Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no prejudice towards recreation should WP:ORG guidelines be met. henrik•talk 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford River Cruises

Oxford River Cruises (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable DimaG (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A google search provides more than 1,000 results.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Seems to be a legitimate, notable topic, but the article is written by a first-time author (possible COI?) and needs some work. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Only a Weak keep - this looks like a company on the lower limits of notablility. If kept it needs a link to an external websiteat the vedry least. Peterkingiron 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there's one press release regarding the claimed "green" award and a one-page feature in the Daily Mail that isn't about the cruise company but really about the places on the tour. That's it... I don't see multiple independent reliable sources asserting WP:ORG notability. — Scientizzle 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm in Oxford, and believe me they are not notable outside of Oxford and even in Oxford they're hardly well known. RMHED 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - if that "green award" is notable, should be kept. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Tourism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 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 Keep...it's not often you see a deletion debate where (essentially) only the article creator wants the article deleted... — Scientizzle 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isidor Sauers

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

I, the author-- in good faith-- request deletion of this article. Winick88 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G7 (author requests deletion), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably doesn't meet the criteria - there have been a considerable number of edits to the page by other editors. Having said that, I'll support a delete, since notability is probably below borderline for this one. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as Google Scholar shows multiple publications, but only one has as many as a couple dozen citations. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROFTEST. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Inadequate article. But he';s notable. The article neglected to mention that he has 60 peer-reviewed publications over many years, on many related subjects, both theoretical and practical. The most cited was in Journal of Chemical Physics, 88 times. -- I've added it. A notable career. Obviously, if it were just the single patent, it wouldn't be notable. But even GS shows more than that--15 entries. DGG (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on material added by DGG. Hal peridol (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the article. Winick88 (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that one editor cannot vouch for the accuracy of the article is not grounds for deletion. It would help if you explained why you changed your mind on the necessity of this article; given the number of bad reasons to delete an article, it couldn't hurt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep; DGG does seem to show some notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He meets criterium 3 for academic notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:BIO now based on recent changes to the article. RFerreira 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per DGG. The article production and citation rates would be rather modest if this were in the life sciences, but I guess it is different in this field. --Crusio 12:08, 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. — Scientizzle 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Sheker S.L.P.

Vincent Sheker S.L.P. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nn, the assertions of notability - weak as they may be - are unsourced and cannot be confirmed; "vincent sheker" gets 9 ghits, a few of which are wiki mirrors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom; also, retired at 22? Really? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This article is a spam. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing worth keeping here. Tim Ross·^talk 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error-correcting codes with feedback

Error-correcting codes with feedback (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, not encyclopedic, reads like somebody's term paper Torc2 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• week keep the article with a bit of work could be turned into a decent article or at least a stub. There is certainly an extensive literature on the subject from a variety of different authors.[1] --Salix alba (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you add any evidence of notability specifically for this topic? Torc2 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No opinion. Yes it's original reasearch, although possibly peer reviewed, and in any case related to the author's PhD thesis. It is a chapter of a Springer book: Coding with Feedback and Searching with Lies. User Cdeppe, probably the author Christian Deppe, copied original LaTeX source code for a few paragraphs from that chapter into Wikipedia. Very likely he had heard that LaTeX markup works in Wikipedia and gave up when it turned out to be slightly more complicated. If there had been an obvious way for him to delete the article I suppose he would have done it himself. Since it's from a survey paper it might in principle make sense to spend the effort needed to wikify it. But under the circumstances I wouldn't trust that the author actually had the right to publish this excerpt under GFDL. I am not sure about the usual procedures. It should not be deleted in a way that makes it harder to create the page again. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (I changed my recommendation. I thought that the best use of editing resources would be to remove this and start the article from scratch when another expert becomes interested. While most arguments for keeping don't really convince me, on second thought it makes some sense to attract experts by keeping this article and linking it from error correcting codes. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
  • It's NOT original research if it's been published in a peer-reviewed forum outside of Wikipedia first. "Original research", for the purposes of Wikipedia's policy forbidding it, is findings posted initially on Wikipedia that have not appeared first in refereed publications. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is. WP:COS and WP:NOT#OR specifically say this. Torc2 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No. Those say that even published authors can't write on their own knowledge without citations, but this is from a peer-reviewed book and so specifically not OR. I can't recall if the book is explicitly cited (it probably should be), but that's an editing issue not an OR issue. As to the article, I have no opinion at this time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge." - I think it's pretty clear that this is saying 'don't just copy and paste something you published, write about it,' and it's only permissible to cite the article. We can debate whether or not that meets the definition of the phrase "original research", but it's clear that it's the Wiki policy on original research is what covers this. Torc2 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • It says to publish it first before putting it on Wikipedia. Meaning wikipedia is not the primary venue for your research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author taking his own work and putting it up for GFDL. Everyone who clicks the "Save Page" button does precisely this. I hate to pull out this card, but you don't understand what original research means.
            
