McCarthy --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 07:11, 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. Not by !votecounting, but by strength of arguments. The article provides no "non-fictional perspective", no "out-of-universe referencing", no reliable independent sources at all (an online in-universe game guide, a printed version of the same game guide, and a blog text). Fram (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talos (Resident Evil)

Talos (Resident Evil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a character associated with one of the most successful survivor horror series in history and so thousands of readers will be interested in this verfiable material and will be willing to edit it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be a great time to verify it by adding out of universe referencing to assert its notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the google search link below. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the sources to make it meet WP:FICT otherwise you're just spouting nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See this for example and notice such headlines as "TALOS and its importance in Resident Evil canon". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this article has no primary sources to verify its content, nor 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) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been rewritten to provide non-fictional perspective, and the source Judgesurreal777 recommended has been added. The character is highly relevant to the backstory of a major franchise, and Wikipedia would be poorer for deleting the entry outright rather than allowing it to be improved upon further. Zyid (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have posted to the wrong AFD, i did not request any reference be added that I have seen. Also, I haven't seen the article improve yet either. Judgesurreal777 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, the reference wasn't your suggestion. Nonetheless it was added, and the entire article was in fact extensively rewritten to provide non-fictional perspective. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact seems to suggest an agenda other than improving Wikipedia. Zyid 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable character from a notable game series. Knowitall 10:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How so? Where are the references? Judgesurreal777 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page. Zyid 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FICTION, because those are not the kind of references the article needs, at least not the ONLY ones it needs. Judgesurreal777 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think the consensus here on acceptable sources for this sort of article is changing for the better, by which I mean the more flexible. what is being challenged? that the character is not notable in the game? DGG (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What is being challenged? The fact that this article does not meet WP Guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT, WP:NOT and WP:WAF.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 6 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. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter (Resident Evil)

Hunter (Resident Evil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a character from a notable game series played by millions of people internationally. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point of the nomination is to assert WITH REFERENCES that this topic is notable, simply saying it is wont do. After all, Notability isn't inherited, so just because Resident Evil and the games are notable doesn't mean every monster in it deserves its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that millions of people in multiple countries are familiar with is inherently notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as inherited notability, all articles must assert individual notability. Just because Superman likes his new wallpaper, doesn't mean we can create Wallpaper(Superman) based off of his popularity. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would agree on not needing an article on Superman's wallpaper, but a character is not wallpaper. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but just like his wallpaper, this article needs to assert its notability to have an article on wikipedia and not, say, a fan wiki. We either need to show that it has creator commentary, design sketches, development information and that kind of stuff, or it shouldn't have its own artciel. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But the articles does assert notability: "As a result, the Hunters have become one of the best-known creatures in the series." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But you will notice there are no references to that, or for anything else in the article for that matter. It comes down to having references or not; if there are, great, if not, delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that references should always be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no references in the link you posted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are. They even made a toy of the character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is it? That wont sustain a whole article, that would probably fit as a part of a popular culture section for the main Futurama article. If we find a lot more, thats what we call notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a character from Resident Evil be in a Futurama article? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• If if can't meet WP:FICT it's got no place here. Just because millions may be familiar with it, doesn't make it notable. Most people are familiar with scratching their arse, is that notable? RMHED (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to make a computer game out of it and sell a few million copies, and get it reviewed--which tends to go together--then yes it would be notable. I am not sure whether all this is a necessary part of the world, but it is part, and we should cover it, it as much detail as the material will support. DGG (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it would not. Tell any extra in a movie with thousands of extras, being an extra in that movie, no matter how famous, doesn't make you famous or notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of interesting information here, but it would probably be better on a separate Resident Evil Wiki. I have to say delete. Chri$topher
• Keep If its admitted to be interesting, and verifiable, and relevant to an important topic, its an appropriate article. V is a core principle, but the manner of V is secondary and just a flexible guideline. We are not making an encyclopedia to illustration the current state of N:Fiction, but making guidelines suitable for building an encyclopedia. the guideline can be what they need to be to acheive our purposes. DGG (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If "V" is a core principle, then this article fails miserably, since it has not one reference, and there isn't even a reference section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Resident Evil creatures where all of the other resident evil monsters are. We can also merge to List of Resident Evil 4 creatures; Characters in Resident Evil 2; Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis; Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica; Characters in Resident Evil 4; and Characters in Resident Evil Outbreak, but I recommend the first option.--CastAStone|^(talk) 18:25, 6 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 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Winters

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie article. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Probably delete - I can't be certain without understanding the subject matter, but it looks like a plot summary without encyclopedic features or references. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agent Bishop

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and episode articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. NSR77 ^T_C 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I concurr with all the above, easy failure of WP:FICT. A1octopus (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-declared art movement

Self-declared art movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Near orphan about a questionable "art movement"; unreferenced since September 2006. kingboyk (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Clubmarx (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Modernist (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think there's anything here that isn't self-explanatory: "a self-declared art movement is an art movement that is self-declared". Then it (long-windedly) says that declaring an art movement might not mean anything at all, so this is basically unhelpful article. At best, this is Merge or Redirect material to Art movement; if there are sources to explain this dilemma of What Exactly Constitutes an Art Movement, by all means, explain it on the main article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of HD DVD movies

List of HD DVD movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Is this worth keeping around? If it's not even close to complete now, is there any hope of it ever being complete as the real list continues to grow. A similar list for Blue Ray disks has already been deleted. Rtphokie (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a potentially near endless list of no real use. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List with no purpose, Wikipedia is not a depository of indescriminate information. Pharmboy (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This page really made me laugh. list of Hd dvd movies. Ah. That's good. I see no purpose in this article. If this article is kept, a lot of work will have to be completed in order to have a full list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete everything will be HDDVD in a few years, so it seems kind of pointless. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the other comments made above. This will become unwieldy almost immediately. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a category is far more apporitate for this Think outside the box 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And exactly how is this a defining characteristic for these movies? Vegaswikian 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment It would appear it isn't a defining characteristic of a movie, and instead a characteristic of the format it is sold in, which seems to support deletion instead of a category. At the risk of violating wp:beans, a category makes as much sense as List of computer models that have black cases. Pharmboy 00:16, 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. This is a Secret ^account 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of robots (TMNT)

List of robots (TMNT) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete more listcruft, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: Since the robots are characters in the various incarnations of the franchise, merge into List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters . Then clean up that page for references and out-of-universe perspective. -- Ritchy (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the fictional topic fails to utilize secondary sources to provide real-world context for the topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Far end of fancruft here. Obvious failure of WP:FICT and WP:UNENC. A1octopus 14:21, 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, has no reliable independent sources at all. Fram (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyrim

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Was also nominated two years ago and has seen no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree, no notabliity. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: When this article was nominated two years ago, the only votes were in favor of keeping it. Other articles in the Elder Scrolls series have withstood AfD with shakier grounds and much less content. -Senori (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't justify keeping it, especially since it has established no notability and has no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I do not know the game--I am just judging the article; there seems to be sufficient information beyond the small excerpt in Major_regions_of_The_Elder_Scrolls to justify an article in its own right. It isnt a game guide, because it doesnt seem enough of the kind of detail needed to play the game. If we don't waste time throwing good things out, we can write new articles on arguably more important things. DGG (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And I promise we wont, because there is nothing "good" about the article in an encyclopedic way, as there is no evidence of notability. After all, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

nothing in fiction has literal real-world notability. Rather, it's notable because of a notable role in notable fiction, and because the fiction has the real world notability. that's the meaning of the guideline that contributes towards building the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. Zeus is fictional, yet has real-world notability. Yes, he appears in notable fiction, but the fictional concept itself also has real-world notability independent of that and has made an impact in real life. Your argument is that notability is inherited, which is not true. The Pearl is notable fiction, and Kino is a notable role within that notable fiction, but this not not automatically grant Kino real-world notability. Pagrashtak 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per DGG. I am less concerned about WP:RS if the article passes WP:FICT as notable, i.e., is a notable person/place/thing/concept in X fiction or game. I know that's not a strong argument, but it's a standard that independent sources are less important for fictional places and persons that for real places and BLP's. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true, it is crucial for fictional articles to be sourced independently. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 6 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 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Don Festge"