            You also seem to expect that a new article be perfect. Let me prove you absolutely wrong. Consider Richard III (1955 film). I started the article three years ago as a one-liner stub. It took 18 months but it achieved featured article status. By no means do you give up and delete an article just because it's not feature material. It's all the more reason to edit and improve it! Cburnett (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I understand what the WP:OR policy means, which is more relevant to this AfD. I also can comprehend unambiguous statements like the one I posted above; if you have an alternate interpretation of the rule I quoted that doesn't ignore the word "about" or interpret the word "cite" as "reprint", I'd be happy to hear it. And no, I don't expect a new article to be perfect, but I do expect one that's supposedly important and notable not to be totally orphaned and in the horrendous state this one was 75 days after it was created. As for Richard III (1955 film), ignoring the changes in policy and the amount of traffic Wikipedia has picked up since 2005, I would point out that your article effectively asserted its notability in a single line, was improved by others within a week, and was already linked to by another article before its creation. Comparing this topic to that article really don't really form a strong argument for keeping this. And I'm not giving up on this article because it's never going to be feature article material; I gave up because the article is unencyclopedic and doesn't assert or even seem to meet WP:N. It might be worth a line or two in another article, but it's not stand-alone material. Torc2 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
              • May I suggest that you stop this discussion, which really leads nowhere, and that we try to get a consense on the other open questions instead? I hereby excuse for having started this distraction by my unfortunate choice of words. Perhaps I shouldn't post in the middle of the night. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
              • (Actually, another article linked to it before it existed because I linked it as I was disambiguating.) What you quoted says is this: "If A, publish A, and then A can be on wikipedia." It makes no differentiation between "publish" and "write about it", only that you can't publish to wikipedia as your primary venue. Period. The prose style used in a thesis or book is rarely in-tune with how wikipedia articles are written, but like I said right below is that {{cleanup}} is the way to handle such articles, not deletion. Cburnett 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
                • • (No, Laurence Olivier had a redlink for the movie long before; that's what I was referring to. It might not have been formatted exactly the same, but coverage of the topic was expected before the article's creation, which is the point of this.) I still think you're ignoring the actual text written to suit an interpretation of the rule that favors keeping this article. Torc2 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • I hate repeating myself. It says "If A, publish A, and then A can be on wikipedia" but the details of the wording doesn't matter as the spirit is this: wikipedia is not the primary venue of publishing, which this is not such a case. Cburnett 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • You're still ignoring the rest of the text. It does say Wikipedia is not the primary venue of publishing, but that's not all it says, and that is not the limit of the policy. With the number of eyes on any that policy, the wording is not haphazard and incidental: it means what the words say. WP:COS: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." This article doesn't have a single citation. Not one.Torc2 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The poster of the chapter is reasonably believed to be the author (cdeppe == Christian Deppe) and so posting the content means the author put it up for GFDL. This is not the place to determine if the author still retained copyright or not. AFD is a bad answer for poorly/non-encyclopedic writing, that's what {{cleanup}} and regular editing is for. Cburnett (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  What in that article could you keep? The examples would have to go, and there's nothing notable about the concept in the article. The whole thing violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. I would have edited it if there was a single thing salvageable and notable for Wikipedia. Torc2 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • • Why would the examples have to go? You need to answer that if you want us to take that assertion seriously. Nothing notable in the concept? "Guide"?? It doesn't read like a textbook or how-to manual, and it's at least as notable as most articles on information theory or mathematics generally. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It certainly doesn't assert notability. It has no sources or citations given and seemed to be, as has been established, just copied from elsewhere. "Alfréd Rényi reported the following story about the Jew Bar Kochba in 135 CE, who defended his fortress against the Romans" isn't any way to start off an encyclopedic example, and "Throughout this paper we shall call Carole and Paul the two players. This idea goes back to Spencer, who also explained: Paul corresponds to Paul Erd\"os, who always asked questions and Carole corresponds to an ORACLE, whose answers need to be wisely evaluated" isn't any way to end one. The first paragraph doesn't even tell the reader what the topic actually is. If it's so notable, why does "Error-correcting codes with feedback" and "Error-correcting codes with noiseless feedback" return a combined 25 Ghits? If it's so important, why is this article completely orphaned? Torc2 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Lots of articles on notable topics are completely orphaned when they're first created. Many of mine certainly were. An experienced Wikipedian immediately asks himself "Which articles should link to the one I just created?", then creates those links. The particular newbie Wikipedian we're looking at doesn't yet know that that should be done. And I get 389 google hits with the title of the article in quotation marks. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • So you're saying that in the two-and-a-half months after this article, not one experienced editor looked and this and saw a need to integrate it into Wiki as a whole, yet the topic is critically notable? Are there any secondary sources that assert notability? Can you add them to the article and cite them? Torc2 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
            • You do get the inherit catch with your position? You can't get experienced editors to look at it if it's not linked; it's not linked because no experienced users have looked at it. Personally, I won't touch it until this AFD is done with to avoid having my time "deleted". Cburnett 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
              • No catch. If the topic was so critically important enough that it has to stay, an experienced editor would have run across it in a search in the 75 days since its creation, and would have at least linked to it from one outside source or added a reference. Your contributions could help save the article by addressing the citation, notability, and copyright issues raised here, but I guess you don't think it's important enough to warrant your efforts either. I'm perfectly willing to back off my AfD if somebody could establish notability beyond adding the words "it's notable" to the AfD, add the necessary references and citations, explain why the article couldn't be reduced to a few lines in another article such as Error detection and correction. I mean, it's entirely possible that this is a notable topic, but there's nothing in the article (or this AfD) that proves it, or indicates that it is notable enough for a separate article in Wikipedia. It might be mildly or moderately important within the world of information theory, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for its own article in Wiki. Is it referred to by a more common name elsewhere? Why would a common Wiki user want to know about this subject? Torc2 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
                • You are the only one asserting anything resembling "critical notability"...whatever that means so stopping stating it as that's my — or anyone but your's — assertion. "common wiki user" is meaningless. Just because music is your deal doesn't mean you have to understand why someone would want to read about ECC w/feedback or feedback vertex sets. Cburnett 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • Asserting notability is one of the requirements of WP:N, not something I made up. The article has to do this; my background is irrelevant to the fact that the article simply does not. Please do not make this personal, since it certainly is not about that. Torc2 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. If Renyi, Shannon, and Ulam thought it was notable, then it's notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is notable, and the chances are that every one that posted here made use of technology that used this conecpt. The examples are valid in order to develop the concept, although I think the text needs a better introduction, since the reader is not necessarily committed to read the whole article, but may want a quick explaination up front. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it notable? What technologies require this concept? The article needs to address these questions if it's to assert notability. Torc2 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If the concept is notable, why does searching for the article title on Google return almost no hits aside from the Wiki article itself? Is there anything about this that couldn't be summed up in one or two lines on the Error detection and correction or some other article? Torc2 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The article title in quotation marks (exact match) returns 389 google hits. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I just double-checked the search and still got 15 results. That aside, 389 really isn't much better. Torc2 (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Take out "num=100" like this. 389. Cburnett (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I just did the search (using your link and opening Google from scratch) from a totally different computer in a different city and got 15 links. I don't know why. If I click to show duplicates I still only get 38. In any case 15 vs. 389 for links is a pretty trivial difference.Torc2 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I think that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable that it can be included. I am not sure that I fully understand the notability criteria in their application to scientific topics (is there no extra guideline on this?), but in any case if this article doesn't meet them then they have to be changed. Otherwise a scientific encyclopedia would inevitably be forked off Wikipedia. I get the 389 Google hits for "Error correcting codes with feedback". (And without drastic measures like reducing search to the US I can't reproduce anything like Torc2's numbers.) Considering that the phrase "regular polytope" (a former featured article) gets 11,400 that's not at all bad. We can't expect Associated Press to have an article on "Error correcting codes with feedback" once a year. Even if journalists did write about the topic they would very likely not use the exact phrase, judging it unacceptable for a general audience. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
              • I just did the search using google.co.uk and got 393 hits initially; however, when I went to the next page, the sites found reduced back to 15 total. I also return 277,000 Ghits for "regular polytope". Torc2 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
                • I see now. Yes, it's the same for me, except I get only 11 (2 don't count because they refer to the Wikipedia article). But it's the same for "regular polytope." First you have to use the quotes to make it comparable: 11,300 hits. Then you have to click several times to get to the last results. Once you are there the number of hits is reduced to 370. It's still approximately the same ratio, 35, i.e. 1 1/2 orders of magnitude. Which is not at all much. My points were: 1. Low Google counts alone are not sufficient to come to a conclusion in an area where all Google counts are relatively low. 2. Long phrases and technical terminology are often covered somewhere without being mentioned literally. – But since I am not particularly interested in the outcome for this article I will now unwatch this page and concentrate on adding some content to Wikipedia, instead of participating further in a long discussion about whether or not because someone spent five minutes adding a copy of an original source we now have to preserve and expand it. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Regardless, the search litmus test doesn't assert verifiability as there are plenty of sources not indexed by the masterful google. Cburnett 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You still get pretty good results by searching "Error-correcting codes" feedback or even "Error-correcting codes * feedback". CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but that begs the question of whether or not this topic could better be served by a section or mention in either error detection and correction or feedback. I'm really interested in whether or not "error-correcting codes with feedback" as a distinct concept is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Honestly, I can't tell if the title refers to an object (i.e. error-correcting codes that include feedback) or a technique (i.e. using feedback to error-correct codes). For that matter, "noiseless" seems to be a key component, so why isn't that in the article name? Torc2 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No reasonable argument for deletion has been put forward. -- Dominus 14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. R.e.b.'s point below about the copyright issue is important. The article content should be replaced with something unobjectionable. -- Dominus 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the book chapter by Deppe is a survey article, covering work by Spencer, Ulam, etc., this suggests the subject is notable. There are also other surveys on this and related subjects, such as Searching with lies by Ray Hill, published in Surveys in Combinatorics 1995 (ISBN 0-521-49797-3). The article does need rewriting, categorising, to be linked to, and possibly also a better title, but I'm not sure what to suggest for one. The comments about original research are irrelevent: even if it is largely following Deppe's paper, as that's a survey it's reporting the work of others, so wouldn't be OR in any case. The google hits are also not particularly relevent: lack of google hits does not mean something is not notable, especially if there is more than one search term related to the topic. (If anyone wants to, they could google "Renyi-Ulam game" or "Ulam's searching game" instead.) Finally, the fact that it's lain untouched for a while is probably because very little links to it, so no-one had found it to do anything with it. --RFBailey 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Why not ad that reference to the article itself instead of just mentioning it here? Once this AfD closes, that reference will be lost. Also, what search term or terms would most commonly be used for this topic? Would "Renyi-Ulam game" make a better article name? Torc2 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a well written introduction to an important and interesting topic, and is not OR. Unfortunately the copyright problem is more serious than people realize. It's a copy of a chapter in a book presumably contributed by the chapter's author. However according to the front of the book, the copyright is held not by the author, but by the Janos Bolyai mathematical society and Springer Verlag, so the author seems to have no right to post his own writing. (This is not a joke: in at least one legal case an author was sued by his publisher for posting his own book on the web.) I doubt the math society would object to its posting, but Springer might well do as they are trying to sell permission to view their own posted copy of the article. R.e.b. 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if this problem can be solved by a suitable paraphrase. On many occasions people have posted material they've learned from a book and included a reference to the book. If it's deleted on copyright grounds then someone would have to replace it with another article of the same title covering more-or-less the same material. Michael Hardy 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, a paraphrase would obviously solve the problem. Geometry guy 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The arguement above about the applicability of "Original Research" distresses me; we're a Tower of Babel about editting philosophy. An author posting his own (published, peer-reviewed) work is no more evil than an artist contributing his own photographs to the public domain. On R.e.b.'s good point, the author quoting a small amount of his own marterial, citing the (copyright holding) source, can fall under Fair Use. The article can be improved with that in mind and does not need to be deleted IMO. Pete St.John 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but as a redirect for now. I agree with R.e.b.'s comment, but not with the conclusion. This should never have come to AfD. The current content of the article is almost certainly a copyright violation, and should be removed: the article is not a critical commentary of the book in question, so is unlikely to be fair use. However, this does not mean that the subject of the article is not notable. The simplest thing to do is replace the current content by a redirect to Error-correcting codes until someone has the time and energy to write a new version which is not a copyvio, and also demonstrates notability in a clear manner. This approach preserves useful information in the edit history for anyone to take this up. Deleting the article destroys this information. I have some sympathy with the nominator, as I have in the past made the same mistake myself, by prodding articles which should simply have been replaced by redirects. I encourage others to take on board this option, as it saves a lot of time discussing issues like this at AfD. Geometry guy 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per R.e.b., as copyright violation. Geometry guy: while a redirect would not be harmful, we HAVE to delete copyvio content because otherwise it could be used to make still-violating derivative works. The author does not have the sole ownership of copyright in a published work; I know Springer-Verlag's copyright agreement it uses with authors, and the author agrees in it to assign the copyright to Springer, and cannot publish the work otherwise. So yeah, this is a copyright violation. Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • • • Keep now that the article no longer violates copyright. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide proof that this is true in this case. Otherwise it's speculation on your part. Cburnett 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No. You provide proof that there is no copyright problem, not the other way around; we know this is based on text lifted directly from a copyrighted work. It might have been posted by the author, but (1) the author doesn't own the copyright and (2) we don't even know if it was the author who posted it. If there's a good reason to believe there's a copyright violation, we should delete it rather than expose the foundation to liability. Mangojuice^talk 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy a "no you are wrong" pissing war! From WP:C#If you find a copyright infringement:

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL.

It is you asserting that you KNOW FOR A FACT that the author has no rights. Very arrogant of you, kudos. Cburnett 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there is plenty of reason to believe that we don't have adequate permission for this material. You are assuming the author has the right to release under the GFDL, which is not normal for material from a book that isn't self-published. And while we're at it, you're assuming the user that posted the material was the author, which we don't know. The norm in this kind of situation is that we remove the material, and allow it only given an explicit release of the material under the GFDL, registered with WP:OTRS. If someone wants to try to write to author and to Springer and get that explicit release, we can always undelete. Mangojuice^talk 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice here: we should assume that the material is copyrighted unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, as Michael Hardy points out, the copyvio can easily be fixed by paraphrasing the article. Geometry guy 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the author does not own the copyright. However, if you read WP:C#If you find a copyright infringement, we have to remove copyvio's, not delete the articles containing them. Wikipedia is full of copyvios in edit histories. This issue is probably too big to discuss at this AfD. At some point, Wikipedia could be sued for having copyvios in edit histories, but it hasn't happened yet. In my opinion, deletion solves nothing, because administrators can still view the copyvio. And adminstrators are people. Geometry guy 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

When the entire text and the entire history of an article is a copyright violation, it is better to just delete it and place a redirect there instead. The history can serve only a bad purpose in existing as long as we don't have an appropriate copyright release: the information in the edit history is not "useful" to those who would want to write a new article, because it would be derivative of a copyrighted work... and in the meantime, copyrighted material continues to be available from the Wikipedia web site. Mangojuice^talk 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The point would that it would prove the administrators took steps to address the problem. Or to put it another way, it would look especially bad if somebody got uppity and sued and proved that the administrators were aware of a copyright violation and ignored the problem. Torc2 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, last time I checked, almost all of Wikipedia's content should be a derivative of copyrighted work. The edit history is useful because it provides editors usernames as well as content. One editor has offered to paraphrase the material: having easy access to it would help.

However, as Dominus points out with admirable brevity "No reasonable argument for deletion has been put forward." First it was argued that the article is OR, which is demonstrably false. Then it was argued that it was not notable, but this was amply countered by subject experts. Now it is argued that it must be deleted because it probably contains copyrighted material. But WP:C does not require deletion of articles containing copyrighted material. If it did, it would say "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then contact an administrator, who will delete the article and then selectively undelete all previous versions not containing the copyright infringement" instead of "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, the infringing content should be removed".