"Don Festge" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity page fails to meet WP:BIO. Wrote a couple of unsuccessful screenplays, unknown books, and was an extra a couple of times. Only trivial coverage by secondary sources. —Caesura^(t) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed... I first tagged it as cleanup but after looking into this further, have found the same thing. Self writing a bio and linking to external sources that were self created definitely violates WP:BIO and a couple of other policies. --Pmedema (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vanity article. RMHED (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unable to find any nontrivial sources. Maralia (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a host for your curriculum vitae. Pastordavid (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity "biography" violating WP:BLP. Bearian 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -but the company was founded way back in 1998. Tiptopper 14:00, 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 DMacks. closed by non-admin. RMHED (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Fish

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

I don't think she satisfies the notability guidelines in WP:BIO. An eating disorder expert, who has had a TV appearance as an expert for a show, published a book, for which she has had interviews in magazines, according to the article. (Better Homes and Gardens, USA Today, amongst others). Two radio appearances. No reliable sources. This is the best I could find in the first 60/245 Google hits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - as a copyright violation. It's a copy of her press release bio taken from http://donnafish.com/?page_id=2. Tagged for speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. non-admin closure SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naitō Tadayuki

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

Is this photographer notable? This short article has little more than weasel words. Rtphokie (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not so much weasel words as virtually no words. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Paularblaster's addition of practically everything. RMHED (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A year ago Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography#Hotlists was listing this as an article that was needed ... Now they seem to have someone has set up a bot to create automatic stubs of the 328 most famous Japanese photographers - he's one of them - and its running wild. Still, he's a Japanese photographer people will actually have heard of. To give perhaps the most accessible aspect of his work for us non-Japanese: Naito did the sleeve photography for several Miles Davis' albums, including the Pangaea_(album) (there's a specimen in the article). I've done a bit to flesh it out already, and I've given WikiProject History of Photography a nudge to sort themselves out. Paularblaster (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm very reluctant to disagree publicly with Paularblaster, who has done an excellent job on this article, but the regular denizens/members (countable on your fingers) of "WP HoP" were as surprised as anyone to observe the sudden appearance of all these substubs. We plead innocence! -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies for the unfounded accusation. Paularblaster (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, fine. I raise my smaller glass of Orval to you. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per vast improvements made by Paularblaster. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, he's notable. Yes, Paularblaster has done a good job of showing this. Yes, he could be shown to be more notable. I'll do this myself, but the demands of the "real world" will delay my start. (A good-faith proposal by Rtphokie, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable. Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, wow, great work Paularblaster, lots more useful information in this article now. Thanks for clearing the confusion up and improving the article. I think this discussion can be closed now.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:49, 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 with a redirect to Numidia. — Scientizzle 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numidium

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Numidia as a plausible misinterpretation of Numidian 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Lomar

Republic of Lomar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, near orphan, of Lomar%22&btnG=Search only 800 Google hits. kingboyk (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I found plenty of info from a wide variety of websites, even if it is not in the article. 800 ghits is meaningless and can't be used as a reason to delete. Many good articles have less ghits anyway, proving that ghits is a handy tool but not that handy. Being poorly cited is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. Easily meets notability. Pharmboy (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Widely reported in the international press in early 2000s. Subject of a Nigerian passport scam - also widely reported. The article needs cited sources and re-writing, but its certainly verifiable and has achieved a good degree international notability. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• If it's notable let's get the article cleaned up and referenced, folks. --kingboyk 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• My first reaction was that this must be a hoax or something fictional. The organisation seems now to call itself the Regency of Lomar Foundation (according to linked websites). If so, Move. The present article remain as a Redirect, but that happens automatically on a move. Peterkingiron 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • question redirect to what? The article you linked was empty, so that doesn't really make sense to me. If anything, wouldn't we link the other way around? Unless there were some good cites otherwise. Pharmboy 22:04, 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 Keep / Withdrawn by nominator SkierRMH (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Park Hee Byung

Park Hee Byung (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Easily verifiable, easily meets notability. http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_7171426 clearly demonstrates this, and was on the first page of googling his name in quotes. Very notable. Also, articles don't have to qualify as "notable", only the person they are about. Pharmboy (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I added a second newspaper story about the same event, so now I believe it meets the minimum requirement of multiple reliable secondary sources. And I think it's an interesting story. But I'm unsure whether two local news pieces about the unveiling of a plaque in his memory are really enough, and I couldn't find anything more, neither under this name nor under Hee Byung Park. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. While the news articles might put this past the notability guideline, I don't think they prove it's more than a simple news item. But my reservations there would be quelled by a single non-local news story (or other coverage). I searched myself but was unable to find anything new. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable, given that South Korea's Ministry of Patriots' and Veterans' Affairs has noticed him [15]. cab (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment.. Seems quite a bit has occured on the page, for the better! in light of David Eppstein and CaliforniaAliBaba edits, I move to withdraw, appears WP:NOTABILITY has been met.--Hu12 (talk) 03:28, 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 deleted. WP:SNOW CSD A7 and the fact that the author himself is blanking it. Someone is upset and there's no point in prolonging the agony. Doc^g 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regis Silva

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

An interesting article, unclear to me whether notable or not.

The article was created by

• Greatartists210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• who is also 71.139.11.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• and (likely unaware of WP:SOCK) Artinovation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

apparently the bio subject, comprising a self-bio licensed under GFDL. Most of this was "puff", but there did seem to be relevant claims in it that were by their nature verifiable. These included the following statements and claims:

• "First solo exhibition at the Pacific Grove Arts Center, 2005, with feature-length pieces in both The Monterey Herald's Go! Magazine and the Monterey County Weekly."

• "Other exhibitions at San Francisco's Blue Room Gallery, the Muckenthaler Cultural Center, the Pajaro Valley Art Center Gallery , and the Day of the Dead Celebration at the Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz."

There is an AFD principle that an article on a genuinely notable subject should not be deleted just because it was created as a promotion piece. The above are borderline claims, and made promotionally. Nonetheless if verified there would be a legitimate question whether multiple exhibitions and coverage constitutes sufficient evidence that this is not a "run of the mill" artist. That evidence is not presented (yet); nor (if it was) would I be expert enough to assess these claims in the art world. Hence this AFD listing to examine those questions.

Other relevant Wikipedia policies and practices:

1. Brief mentions in the media may not be evidence of notability; Wikipedia looks at long term historic notability.

1. Media that cover a subject (ie, person or other topic) may not be good evidence of that subject's notability, if they are themselves indiscriminative, or small scale and local, and so on. (For example a magazine in a town of 500 people will give coverage to very minor events that do not indicate the events are notable, and a magazine with a "popular culture" section must find some elements of popular culture to write about each issue whether or not these are discriminatingly chosen).

Left to discussion to test evidence, and claims, and judge notability. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not yet shown to be notable.

• First of above, Googling "Pacific Grove Arts Center" 2005 "Regis Silva" gives two non-Wiki hits from the same source, an article written by "Kai Laiolo" a week ago, who according to Google, has written precisely nothing else.
• Second of above, Googling most of these venues + "Regis Silva" produces similar results.
• Most sites obtained by Googling "Regis Silva" seem to be mostly promotional sites, these which aren't do not satisfy "long term historic notability", certainly not going back beyond 2005. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keepdelete. Here is an article in Brazzil Magazine which seems to go a long way towards establishing notability. I'm not really familiar with the art-scene though, so I can't really be a proper judge. Inpit from any editors more familiar with the subject would be helpful. henrik•talk 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Henrik's reference is the one I referred to under "First of above"; I don't regard it as a strong source given the efforts which appear to have been made to put Regis Silva's name just about anywhere it can be put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that later. I haven't been able to verify out how much of an WP:RS that magazine is, so I'm changing my mind, per the reasoning of others. henrik•talk 06:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Local press coverage is not enough to establish notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. `'Míkka>t 06:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An hotel room, local press and an impressive self-importance do not equate to notability. --WebHamster 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable bio. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:09, 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pantheons of Tamriel

Pantheons of Tamriel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies WP:IAR.--Doubtdone (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and RMHED. Dekisugi (talk) 08:31, 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 no consensus. If you wish to pursue the merge discussion, please do so at the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls)

Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Could it be shortend and moved into Elder Scrolls? Just a thought. --Pmedema (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this article has no primary sources, 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) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Needs to be integrated into one of the primary Elder Scrolls game articles, where this Emperor is featured. Peter1968 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Elder Scrolls Characters: I feel that all the ES Characters collectively are notable enough to get a single page. -Ratwar (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree to merge, but that seems like a complicated task. Any volunteers want to mop up this mess? Bearian (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How can you merge if there are no verifiable sources to cite? The only sources for the content of this article are the orginal editors. If they can't fix this article, I doubt you can. Delete and start from scratch, but merging this article is just moving the problems of uncited sources elsewhere. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Sources can be added in spite of Gavin's doubts. :) Also, while there is some in-universe content in this article, it also contains real world context. Rray (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Notification of this discussion has been added to the talk page for WikiProject The Elder Scrolls. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 8 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. — Scientizzle 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of christian ska bands

List of christian ska bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Despite the references, this is a problematic list. It's incomplete and may not be able to satisfy a proper standard of notability. Weak delete, but I think it's good to discuss this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian ska. These lists of [genre] bands are generally more bad than good. Punkmorten (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. A listcruft scar upon wikipedia. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Christian bands and artists by genre, after trimming to include only notable bands. DHowell (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, categories should be more than sufficient for this. RFerreira 07:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep after trimming to notable bands with articles. The intersection of notable genres ska and Christian music. A merge into List of Christian bands and artists by genre would be out of place that article's struction. I merged in the text from the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian ska article that failed AfD. Royalbroil 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete content covered perfectly well by a category. Fair Deal (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, as a merger will mess up the format of the other list article. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 6 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 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DominKnow Inc.