Edit histories are full of copyright violations, and deleting them all would be an administrative nightmare. Comments about history serving only a bad purpose, and people getting uppity, are neither based on policy, nor on a knowledge of copyright law. This article could be deleted, but there is no case for doing so. Hence my comment that this AfD is a waste of editor's time, and we should simply close it and replace the content with a redirect, until someone has time to paraphrase or rewrite. Geometry guy 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't quite understand what I mean by "derivative." Yes, normal Wikipedia articles that are certainly not copyright violations derive their information from other sources: that's certainly okay, because no one can own the information. Even if they derive some of their text from other sources, that's okay as long as the work is substantially original. What's not necessarily okay is to take a significant chunk of copyrighted text and make some small changes to it: this can be viewed as not a newly created work, but a work directly derived from the previous one, and therefore possibly also a copyright violation. This is an extreme example, but imagine a novel with all the character names changed: clearly, this is a copyright violation. See derivative work; specifically, look at the second blockquote and you'll see the difficulty. Mangojuice^talk 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Of course, I agree with that! Geometry guy 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have sent an email to Christian Deppe asking him to rewrite it to avoid the copyright problem. Michael Hardy 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. On 2nd December MangoJuice replaced the page with a copyvio template which threatens to delete the page within one week if it is not changed. I doubt that will encourage anyone, least of all Christian Deppe, to repair the article.

This is really stupid. The article is simultaneously under AfD review and a threat to delete it on 9th December. MangoJuice is an admin who should know better than to make procedural alterations to an article under deletion review, however well intentioned those alterations may be. I hope another admin will be able to close the AfD before the threatened deadline, otherwise, we run the risk to waste yet more editor time with a DRV because of the procedural mess this creates. Geometry guy 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to rewrite it to remove the copyvio, which has not happened yet. I've been bold, removed 90% of the text creating a rather week stub. --Salix alba (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and is close to my proposal to replace the article by a redirect for the time being, but I felt reluctant to do that while it was under discussion here. I've added a Wikilink anyway, and hope that your common sense will prevail. Geometry guy 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to what? (Don't read that as a snotty reply - I'm actually curious). The article in this form still faces the same problems as before. I mean, there's still nothing there to save it from an AfD - no citations, no assertion of notability, minimal integration into Wiki. I think it's also a bit too optimistic to think that Deppe is going to come back to this article. His entire Wikipedia presence has been one single edit: dumping his text into this article, and then left. He didn't even bother to correct some of the characters that didn't copy over correctly, and he hasn't responded to the question on his talk page. Torc2 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Error correcting codes. However, the stub solution is fine, and I've added the obvious reference. I agree it is optimistic to expect Deppe to come back. Indeed I hope he doesn't right now, to witness how unhelpful Wikipedia editors can be, and this unedifying AfD discussion. Your assertion that "there is nothing to save it from AfD" has been countered at every turn. Indeed the article asserts that the topic has been studied by three notable mathematicians, including the founder of information theory, and not including Christian Deppe, who provides a reliable secondary source for this assertion of notability. Geometry guy 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, I've wouldn't call anything I've done in pointing out the article's shortcomings "unhelpful" and I kind of resent the implication. I didn't just dump an AfD and run away; I stayed and continued to discuss these issues and concerns and what was required to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. Realistically I could have submitted this as a prod or copyright violation; the article would have vanished with little notice and nobody would have missed it. I couldn't add the reference myself because I don't have access to it and cannot prove its authenticity. You have to recognize that you come into this discussion with a lot more knowledge of the field than what is in the article. My criticisms have been exclusively of the content of the article itself, because that's all I have to go by. I've made entirely constructive suggestions about what the article is missing, what would be required to salvage it, and how it might be more appropriate to present the information in another article (such as Error detection and correction where the topic error correcting codes redirects - I'd still like to know why that wouldn't be appropriate), and I've gotten little in return besides indignation, certainly not any assumptions of good faith. At the time I voiced my notability concerns, the only thing the article did was state that these mathematicians considered problems related to the general field of error detection; it did not clearly state that they focused any non-trivial effort on this specific topic. Torc2 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Yes, I see you mentioned adding a few lines to Error detection and correction, but you did not suggest leaving a redirect instead of deletion, which would have solved the disagreement. Anyway, a redirect to Error detection and correction was what I had in mind (no point in a double redirect!). However, the stub solution seems much better now that both Salix Alba and MangoJuice have improved the content (many thanks to both of them). Since neither solution requires deleting the article, we seem to have reached agreement. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, with articles like this, replacing by a redirect is often a better solution than AfD. It wastes less editor time. This is the reason I may have seemed irritated in some of my comments. Please consider that option in the future. Thank you. Geometry guy 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, of course a redirect would remain. At the time I nominated this, I didn't know of a good article to merge or redirect to, and this also seemed like just another essay-copied-into-Wiki article (which, actually, it was), which get AfD'd without incident fairly regularly. I still think this might be better merged and redirected to the main error coding article, but I'll leave that up to you folks working on it. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it is now -- sheesh, this AfD is ridiculous. My view: the article as it was, was a candidate for deletion. The article as it is now is fine -- it's sourced, etc. Re: the argument over copyvios: Mangojuice is right, the author almost certainly did not have permission to post the original text under the GFDL (permission for use has to be given from Springer according to the front-matter notice, they usually take an author's copyright etc. etc.) I do not have the text in front of me, so can't see whether it's a direct copyvio or not, but perhaps we should figure that out and delete the offending diff if need be? The article itself, however, seems perfectly fine, and maybe we can get the original author to help out with sourcing etc. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:00, 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. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pliny the Elder conspiracy

Pliny the Elder conspiracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Without independent references for this theory, it looks like a case of WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:OR. Prod removed by anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. Especialy the fact that the only given source is the original text, makes it very ORlike. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I know I've seen speculation about this, but it doesn't seem especially notable as an article. If anything sourceable exists it should probably be mentioned in the Pliny the Elder article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is totally unecyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR conspiracism. --Folantin (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Very entertaining, but could it not just have been prodded? --Paularblaster (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as clear case of original research. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Peter Fleet (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research and shakier than the average conspiracy theory. Edward321 02:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Susie Thomas