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

Someone marked this for speedy deletion (A7) on Newpages patrol. Since I disagree, I'm nominating it for deletion as a procedural courtesy. No opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be speedy as there is insufficient claim of serious notability. Three out of four references go back to the corporate website. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no serious claim to notability Mayalld (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy: as Vanispamcruftisment. Andante1980 (talk) 09:34, 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. Another Afd nom might be fair if done after three more months, if no further sources of any kind are found. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mushroom (Mario)

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

Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Perhaps the mushroom is iconic enough to be culturally notable; if so, that can be included in Mario (series). However, we do not need and should not have an article describing the gameplay effects of absolutely every incarnation of the Mario mushroom. Chardish (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant information to Mario (series). I agree that the Mushroom is iconic of the Mario series (nearly every Mario game has a mushroom in it), but this is indiscriminate information that could easily be hacked down to a few sentences in the main Mario article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• I actually like this article. I found it entertaining and well written. Unfortunately, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete per guidelines cited above. Keeper | 76 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. Just like characters of the series. Actually the mushroom appears also outside of the Mario (series), so I don't think a merge would be good. And just like the nominator says, it's iconic. There's plenty of non-videogame info. that can be said. The article does need some work to make it less guide-like, though. Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the problems I see, and perhaps you agree, is that while the Mushroom is "iconic" (to use others' words), I don't see how it could become a verifiable article. How would you source this article with independent sources (as opposed to in-universe)? That isn't meant as a challenge, per say, to you Rocket000, specifically, more of a general question. I've tried to find articles/Ghits,/whatever in regards to (specifically) the notability of the mushroom in Marioworld and have come up empty. I don't see how this would ever reach the appropriate level of sourcing per WP:V, WP:RS, and What Wikipedia isn't. Keeper | 76 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy, else merge - to the article's creator's userpage or to whomever is currently maintaining the article. This has the potential to become notable and well-sourced, and can probably be modified to be less discriminate.--WaltCip (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A major element of a huge number of clearly notable games. Keeper76, it can certainly become a verifiable article -- primary sources (the games themselves and their instructions) are perfectly valid for verifying the content. What you're concerned about appears to be notability -- independent sources are required for that part. Given the long history of the Mushroom Kingdom, I'm pretty sure such sources can be found, though it may take some searching. Pinball22 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes and no, Pinball22. I have played many versions of Mario (as I suspect most Wikipedians have also) and I know what the mushrooms are and that they are a notable, iconic part of Marioworld.. I will say though, I've never heard reference to Mushroom Kingdom, that's a new term to me. The games themselves and their instructions are not necessarily valid for verifying the content, as in they are in-universe and therefore not independent of the subject. What I mean by verifiable is exactly that. Do you know of any sources that speak specifically about the mushrooms and their impact? (and not just about Marioworld?). Keeper | 76 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "Verifiable", how it's normally used (see WP:V), simply means the information is published by a reliable source and others can check (references) to make sure it's accurate. I'm pretty sure Nintendo is a credible source. Rocket000 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • And that's the problem. Nintendo isn't sourced here, and unless "Nintendo" (and I assume you mean gaming magazines in general--correct me if I'm wrong) wrote an article devoted to the cultural/gaming significance of the Mushroom from Mario Brothers, then I don't see how this article will ever meet verifiability guidelines. This article is a guide to what different mushrooms do in different versions of Mario. How can that be notable/verifiable outside of MarioWorld? I'm not disputing the importance of the mushroom in Marioworld. I'm saying it (the mushroom) isn't verifiable/iconic/written about in independent sources. (Mario is, MarioBros is, Mario (series) is. But the mushroom isn't. That's what I'm trying to get at. Keeper | 76 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure. I think we're just arguing semantics here. For example:

I write "mushrooms make Mario big." I reference a Super Mario game. You can check the game to see if what I said is true. That's verifiability. (Though I wouldn't necessarily cite this fact because it's common knowledge. According to WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.")

I write "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world." I cite The New York Times. That's notability. -Rocket000 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I didn't mean "gaming magazines in general", I meant Nintendo itself (the games, the guides that come with them, Nintendo Power magazine, ect.). Nintendo establishes verifiability. Other (third-party) gaming magazines would establish notability. Rocket000 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we are trying to say the same thing (semantics). I completely understand what you mean by verifiability now (and yes, I can play the game to see that Mario gets bigger when he "eats" a mushroom). What's interesting to me is your pseudo-quote: "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world" and then say "New York Times". That's exactly my point. In my opinion (which is what AfD's are all about, really), is that because the New York Times, the LA times, the Daily News, or USA today, or anybody outside Nintendo, have never specifically written about the mushrooms in Marioworld It proves that they, in and of themselves, are not notable outside the in-universe notability. Hence, they don't need there own article, but merely a sidenote in the article about the Mario brothers and Marioworld. Also, thank you for your clarificatin of my assumption about what you meant in regards to "nintendo." "nintendo, meaning the game, the magazine, the user guides (what you cite) do not, IMO, "establish verifiability" because they are "in-universive". Again, Mario is notable. The Mario empire is notable. The mushrooms are part of that universe and should be stated as such, but not as their own independent article. Sidenote, thank you for your civility in this discussion. It is much appreciated! Keeper | 76 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem in this conversation is that you're confusing the Wikipedia definitions of verifiability and notability. Independent sources are needed for the latter, but not for the former. Yes, an article has to be both, and so independent sources are needed, but the facts of the article can be verified by non-independent reliable sources. Pinball22 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources establish the notability of the topic. Once a topic's notability is established, primary sources can be used to support the article and are considered verifiable, but independent sources should be used whenever possible to maintain neutrality and to avoid original research. - Chardish (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mario (series) article and merge relevant content to that article. A list of the mushrooms in Mario games and their uses is simply game guide content at best. Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • again, I don't know the game, but WP NOT does not say " Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content." The actual statement in NOT is that " a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." There will obviously be a considerable overlap in content. Whether this article predominantly is in the manner of a game guide is the question, not whether some of the content would also be appropriate as part of the information in a game guide DGG (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You should also look at the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for dumping in-universe information. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. I don't see how descriptions of gameplay effects of a powerup satisfy any of these. - Chardish (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Rocket000. I agree. An important aspect of the Mario series, and known outside of it as well. IceflamePhoenix (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Known outside the series" - that is a claim that must be backed up by sources. - Chardish (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable aspect of arguably one of the two or three most notable game series in history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, if you're going to claim that, you need sources. Declaring that something is notable is not good enough. - Chardish (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rocket000. Knowitall 06:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Per someone who made a claim not verified by sources? - Chardish 07:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there must be dozens upon dozens of third party sources available on the subject, namely gaming magazines. RFerreira 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So find some. And remember, we're looking for sources that establish the cultural notability of this topic. - Chardish 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge - We desperately need to create a "Universe of the Mario Brothers series" article to put this and Mushroom Kingdom into. Judgesurreal777 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The Mario mushroom has begotten more than an in game importance in pop culture symbolism. An article on its own is justified from that alone. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Lord Metroid.--CastAStone|^(talk) 18:38, 6 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 Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A.O. Smith

A.O. Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Claims 130+ years of history and 10 million+ water heaters sold... so there might be some notability here. This was a speedy deletion candidate but I am bringing it to AFD for discussion. It feels like a copyvio but I can't tell of what. Needs some sources, otherwise delete W.marsh 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep looks to easily pass WP:CORP, just have a look at their stock statistics, with more than two BILLION dollars in revenue last year alone. Sources aplenty. The article could use a little NPOV help though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - You say "sources aplenty" - but from what I can see, there is only one and that is this. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  From a quick glance at this I count more than a dozen major news stories in the last month alone, from major news sources like Reuters, Bloomberg, CNNMoney, MSN Money, and others. Google also shows 16,000 news articles (going back to the 1920s!) and nearly a thousand Books sources. The article has problems, yes, but lack of available reliable sources is absolutely NOT among them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I withdraw my nomination based on Starblind's links... sorry. Someone can close this AFD unless there's an objection. --W.marsh 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Would I be able to close or not? - I think I've participated because of the comment. — Rudget _{contributions} 18:00, 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 delete. Pigman☿ 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiots of ants

Idiots of ants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete NN comedy group Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wrote this page after finding Pappy's fun Club ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappy%27s_Fun_Club ) ,another UK sketch group at a similiar level, but not finding an Idiots of Ants page. Both are up and coming acts so it seems strange that Pappy's Fun Club would be OK and Idiots of Ants not. I am a fan so was extra careful not to publicise them in any way. But if I did I will remove it.