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

The article gives no evidence that this person is more notable than many thousands of other academics in London. Prod notice removed by User:Enokblue, but no explantaion given as to why this person is notable. Dorange (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, no reliable sources to back up the article, nothing special here. Turgidson (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete, the page is a verbatim copyvio from here: [2]. --Crusio (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note I reverted the page to a non-copyvio version. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of academic notability. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep while developing more research - The WP article is wholly deficient, but a quick search in Google Scholar reveals that Thomas is, among other things, a literary biographer of Willa Cather (Willa Cather, Rowman & Littlefield, 1990); that book has been cited a number of times ([3]) . Given that no one here has yet discovered this other major contribution, I suggest that we hold for a bit until people have a chance to check her out in the major relevant scholarly databases (e.g., MLA Bibliography). --Lquilter 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The 'citations' noted above are instances when Susie Thomas quoted passges of Willa Cather's texts in her book and other writers have also quoted these same passages. They're not citations of Susie Thomas by others. Most academics write books. I don't see that this makes Susie Thomas notable enough for Wikipedia. Dorange 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete I see no caim of notability, and no evidence that she passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, going to need more than the vague and unsourced claim mentioned below. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Garrett Realty

Greg Garrett Realty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No independent sources; notability arguably asserted by "It was ranked within the top one percent of all American real estate companies" but no third party coverage found. Maralia (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Garret

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

No independent coverage to verify notability; his company article (Greg Garrett Realty) also nominated. Maralia (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:11, 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 The Mysterious Stranger. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doangivadam

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

Non-notable: a short snippet for a minor character from a minor Mark Twain novel. A character who isn't even in every version of the novel. Nedlum (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  Merge and redirect to The Mysterious Stranger. RMHED (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to The Mysterious Stranger. Put it as a section there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above Carter | Talk to me 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into The Mysterious Stranger, unless sources can be found about how the character differed between Twain's drafts and how they changed as part of the executor's stitching together -- and even then, that can be adequately discussed as an aspect of how the novella as a whole changed. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:44, 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 Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. (CSD G11) Resolute 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pangea day

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

Announcement/publicity for an event/conference that is yet to come, and which is not supported by reliable, secondary sources. If there is media attention for this even, the article does not discuss it. — Coren ^(talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising, I've found this exact text on forums and blogs and YouTube. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete spam, so tagged. Even if events aren't covered explicitly by G11 WP:SNOW applies. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per non-notable event. нмŵוτнτ 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Chowder (TV series), content appears to have already been merged. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Chowder

List of characters in Chowder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of characters from Chowder (TV series), a cartoon which currently has a total of 8 episodes to it's back. This was recently spun out of Chowder (TV series), which held the characters quite nicely [4]. The fork was padded a little bit, but is still full of trivial, unverifiable claims backed by supposition. Yngvarr 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge content back into main Chowder article and trim cruft, a series with 8 episodes to date doesn't need its own character list on a separate page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Trim/Merge/Redirect as per above arguments. RMHED (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above statements. Ridernyc (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above, even though that sounds lame because I'm adding no real comment of my own. What can I say, the points already been made Carter | Talk to me 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of WP:RS and WP:V after being tagged for a year means it's not ready for prime time. Lack of WP:RS and WP:V after AfD is an even surer sign. If someone wants to recreate it with sources, more power to them. Pigman☿ 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upward feedback

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

Unsourced, tagged for a year. Almost orphaned. Seems like WP:OR. Article does not establish "Upward feedback" as a notable business concept. Torc2 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep There's no point deleting something just because it's crap. This subject is worthy of an article, though the current one is crap. It might be improved--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggested AfD because it doesn't assert notability, has no sources, and has no reason to be here. The fact it's a crap article is just incidental. Torc2 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Google says this is associated with University of British Columbia; sounds like there is some credibility. Good starting point is here. Secondary sources may be a problem. Cheers, --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is a separate article for 360 degree feedback - should this maybe just be merged to that? Torc2 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons. Cburnett 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. WP:OR and WP:V are clear that a subject requires citations. The fact you have specifically tracked down my (and only my) AfDs and, within the span of one minute - (did you even read the articles?) - voted keep on all of them indicates you're treading WP:HAR: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, [...]". Torc2 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as not assertion of notability is even attempted. Will you rescue? Bearian (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 17:40, 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 Delete. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Science (Graphic Design Firm)

Rocket Science (Graphic Design Firm) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I speedied a related article and followed the author to this article. Wasn't happy about speedying this one as there is some claim to notability. However it doesn't look that notable to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A claim of sorts is made, but not substantiated, by the originating editor who has a clear conflict of interest to judge by the username. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unencyclopedic article. No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete looks liek it will turn into an advertisement. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Slideshow Bob (talk) 02:20, 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. Arguments concerning this article not meeting WP:EPISODE guidelines were persuasive. Lack of substantial WP:RS and WP:V were also factors. Pigman☿ 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slapsgiving