Kind Regards,

Cody

• comment will nominate that for deletion as well Mayalld (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as per failing notability standards. Occurance of another article has added to this debate. Unfortunately (to creating user), it looks like both will be deleted. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not as notable as Pappy's Fun Club and there is definitely a conflict of interest here. Deb (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that both these groups are ‘notably’ if not yet famous. At the Edinburgh Festival they were both big news selling out there venues every night. This means over 5000 people saw them. Add to that the gigs they have done in London and around the UK it must be over 10,000. Certainly not ‘Monty Python’ but a great start none the less.

On top of this both groups have been reviewed and written about in the national press (only yesterday did I see Idiots of Ants the Metro Newspaper) and have both been and national Television and radio.

They both have big internet followings (me amongst them) and think they would be a popular addition to Wikipedia

~~Cody~~

Cody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codspy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment I am the author of the article and have made it a British Comedy stub. I hope this will help to improve its acceptability. Many of the other comedians on that list are of a similar level of notability and it would seem unfair to delete this article when the others have been accepted and read for some time.

Thanks again,

Codspy (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I entered Idiots of Ants into wikipedia having booked tickets to see them at their Pleasance gig in London at Christmas after having lapped them up at Edinburgh. We bought the tickets the day after seeing them on BBC2's Culture Show. Yet I find that they are nominated for deletion on here?! I cannot understand that. Who decides whether something has a right to be deleted? There are countless examples on Wikipedia of far less notable/successful/famous people/groups/events than the Idiots. Surely that is not the purpose of the volunteer editors on the site? To be arbiters of what is well-known or not? I consider myself cultured and well-read, but I wouldn't dream of stating what was worthy of public consumption on wikipedia on the basis of whether it had entered my sphere of experience or where it rated on my perceived 'fame-o-meter'.

They are a comedy group in the public eye that are known by and have entertained as many people as many of the books, for example, that appear on this site. Those books claim their space, I assume, on the grounds that you could go into any bookstore and pick them up IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR THEM. The same argument exists to defend the Idiots of Ants. If you were looking to see them, you could find them, and the first place you should be able to look is here.

The nomination for deletion is extraordinary and should be removed.

Jessica McIntyne.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LG CU500

LG CU500 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This product is not notable; too few substantial references other than reviews are available to support writing a sustainable encyclopedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The article itself isn't too bad, and there a few (maybe stretching it a bit) sources by which we could verify claims. I understand that there is few too many substantial references, but (never let be the one to do it) there are 1,900,000 hits for the search of this article. Keep? — Rudget _{contributions} 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google hits don't establish notability. The reason why is demonstrated by this phone itself; the vast majority of hits are either commercial links for the sale or rental of the phone, or capsule reviews. Both include little more than PR material. While Google might demonstrate popularity, or high-availability in a commercial market, it doesn't demonstrate notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hence why I said - "never let me be the one to do it". I know "g-hits" doesn't establish notability, but it does usually indicate popularity and therefore a wide range of sources are available, and then it is reliable sourced. But currently, the article doesn't have them. — Rudget _{contributions} 11:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—sufficient references available; also of interest for being one of the first HSDPA phones available in the US market. Spacepotato (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient references, article needs to be rewritten, but worth keeping. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Tim Q. Wells 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep agree as notable as any other phone --EJF 19:18, 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 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War of the First Council

War of the First Council (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable fictional event. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to use an appropriate amount of reliable sourcing and it may also fail notability standards. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 19:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revelation vii

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

Appears to be a non-notable website for an equally non-notable fringe group. I opted to bring it to AFD rather than speedy due to the references, but even despite the two interview clips I can't see how the website is notable; a Google search turned up many irrelevant hits (mainly relating to the Bible or small bands), and there are no relevant Google News hits, either. Coredesat 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete But, AfD rather than speedy was a good decision. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable, although the web site was quite interesting I have to admit... :) Zerbey (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as web content A7, no indication of importance/significance. --MCB (talk) 22:46, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim

Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete Article quotes no reliable sources to establish notability Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, albeit weakly. It is fairly obvious that the article's author is a newcomer here, and in the process of mastering the syntax for article creation. The author is apparently also directly interested in the religion in question, and needs to get a handle on neutral point of view: The church is in strong opposition to idol worshippers and forces of darkness; these evil forces are at all times rebuked and overcome . . Parts of the article are apparently referenced by unpublished interviews with church leaders, which poses verifiability issues.

  On the other hand, the article purports to describe a religious movement that has been around in one shape or form since the mid-1920s. This fact alone seems to make a fairly good prima facie case for notability. Apparently published sources and biographies of church leaders exist in Nigeria, and the article does seek to reference these as well; this literature may be a primary source, but it is a source. And. . . it is interesting reading.

  Generally, the fact that sources may be obscure or hard to find in Europe or North America is not grounds to delete anything. The article was created the same day it was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question - Is this the same as the "Cherubim and Seraphim Society" mentioned in the Aladura page? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Answer - It seems to be; the founder is mentioned on that page. Will add a link. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Sources are indeed not so easy to come by for the good reasons outlined above but there are enough books about the African churches on Googlebooks [16] [17] [18]

to make it clear that this is a mainstream Christian denomination in West Africa, and a bit more Googling shows that it has enough standing to have hosted a number of major African synods and also has well-established branches in the UK and US. The questions of tone and points of English usage can be dealt with by sensible editing. This article should not have been nominated here so soon. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

and WP:BITE is always worth re-reading.HeartofaDog (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Just about to cite WP:BITE myself. Anyway, in a moment I'll be adding a list of respectable secondary references to the article in question, should anybody feel the call to tidy the article up. They establish notability, if nothing else comes of them. Paularblaster (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that the great bulk of the text was directly copied from the church's own website. I've removed it for now, bearing in mind the possibility that the creator may have, or be able to obtain, permission to use it. What's left, with Paularblaster's addl refs, should in any case be enough for an OK small article, which I'll do myself in a few hours if no-one else wants to.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is no intention to WP:BITE (and I haven't done anything that would constitute a bite), although I'm increasingly seeing this guideline trotted out and put ahead of policy. As far as I'm aware WP:BITE isn't about ignoring policy just because somebody is new (do we perhaps allow every newcomer to create three junk articles that we don't delete?). If a newcomer creates an article that ought to be deleted, and which cannot sensibly be moved to user space, it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is not about "ignoring policy" or not deleting "junk articles", neither of which are being advocated here. People are throwing WP:BITE at you, not because you are trigger-happy and have nominated too early without doing any legwork, but because of the tone of your reply to the article's creator on its Talk page. If this is your normal approach to new editors, then you will be seeing WP:BITE mentioned a great deal - so you may as well take it on board now. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I fail to see any WP:BITE issues in my remark on the article talk page Mayalld (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Rewritten as a stub on the basis of the external links given - needs a lot more work, but should get it off the present reef.HeartofaDog (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep now that HeartofaDog's rewrite has solved the problems with the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the references. A pretty good start for an articleDGG (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Deadeye Dick (band). Waggers (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caleb Guillotte