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

TV series episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve its own article, per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN tv episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral HIMYM has an entire category of episodes so those should be looked at in addition. Nate · (chatter) 02:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm... If these AfD pass, I see a mass deletion coming per WP:SNOW. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable episode. We cannot have articles for all TV episodes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and/or redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes, or expand from reliable sources, such as Zap2it.com, or the New Jersey Star-Ledger, while trimming plot summary. Where does WP:EPISODE say anything about deleting articles? DHowell 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 07:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All the other How I Met Your Mother episodes have well written episode pages and to delete some in between would break continuity. However, this article can be improved upon. Vellayappan 13:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Unfortunately, inclusion is not a reason for notability (in simpler words, the argument "if we keep that, then we must keep this" is not acceptable in this sort of debate). Each article is assessed on its own merits. If you believe that the WP:EPISODE guideline should not apply in this particular case, can you provide any reason why? --Nehwyn 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If this your argument, why are all of the stub articles for episodes of other shows, see some Babylon 5 Season 5 episodes, not also up for deletion? If you want to make this argument, I would expect every superfluous article to also face the same consequence. If you want to follow the rules you choose to acknowledge as legitimate, they apply to all situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.223.19.3 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the argument "if we keep that, then we must keep this" is not acceptable in this context. If you think other articles should be proposed for deletion, feel free to do so, but in this debate please stick to commenting the article in question. --Nehwyn 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into one large season article. Would having one article for each season be acceptable? Sailor Psychic 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:EPISODE, you first create an article for the List of Episodes; then if you have too much content, you split it into season articles. Having said that, your opinion is contradictory: would you rather keep the single-episode article, or approve the merge and redirect intention of this nomination? --Nehwyn 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sailor Psychic, you present two contradicting opinions here: are you for keep or for merge? They're mutually exclusive. --Nehwyn 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you were intending to propose a merge and redirect for this article, then why did you bring it to articles for deletion? Please see WP:MERGE for how to propose merges and redirects. DHowell 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - IMO article is obviously notable.--Peter Andersen (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Please keep in mind this is a debate, not a vote. If you have an opinion to voice, you need to justify it. Can you elaborate on why you think it is obvious that WP:EPISODE should not apply to this article? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well hello there... Article has several sources - even footnotes.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has links to episode recaps and reviews on review sites. What claim to notability would this episode have? Won any awards, raised attention over a contentious issue? Just having a plot is not enough to claim notability. --Nehwyn (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An episode recap can be used as a reliable source that the episode has a plot, yes. But other than that, what claim to notability would this external sources corroborate? And please mind - multiple external sources are required. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. Maybe merge a severely cut down summary to the list of episodes. Collectonian (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep because there are many seperate episode articles for How I Met Your Mother and I don't think getting rid of this would be a good idea.--Stco23 (talk) 02:03, 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 Boldly and speedily redirected to Matt Morris (musician). Page even contained a note asking it to be redirected. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Burton Morris

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

Low quality article that has been replaced by Matt Morris (musician). Notability is not currently being questioned. This is simply a deletion proposal to remove an unneeded, low quality, redundant article. Leeannedy (talk) 21:13, 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 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Free Gilbertsville

Radio Free Gilbertsville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, notability concerns raised over a year ago have not been addressed. This is not a licensed radio station and there is no evidence I can find that it's a notable non-licensed station. Rtphokie (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seemingly not notable, not sourced and a google search turned up no non-wikipedia sources. Dumelow (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, I can't find a meaningful referenced to it anywhere. Xymmax (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 04:06, 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 Delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The posture theory

The posture theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Theory of health promulgated by one author in one book. Not recognised by health scientists in general. Limited support from authoritative sources (no results on PubMed beyond the 1980 paper. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Simple refactoring of this page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research edited by single-purpose account. Speedy if copyvio is confirmed. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio per Hoekstra, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy or slow. Non-notable in any case. Tim Ross·^talk 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as one guy's theory. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete This could help a lot of people!```