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

Delete as NN autobiography Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not worth merging to the band article because it's unsourced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Deadeye Dick if any of the solo work can be properly sourced, Redirect if not. Deadeye Dick is notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and now I've got that New Age Girl song stuck in my head again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Deadeye Dick (band) per Starblind. Might be a keeper if the band's claim to notability were stronger. However, with no sourcing, a somewhat marginal claim to notability and plenty of room in the band article, merge/redirect is best.--Kubigula (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Deadeye Dick (band). The band is barely notable; it's singer without the band certainly is not.--CastAStone|^(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix the sources. Easily passes WP:N. Members of notable bands are notable, an exception to the dictum that notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Over 500 Ghits [19], with an IMdB entry, charity work, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Added sources. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done well to verify the information in the article, but these are all pretty trivial mentions. I still don't see a compelling argument for a separate article, and a merge seems like a better editorial decision. I did, however, strike my comment saying there were no sources :).--Kubigula (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, sources have been added. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not about sources, its about notability.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 04:14, 7 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 - notability does not expire, and some sources have evidently been found. —Random832 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bubble Up

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

Apparently non-notable product. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm kinda surprised to see the article in such a poor state, but Bubble Up is an iconic brand with nearly a century of history (it was sold a full decade before 7-up) and which hit its peak in the 60s & 70s. Sources aren't going to be extremely easy to find as its acme was a quarter-century before the web took off, but they do exist example Chicago Tribune article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Starblind. I've searched Bubble Up, and it doesn't come up with much, but that doesn't mean it should based on that relevance. It supposedly notable per some literary sources I have, at least I think so. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- as per above. I just did some newspaper archive searching, and came up with the following, from a 2004 Dallas Morning News article:

"The Bubble-Up brand has been around since 1917, when Sweet Valley Products Co. of Sandusky, Ohio, started bottling a "non-alcoholic, non-cereal, maltless beverage" under that name. The familiar citrus Bubble-Up - "Kiss of Lemon-Kiss of Lime" - was popular by the 1930s, the golden age of soda pops. The brand had a brief moment of glory in the 1950s when it came out in a 16-ounce bottle, beating both Coke and Pepsi, who were battling it out in 12-ounce bottles.

But the brand lost its fizz and all but vanished during the 1960s, according to soda pop guru Hamilton Rousseau, who owns Ifs Ands & Butts."

I'll add the source(s) to the article. Also, fer cryin' out loud, it was just created today; give it a chance. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Too important to get rid of.Oh Snap (talk) 01:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Brief History of the Empire

A Brief History of the Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fictional history books that use an overly generic name 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No real-world notability. Pagrashtak 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't make this page. This must have been a while ago when my account was shared. Thank you for noticing this. Get rid of it. :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No notability, and discussed in a completely in-universe style Chri$topher

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordinators

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Coordinator as a plausible misconception of that word. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and as per WP:FICTION. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:50, 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; no consensus about where to merge. If anyone wants to merge it later, request a copy from me :) --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Brotherhood

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, this article was previously deleted and is no more notable now than it was then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Either delete it or the article arguably should be merged with either the Morrowind and/or Oblivion entries. Peter1968 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge The problem is that there are other articles on fictional factions in the Morrowind/Oblivion universe, which are also considered for deletion. My suggestion is to either keep, source and cleanup the article (there are similar articles on fictional factions from the Star Wars, Stark Trek, etc. universe) or merge all faction articles in a strongly reduced form into one article called "Factions of Morrowind/Tamriel", for example. I've set up a page in my userspace where I'll work on the merged content today, you can find it here. mensch • t 11:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

While your at it, please look for references and development material, such as where did the developers of the game come up with these things? That is crucial to the articles long term survival. Judgesurreal777 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Compared to some of the articles that enjoy life on Wikipedia, this one is fairly notable. I admit there might be a need to cleanup the article or make it clear that this is fiction but nothing that warrants the deletion of a fairly long, detailed article. Merging doesn't appear to be an option since the oblivion article is full and doesn't need anymore fat to reduce it's quality. Another possible option would be to create a large page for all of Oblivion's factions but unless someone is willing to do so I think this article should stay. There are worse offenders of notability such as the hundreds of pages devoted to Star Wars Extended Universe, a lot of messy articles like that all over this site. I don't consider this article terrible and it contributes to the reader's knowledge of the subject matter. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But why would we keep this article because its less terrible than other articles? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying this isn't near bottom barrel(worthy of deletion) in terms of articles. It basically has one massive flaw, no references, which I admit is a problem, even though this information is on the level. This article shouldn't be deleted, it should be fixed, we shouldn't just quit on it. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless it has references somewhere, I'm afriad it is a fatal flaw. The contention is that it doesn't have references now, it is that there aren't any references in existence, at least not in the form needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was what I was getting at. Imperial-library.com is an excellent source of information, as in everything in the article could be sourced. Anybody with the time and skill could throw in a couple sources, the lazy choice would be to delete this article, the wise choice would be to add sources, and maybe make the article less in-universe.TostitosAreGross (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FICTION, because those references you mention are not the ones needed to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as recommended by mensch. Ursasapien (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Notification of this discussion has been added to the talk page for WikiProject The Elder Scrolls. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 8 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. Spellcast (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'Gallia

D'Gallia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn (~750 ghits), written by someone affiliated with it:

Today, the Culinary Institute with the Peruvian youths' of highest acceptance, to collaborate with the diffusion of our kitchen and to continue contributing to the development of successful professionals that you highlight in the gastronomic business and they are developed in a successful way in any part of the world.Thank you for your kind preference.

nn, or, coi/npov. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - it's a copyvio, so I've tagged it as such. andy (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruenor Battlehammer

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

Non-notable fictional character. Insufficient third-party references exist to write a substantial, verifiable, and maintainable WikiPedia article. {{prod}} removed without comment, so listing at AfD.Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete D&D cruft. Article is entirely in-universe, sole source from www.wizards.com is not independent of the subject (D&D publisher's website). No claim of notability, and no encyclopedic treatment from the persective of this unverse. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or at least Redirect to Companions of the Hall; notable Forgotten Realms character that has been a main character in a number of novels. BOZ (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Bruenor is a major character who has appeared in multiple notable fiction works by a notable author. — RJH (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Still fails WP:FICT though, unless you care to add the appropriate sources that show otherwise. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep if you can provide a secondary reliable sources demonstrating extensive coverage in non-"in-universe" contexts. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added several independent sources. The remainder, I think, should be referenced directly out of the novels. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_of_Seven_Parts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Entreri, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mielikki_(Forgotten_Realms) and a host of other places. Current consensus on Wikipedia, upheld in countless AfDs, is that major characters (esp. the main characters) of tremendously notable works, which is exactly what we have here, are presumed notable per the "common sense" clause in the WP:N and WP:FICT guidelines - multiple, independent, secondary sources are simply one way of drawing that conclusion. All this harping on WP:N entirely ignores the need for actual consideration of the scope of the works under discussion. Two or three nominators with a decided agenda consistently nominate the very articles that would best exemplify the need for looking at the big picture instead of wiki-lawyering, and then hold that the ones !voting "keep" and "merge" are ignoring policy. I believe it's exactly the other way around, and the community at large seems to be in tune with that concept. ◄Zahakiel► 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sounds like this boils down to "other stuff exists". There are many articles that don't meet WP:FICT which have been deleted by the same user consensus you cite here. Wikipedia is not a game guide, by the way. The consensus isn't upheld in AfDs, either; articles are kept when there is no consensus that they be kept, which is part of the reason that so much of this cruft exists. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply - What this boils down to is that you might benefit greatly from understanding the difference between WP:WAX and WP:CONSENSUS. There IS a difference; one of which is that the latter is an actual policy on this site. In terms of the content of these two elements of our discussion (as I said in my previous chat with you about these matters) it's one thing to say, "Keep simply because article X exists," and quite another to say, "Keep, because the reasons article X was kept are also applicable here." If you think that the pages I referenced were all - or mostly - retained through "no consensus" rather than "keep," then this points out the need for two things: a) Take an actual look at the pages I cite; you'll see a fair bit of straight keeps, and those that fall to "no consensus" do so only because of the tiny cadre of editors who always, invariably vote "delete" on this kind of material. b) If you aren't aware of the consensus for some bizzare reason, this might explain why you're so doggedly plowing through your AFD Queue with little reflection on your success rate on these specific types of articles. And yes, I am aware that sometimes the articles so nominated are deleted, but that's partly because, and I've read them, no one involved pointed out the error of obscuring the spirit of the WP:N guideline rather than it's (often) poorly-understood letter. One man's encyclopedic content is another man's "cruft"; that's exactly why the latter word is considered such bad form. While I'm on the subject, since someone made something of as snide comment to me in a previous AfD: I don't read these books, and I don't play these games (and I don't think "game guide" has anything to do with this topic anyway, since he's a main character in a novel simply based upon a game). I have no vested interested in making Wikipedia a "fansite," or a collection of trivial material. On the other hand, I'm aware of what the community has decided about these matters, and I can tell (unless the articles are lying, and my memory is foggy) that the topics you continually nominate sometimes very often notable. I'm not saying you have never nominated non-notable elements of fictional universes, but I tend to not vote on those AfDs, because, well... it's obvious that the community will take care of them anyway, and things are rarely helped by a pile-on (also, I don't want to actually encourage wanton AfDing even with the occasional "hit"). ◄Zahakiel► 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Question. Huh? What previous chat? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply - My apologies; it was in a previous AfD for which we both supplied comments, but that particular statement (the diff. between WAX and CONSENSUS) wasn't actually said in reply to you. ◄Zahakiel► 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Zahakiel, will you have my man-babies? BOZ (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (not a real marraige proposal, or pick-up line for that matter). ;)
• Keep. Extremely notable. Anyways, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is an illegitimate guideline that most people do not even agree with.--Innerroads (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)— Innerroads (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet, see SSP
• Keep - Per above --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep RJH has added sources. Edward321 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edward321. Rray 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this stub fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this stock character. Call him Thorhammer, Battlehammer or Wolfhammer, fictional characters like this have no real world notability other than he gets +15 attack points[20]. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - That assessment is incorrect on at least three points; a) It is not a stub, for, from WP:STUB a stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text... [...] Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing." b) A main character of a large number of hugely notable books cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered merely a stock character; it's obvious a heaping helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is coloring your vision here from the somewhat contemptuous tone you have employed. c) The notability guideline requires common sense in order to properly determine whether or not a character is presumed notable; it does not require the depth of sources you are culling from WP:FICT, particularly since a guideline can never trump a policy. If it seems I am repeating myself here, at least I'm not copying-and-pasting (yet). ◄Zahakiel► 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fair Comments but misguided. There is little real world content in this article, nor any real-world context, analysis or critism. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but here the plot summary has become the topic. Only reliable secondary sources can establish notability under WP Guidelines. Stip away the in universe perspective, and there is insufficient content for a stub. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - I understand you believe that, and this has been the fuel for this run of AfDs. I think it's a mostly valid viewoint, but at its heart it's incorrect, and this is why we disagree so often in these discussions. The statement that "Only reliable secondary sources can establish notability under WP Guidelines" is not only untrue, but insufficient in this (and almost every other) case of the discussions we've been involved with so far. In the first place, it is untrue because the guideline (WP:N for our purposes) uses independent, third-party sources as one means by which to presume notability. The claim is often made that the works in which these characters appear are insufficient because they are not "independent;" I don't buy that, because we find multiple authors contributing to a number of resources with no particular interest in furthering the salability of the specific objects/characters in question. We aren't talking about a product or a website, and at best the "independent" argument is a gray area. Further still, I consider it a rather silly argument in the case of WP:FICT, because fact-checking (the impetus behind the need for independence of source) is hardly an issue as the characters are defined within that written work itself. The more likely the claims are to be controversial, the more strictly the independent, third-party guideline needs to be applied (note the "occasional exception" and "common sense" clauses; it indicates that there are times when it need not be so rigidly applied as you're insisting - and the very articles for which you tend to recommend deletion are the ones for which these clauses were included). Making blanket statements about fictional characters is recognized in Wikipedia as being insufficient to delete (or even, often, merge) articles by more than the mere denizens of fandom, myself included.

Secondly, it is insufficient not only historically (the low success rate of these AfDs that I've alluded to before) but policy-wise. I respect the guidelines as much as any other editor, but I realize that the reason these are not policies is because they are insufficient on their own to guide the criteria for deletion and inclusion. What we have here is your belief that this information is "marginal," and because it's not important to you, guidelines should be applied as policies, and policies (if they did exist, which they don't) should be used as a club to beat Wikipedia into the shape you believe it should take. That's basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I've said before. It looks like it conforms to the policies and guidelines, but that's more by coincidence than by design. Probably, some of these AfDs put up are going to succeed, but that seems at this point like it will be a luck of the draw based upon others who share your views, rather than the mounting consensus (a policy) that strengthens with every article of this type that is kept. As I said in more than one previous AfD, there comes a point when Notability may be safely presumed (without "harm" to Wikipedia) by common sense based upon widespread reader base, and various other elements that exist here. As far as the deletion nominations, we can keep doing this as long as you like, I suppose... but it is getting a little old. ◄Zahakiel► 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Has not established notability, which it must to be kept. Judgesurreal777 18:47, 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 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infantry Lua

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

This seems to be about scripting some sort of game, but it's far more of a reference manual then an actual article. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and that includes a guide to scripting the game. — PyTom (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Random chunks of code, not sure exactly how to classify but breaks WP:NOT, probably under WP:NOT#GUIDE. Even if rewritten, subject appears to be non-notable. Doctorfluffy 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How is this still open? ([21]??) Should probably be relisted. Rocket000 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weird. I tried using TW to list this, a long time ago. — PyTom (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete weird... I'm not totally sure if this is some sort of implementation of Lua (programming language) or something completely different. Either way, since there's no claim of notability I think it could be speedied, saving us the debate of which part of WP:NOT it fails. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as... well, I'm not sure exactly what this is, but it sure as heck isn't an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 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 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverbose Records

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

Non-notable record label. No assertion that any of its artists are notable. I don't see anything here that meets WP:MUSIC. Most if not all Google hits seem to be self-generated advertisement. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related articles:

Stepford Five (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A New Design for Living (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

MESH (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Art of Self-Defense (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dougie WII (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All: Not much here for Reverbose Records other than simple mentioning's. As for the others, the band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, specifically this section. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all for failing WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The label does not appear to meet WP:CORP and the bands do not appear to meet WP:BAND. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:29, 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. Comment: Despite quite a lot of back and forth and shifting consensus, comparison of the article from when it first came to this AfD and now [22] clearly shows a massively improved article. Pigman☿ 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayne Mansfield in popular culture

Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - previous AFD closed no consensus and in the intervening months there has been no attempt whatsoever to address the problems. The article remains an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items which have no commonality beyond happening to include the words "Jayne Mansfield" in some capacity. There is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence. This does not mean that a list of every time someone says "Jayne Mansfield" on TV or in a book is encyclopedic. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a unifying element. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —Becksguy (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Songs that sing the praise of Mansfield, a book that has her as a character, a film character who plays her character... and a lots reference to the highlights of her life and career (i.e. breasts and the accident). Someone said Jayne Mansfield? Well, I didn't hear someone saying Otto4711 or Aditya as often in popular culture. Have you noticed that a lot of "In popular culture..." articles are laid out in list-form? Obviously, the binding factors are the subjects of those articles (check Absinthe in popular culture for an acute example). You would be very right if you said the article is very underdeveloped. Yes it is. People have not got around to developing it much. But, I am sure we are not going to delete all the stub and start class articles right away. Are we? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is anyone suggesting that all stub or start class articles be deleted? No? Then why bring that up when it has no relevance? As for a comparison to the absinthe article, the existence of that or any other article does not justify the existence of this article. Nor does the number of times any other person is referred to in popular culture. Untold numbers of Lists of songs about... have been deleted so that portion of the list is even more suspect. The point still stands that if the only thing that these things have in common is mentioning Jayne Mansfield's name then they bear absolutely no encyclopedic relationship to each other. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• It is a fallacy to suggest that we should keep this article because Jayne Mansfield is mentioned more often in popular culture than two Wikipedia editors. Whether or not all the bulleted items in this article relate to a single object (JM, in this example) is irrelevant because, at the end of the day, they are still an unconnected list of random facts which meet the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Selectively merge back into Jayne Mansfield, and preserve the rest of the information collected here on a subpage of the talk page (and make a link on Talk:Jayne Mansfield to let editors know it is there) for the future reference.

  As I see it, these things turn into lists because too many editors are intimidated from using their own brains by overbroad readings of WP:SYN. IMO it would be perfectly acceptable to add running text to the Jayne Mansfield article that uses this material. ("Jayne Mansfield's breasts were made the subject of humor in . . . . (citations to those appearances follow). Her death in an automobile accident is alluded to in a number of books and films, including. . . . (citations follow)"). Any guideline that pretends to prohibit analytical ways of dealing with the material is no guideline at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reasons I gave earlier this season. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

GRC, as that closed no consensus, some people still ned convincing, so so some further argument would be helpful. DGG (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Smerdis of Tlön only what is currently sourced. Everything else could go to the talkpage pending sourcing and verification. I really see no good reason to split this out from the main article, but especially not in an poorly sourced and arranged list.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - no extra value found in this entry, better to merge it in Jayne Mansfield--NAHID 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "One of the great american iconic sex figures, used as a symbol in a notable way. The suggestion to turn this into text is a good one, but it can and should be done in this very article, since there is enough content. sourcing is needed in any case, and equally should be possible--the requirement is sourceable, not sourced. First i ever heard of "added value" as a concept in notability. DGG (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Her notability justifies an article about her. It does not justify a list of every time her name is mentioned in any medium. Otto4711 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Jayne Mansfield or, if this is not possible, Delete. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Indiscriminate collection of unrelated facts? Indeed. Most, if not all, "In popular culture..." articles would be that, by the standard of the nomination here. The Absynthe article was just an example, if you want more you are obviously welcome to the category page. A category of articles may have one set of standards (if it doesn't disagree with core standards) which may not be measured by another categories standards. Will someone then try questioning the entire category instead of hitting on one particular article? The argument of deleting stub and start class articles came to question the reasoning that the article have not developed since the last nomination.

"This article haven't developed fast enough" can't be a reason for deletion. If "there is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence", then the article needs to be developed, not deleted. It is a fallacy to start deleting articles on copywriting quality or format (list or prose). It also shows a not-good intention to find out a weak spot in another person's argument and using it to render that person's entire argument invalid. Though it is more preferable to have prose over lists, I really don't see how this list is of unconnected facts. Since this doesn't fail notability, or neutrality, and has the scope for appropriate verification. Please, read WP:NOT#INFO beyond the header, and find out that it holds nothing against this articles. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've read WP:NOT#IINFO from the start all the way through to the end, so no need for your condescension, thanks. It is a list of unconnected facts because the mention of the two words "Jayne Mansfield" do not create an encyclopedic relationship between every two items in which the two words appear. Not really all that complicated of a concept, really. And you continue, speaking of reading comprehension, to respond as if the reason this article is up for deletion is because it hasn't "developed fast enough" when nothing like that has been said. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Are suggesting that it should not contain stuff that quotes "Jayne" and "Mansfield" in succession? Songs and movies and books that explicitly makes reference to JM are random facts, and does not make for material enough to make an article? [[WP:NOT#IINFO explicitly explains what it means by "random information":

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions

2. Descriptions of fictional works (not when they are the sole content of an article)

3. Lyrics databases (the article may not consist solely of the lyrics)

4. Statistics

5. News reports (Routine news coverage... not sufficient basis for an article)

Since, you have quoted the policy in your nomination, would you explain, please, which part the article fails? You have agreed yourself that "there is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence", then what makes it unworthy? Poor quality of the article? What? By the way, I have never said or implied "reading comprehension". I was just trying to find out what led you to a sesond nomination. May be it's not - "It haven't developed fast". But, it can't be "random facts" either. JM isn't random, her impact and memorability isn't random, making references to her isn't random, and acknowledging those references isn't random. What is? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you're selectivity reading that policy and citing only the parts which you think support your argument. There has already been extensive discussion on what to do with "...in popular culture" articles and this one falls within the cycle mentioned in that essay. This material should never have been forked from Jayne Mansfield in the first place and certainly should never have been placed in a bulleted list and then abandoned by its creators.

I think if you actually read the policies that have been cited in this nomination you will agree that this one fails all of them. Instead of continuing to debate whether or not this is true (and thereby prolonging this already lengthy and litiguous discussion) you can consent to have the article merged, retain the material and work on integrating it into Jayne Mansfield with proper citations. This would not only benefit the people in this discussion, but also the community at large and the readers of this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since, I presume, you have actually read the policy to arrive at the decision, as opposed to "selectively reading and citing", that "this one fails all of them", I hope you will be willing to forward some of the points that fail it. And, I am sure you have read through the link you've provided to describe my behavior is about the principle of policies. I hope you can tell me how agreeing to the fact that JM has enormous pop culture impact, and then quoting the same policy twice in the same sentence without making the point explicit keeps the principle high. The forking was done to keep the article size (already needing a bit of pruning) under control, which is the first suggestion of the other essay you quote.

And, I really must draw your attention to a simple fact - this is not a merging discussion, it is a deletion discussion. Therefore, all my arguments are against deletion, not remotely against merging. Apart from driving up the article size, I have nothing against a merge, not even a selective merge. Finally, as this debate is really going against civility (I am already facing charges of prolonging the debate, being litigious and working against the benefit of the project and the community, to quote a few legal terms used here), I guess this is going to be my last post on this page. Go ahead, and have it your way. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment (I was asked to come here, so I think voting would be inappropriate) I've witnessed a few "in popular culture" AfD's and normally the ones which get deleted are the lists - the survivors (e.g. this one) are usually rewritten as prose. If you really want this to stay, it'll have to be converted to prose form to boost its chances. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article has essentially been completely rewritten by Aditya Kabir. Please check it out. The main thrust of my arguments in the last AfD, and in this one, is that the article was not/is not a collection of "trivia", rather it is a article (originally as a list, now in prose) of selected and related items that show Jayne's impact on current pop culture over two generations later, for example in the blockbuster TV show Seinfeld, in a graphic way that a simple statement cannot. In fact, sometimes lists are preferred. It was never an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items that happened to have her name attached to them. I believe that characterization was a misapplication, misunderstanding, or honest disagreement, as the terms used in the guidelines are so subjective than good faith editors can, and often do, have differing viewpoints about what is and what is not trivia. One man's freedom fighter is another's insurgent, as it were. To me, it was never trivia, it was encyclopedic, and it's loss would be a loss for WP and it's readers. There is more than sufficient sources available, including academic ones, to support this article. Furthermore, and more importantly, an article needing improvement is not an article needing deletion. That should be the sixth pillar of WP. I do not understand the apparent anti-trivia crusade (or against what some editors perceive as "trivia") within WP, as "x in popular culture" and similar sections/articles were one of the reasons I came here as a reader before becoming an editor. That added the "spice" to an otherwise bookish article. And, there is no policy that disallows such content, per se. I have no objection to merging this with the main article, in fact I would prefer it, but a merge !vote is sometimes seen as a delete vote, I think. And it will be easier now, having been recast. — Becksguy (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with this article (and all others like it) is that the material doesn't need to be forked. If it's notable enough already, it should be incorporated into the main body of the article it was originally derived from. By definition, crap that accumulates in trivia and "...in popular culture" sections isn't notable enough for the article itself. It's like adding a gigantic PS to the article with all of the useless minutae that didn't make the cut for the original article. I believe this is almost universally true for all pop culture articles and sections.

Further, if we begin to accomodate such lists, they will attract more and more trivial items until we have to fork popular culture articles into "Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (TV)" and so on. This is an encyclopedia, it is not a storybook or an almanac of everything to ever happen in the history of mankind. We should strive to remove unencyclopedic content and improve what isn't so that Wikipedia can continue to maintain its accessibility and readibility well into the future. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• that it might get worse is not reason for deleting it. Any WP article could. Many of them do. They all need watching. DGG (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update: The article has gone through massive changes, though there's still a need for nifty copyediting. Would you people take a look again? I wanted to stay away from this silly discussion where people are arguing that an article needs to be deleted because "it could get worse", instead of arguing that it needs to be kept because "it could get better". Well, I hope, it got better this time against some abysmal pessimism. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody is making that claim. This article needs to be deleted so that the material can be reincorporated into Jayne Mansfield. Your edits have made it easier by converting the lists to prose so that any editor may copy and paste the most important sections of this article into that one and delete the rest. Cumulus Clouds 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• For instance, I have moved a portion of this article into the relevant section of the main article. With community consent, I will do this to the rest of the remaining sections and leave the rest for deletion. Cumulus Clouds 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per The Heymann Standard. This article is so different now than it was when it was nominated and so well-referenced that the nominator's deletion rationale no longer has any relevance to the current article. DHowell 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment [split into parts]

1. Actually this IPC article was split out of the main article because of space considerations there, as a result of a discussion. So, no, it is not a collection of trivia that is not notable enough to be in the main article. And the idea that it could be a trivia magnet is not a reason to delete.

2. From what I see, the deleters don't seem to be responding to the main thrust of the keep arguments here and in the previous AfD, and also now in the article (all incorporated here by reference): This is not trivia. It's extremely well cited cultural references that support the central assertion of her phenomenal impact on pop culture. An impact so great that it transcends generations. Aditya, DGG, Tvoz, myself, and others have offered sound and valid arguments, and even unimpeachable academic sources, that attest to that fact. Yet the main deletion argument appears to only refer to the lack of a unifying element, and claim that these are unrelated items only connected by the mention of her name. And also mostly ignoring the undeniable evidence of her phenomenal impact on pop culture today. That is the unifying element, not that her name happened to be mentioned in each instance. In other words, it's backwards, as it's not trivia riding on her coattails (or inheriting her notability), rather these notable and sourced references support her notability and social impact on pop culture.

3. Even the nominator, in his nomination statement referred to her "...pop culture presence". DGG said in the first AfD: " Most of the individual items mentioned are highly significant works by notable artists, and their use of this particular symbol is because it is generally culturally recognized as important." The article has 57 citations at this point, including several academic ones.

4. If this article was about some essentially unknown actress and listed every thing she ever appeared in or was mentioned in, I would agree to delete (and I have done so in other AfDs). I even completely agree with the removal of this reference to Hatta Mari diff by Cumulus Clouds, as it's wasn't notable enough.

5. This second AfD is destructive to Wikipedia in that it wastes all our time and energy that we all could have spent improving the article (or other articles), as described in WP:IPC. And the first AfD came out only two days after this article was forked. Aditya actually did the most sensible thing here by spending all that energy and time rewriting and sourcing the article with phenomenal success. Something we all could learn from.

6. I have no problem if the content is merged, but only if that merge includes all the content. Any further discussions about merging, integrating or rewriting the content should then take place on the talk page as part of the normal reflective editorial consensus process, rather than here in an highly pressured AfD deadline driven environment that affect all the editors involved in this debate. Otherwise, Keep.

Thank you. — Becksguy 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because the revisions that Aditya has made to this article make much of that information more valuable than it had been in bulleted form, I propose that we begin to merge, with the consent of all concerned parties, that information back into Jayne Mansfield. This will make the original article longer, but I feel that the material will enhance the value of that article enough to override any concerns about length. Material that is disputed as irrelevant or unneeded will be discussed at Talk:Jayne_Mansfield_in_popular_culture and upon reaching consensus, will either be moved or retained in the popular culture article. All the remaining content will then be placed up for deletion at an AfD and editors can voice their concerns about retaining the leftover material there. I volunteer to work with Aditya in executing this merge. Cumulus Clouds 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Amen to that. But, I'd still like to have the biography article (Jayne Mansfield) and the cultural impact article (Jayne Mansfield in popular culture) separate, and develop both articles. One article may not have space enough for the cultural phenomenon that we know as JM. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

one way or the other, it's an editing question (as is the use of list vs. paragraph format). This should never have come here at all, and what is necessary to do is to simply keep it, and let those interested in the subject work on it. DGG (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, DGG. — Becksguy 09:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - I have often argued for the retention of "popular culture" articles, because they are a repository for every inane literary, film, etc. reference to the subject, though largely NN. In this case, the article has been culled of the muddle. What is left looks like a substantial article, but not one that is distictly different from that on Jayne Mansfield. I would suggest that the material on her post-death reputation should become a new section at the end of her main article, possibly followed by a "popular culture" section with a few inane items, so that the kind of editor who enjoys collecting minor literary references will add them there rather than to what I hope will by them be a well written article. I know little of the subject and am thus not volunteering. Peterkingiron 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Peterkingiron.--NAHID 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG or Merge as proposed. Bearian 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Another confrontation between mergist and splittist Wikipedians? If we start following the merge logic here - "if it is notable enough it could be merged into the Jayne Mansfield article" - then a lot more could follow. Like, if the information in the Jayne Mansfield article is found to be notable enough it could erged into the Hollywood article, then the Hollywood article could be merged into the Film article... and so on. Something seems to be fundamentally wrong here, like probably "I don't like this article" or something. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why we have WP:SIZE. Merge and split debates should be about individual merits. There is a general trend against "in popular culture" articles, (more of a deletionist movement than a mergist one). I don't like it isn't sufficient grounds for deletion (if it was there'd be no articles on politics or religion by the end of the week), but it does crop up unsurprisingly often in AfD debates. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Totnesmartin's comment about WP:SIZE, as that's the reason this IPC article was split off, and especially about individual merits. I'm also concerned about what I see as deletionism generally as a trend away from improving some articles through normal consensus based editing, although I can see that there are editors that believe they are improving WP by doing so (WP:AGF). I will defer to Aditya's sense of space considerations and desirability for having two articles, the main Jayne Mansfield article and this one, as this editor is the primary editor for this article, and is a major contributor to the mother article, and therefore knows the subject better than most of us, I think. So this is to confirm that my !vote is still a Strong Keep despite my comments on merging. And my main concern is still to preserve all of the content in this IPC article, for reasons expressed before. There is zero consensus for deletion at this point, and I seriously doubt any will develop so close to the end of the AfD discussion period. The consensus seems roughly split between Keep and Merge, although I believe the keep arguments are more persuasive. I urge Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 16:31, 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. Carioca 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queenstown Rovers

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

Nothing more than a single sentence definition and an external link. Rtphokie (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Queenstown Rovers play in the second flight of soccer in NZ, and as such are notable. I shall attempt to enlarge the article. BTW, why is there no AFD notice on its page? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Grutness. However, I am concerned that they don't play in a national competition but the sources uncovered by Grutness have allayed my concerns to some extent. Capitalistroadster (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply/comment. In NZ soccer there is only one national division, after which there are four regional leagues for the upper and lower North Island and upper and lower South Island. The league that QR are in is the top flight of one of these four leagues - as such it is level two of NZ soccer, and Queenstown Rovers would therefore rank in the country's top 50 or so teams. Also, the article mentions Queenstown Rovers' participation in the Chatham Cup, which is a national competition. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Grutness. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Grutness...wha? 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough in NZ to keep. They're probably far more notable than a lot of the lower-league English clubs who have stubs. Peanut4 (talk) 11:28, 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 Redirects are cheap, be bold and try one yourself. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life

Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a copy of the article Foundation for Family and Life, created by Verymuch2000 to create a distinction with the mainstream organization Couples for Christ. Click here and here to understand why Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life should only be referred to as Foundation for Family and Life. Jedjuntereal (talk) 14:00, 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 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maleflixxx Television

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

This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: There's no reason at all to delete. It provides enough information on the article, it's notable, it provides references from many sources all of which are independent and reliable, there is no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails N, zero reliable sources found. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is verifiable against WP:RS's provided. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources look good enough to me for a stub. It will improve eventually. Mangojuice^talk 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak Delete There's no doubt this is an existing TV channel, but my concern is with notability. digitalspy.co.uk, gay.com and gaywired.com posted about the launch of the channel in 2004 - most of it reading like a press release. That's not really what I understand as notability by independent sources. --Minimaki (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources: Viacom going up against them: [23] and AVN calling them as a leader in the gay VOD market with international reach [24]. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The variety.com article does mention it, and AVN has an article about it - which does weaken my concerns - changed vote above accordingly. Still a delete for now, as I'm not sure how much an article on AVN proves. --Minimaki 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

None of those are press releases, all of them are independent reliable sources. If you think those are press releases then you obviously don't understand the difference between the two. And if that is the bases of your argument, then your argument should be rendered void. MusiMax (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was a bit unclear, and you overlooked the word like when I said like press releases. In any case, to clarify, no, I did not think they are press releases - just that they read similar. From what I remember they all were from a day after the launch and did not contain anything besides information taken from the press release, which is not surprising as there was of course not much more info available yet. And very likely, those sites report the launch of all those channels, so it didn't convince me as being notable. --Minimaki 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But they don't even read like a press release either, yes they may take their info from a press release and then create a news article from that, but that's just how it works, everyone does it, they have to get their facts and info from somewhere and then create a news article using that info. And they also don't create an article on every channel either, they pick and choose what they think is important and what their readers would like to know about. MusiMax 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The television station is notable enough, and is verifiable through reliable sources. RFerreira 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Cable channel with national distribution = notable. Keep. Bearcat 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearcat. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Have to agree with Bearcat on this one. It's a national cable channel. It's inherently notable. Skeezix1000 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Bearcat. Jeffpw 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearcat as inherently notable. Also per Musimax, Mangojuice, and the other keep rationale as notable with sources. — Becksguy 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)