• Do not delete Permission was given. The word hypochondrium means “upper abdomen” and I determined that the symptoms of hypochondria were caused by postural compression of the upper abdomen. Hippocrates made similar observations in “On Joints” XL1-XL2. which were consistent with the health problems of seventeenth century hunchback hypochondriac Alexander Pope - Collier’s Encyclopedia (1962) Vol.19 p.241-242. I am the author of the theory, fifteen essays in the Austrasian Nurses Journal between 1978 and 83, and since then 100 letters and items in Australian newspapers and magazines, and a 1000 page book. M.A.Banfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posturewriter (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Did anyone who isn't you, and didn't collaborate with you, ever publish on this theory? The ideas of a single person typically don't merit a Wikipedia article, unless the ideas are notable, and that requires it be commented on in multiple reliable sources that you didn't author. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. Edited to include dates: My medical theories have been independently reviewed; In The Scientific Australian "Does Glandular Damage Play a Role in those Psychosomatic Cases", by editor D.J.Cook, Dec. 1977 p.34-35. The Posture Theory was discussed in an illustrated feature article "Posture and Illness" by the editor of the South Australian 'Statewide' newspaper on 8-12-94 p.13. That theory was reviewed by David Raftery in the Adelaide University students newspaper “On Dit”, 27-3-95 p.33, and in The Skeptic (magazine) (Australian), Problems With Posture, by Laurie Eddy, Vol.20 no.1 Autumn 2000 p.60-63. http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2000/2000.htm I added my comments in "Response to Posture" in the Forum section of The Skeptic (Australian) Vol.21 no.4 p.63-64. http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2001/2001.htm There were others but I have no record of them. My research on the physical aspects of chronic fatigue at The South Australian Institute for Research and Training was prompted by the failure of all previous studies internationally with the comment “these patients would not, or could not train” because of their “fear of exercise”. Six volunteers completed six months of training in the programme that I designed, and one completed a six mile marathon. That study was reported in major Austalian newspapers including The Adelaide News, SA Study Matches Russian Results, 20-10-82 p.18, The West Australian, Cause of Mystery Disease Found, 22-8-83 p.34, The Bribane Courier Mail, Researchers Solve Mystery, 20-8-83 p.14l, and The Sydney Morning Herald, Illness Traced to Emotional Trauma, 20-8-83 p.3. That study was completed ten to fifteen years before the Australian Medical Association officially recognised Chronic fatigue syndrome as a real illness (in the mid 90's). At one stage I owned 300 medical books and had access to the Adelaide Univerity Barr Smith Medical Library and international research journals through Index Medicus, and my book on the theory is supported by 100 references. When Australia’s greatest scientist, Sir Mark Oliphant, was living in Adelaide, I asked him to get me an independent academic opinion on The Posture Theory and he told me that his medical colleagues, amongst the top in the country, thought it was interesting but they couldn't give an opinion on it because that whole area of medicine was a pandoras box of mystery and contradiction. The complexity makes it mysterious, and scrutiny makes it axiomatic. My protagonist has provided wikipedia with an excellent one page account of the primary aspect of DaCosta’s syndrome. ref: DaCosta J.M. (January 1871) “On Irritable Heart”, The American Journal of the Medical Sciences ref: Charles F. Wooley M.D. Where are the Diseases of Yesteryear, DaCosta’s Syndrome; Effort Syndrome; Neurocirculatory Asthenia: Circulation 1976: 53: 749-751 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/vol53/issue5/ For the neurocirculatory effects of postural compression of the chest cavity consider this: Valsalva Maneuver For the consequences of compressing the waist refer to: Limner L. Esq. (1874) Madre Natura Versus the Moloch of Fashion, 4th edition Chatto and Windus, Picadilly, London, p.70-73. also see Hourglass corset, 1900s in fashion and History of corsets A fuller account can be readily accessed on line at http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/index.html Posturewriter (talk)

• Comments. We just need dates, titles (and most preferably links to online versions of all of this) so it can actually be verified that everything you said is true. I can only verify myself that which is available online. If these verifying materials are not available online, I suggest taking the same information I have just requested to either Wikipedi:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia to request assistance. Someguy1221 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Response. Dates and titles have been added as requested, and online links included where possible. Newspaper articles prior to 1984 are not available online but they can be verified, presumably by phoning or emailing the editors of the newspapers next Monday to Friday. For example, Sydney Morning Herald News inquiries:newsdesk@smh.com.au or phone +61 (02) 9282 2833. However that may not be possible, in which case the articles will be available in the respective State Library newspaper collections, by visiting those libraries. The South Australian reports were prepared by "News" jounalist Diane Beer who's articles assisted with the recruiting of volunteers for about 1 to 2 years? The interstate items were written by a Melbourne based freelance journalist whose name I haven't recorded and had no byline. The facts were verified with the Institute before publication as state newspapers require authoritative confirmation of sources as a prerequisite. If any further verification is required by wikipedia editors in relation to this matter please let me know. Posturewriter (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward ciderhands

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

Unremarkable drinking game Marwood (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete sounds like something some of the blokes at school made up one day. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, again per WP:MADEUP. --Nehwyn (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MADEUP Carter | Talk to me 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: sounds suspiciously similar to Edward Fortyhands. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, just more WP:MADEUP nonsense. RFerreira 07:34, 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 keep per Davewild. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell, Ontario (community)

Russell, Ontario (community) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cites no sources, is very biased, full of bad English and bad grammar, is 1 line long. Harland1 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The version nominated for deletion looks to have been the result of vandalism. I have reverted back to a previous version which while needing cleanup is a clear keep. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 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 Merge and Redirect to Coles Group. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coles SuperCentres

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

Not a company, not needed in Wikipedia Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Let me get this straight. The article is about a group of stores that a company considered opening up, but didn't. Sounds likes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL to me...Xymmax (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Some of this content would be relevant in an appropriate section of the Coles Group article, but only if a proper context could be found. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to Coles Group. A never-implemented proposal is rarely deserving of its own article, and this only requires a sentence or two of coverage. A redirect from Coles SuperCentre would make more sense, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The person who started this entry, Punk Boi 8 currently is banned from editing for one year. (Dunno what this means, am asking Ronja, but I think it means they cannot edit) Anyway, by the looks of the linked to page, this editor has done alot of troublemaking on Wikipedia. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 18:54, 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. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guri (Star Wars)

Guri (Star Wars) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability for this character. An editor takes exception to redirecting to the single work in which this character appears, stating that the redirect target should include info. on this device -- however, seeing as how there is no real-world content for this background piece, there's really not anything worth integrating. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violates, WP:Plot, WP:WAF and several other policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article ais entirely "in universe" and therefore has no critical or encyclopedic content. There is nothing here for any reader who is not interested solely in the trivial plot details of this novel. Fancruft, non-notable character, no critical attention to the role or import of the character to the literature it comes from. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others above, fancruft extraordinaire. RFerreira 07:34, 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 deleted by User:NawlinWiki (a7 nonnotable band...). Non admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Drop & Roll

Stop Drop & Roll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:BAND. Endless Dan 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, so tagged. They do sound interesting though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stop, drop and roll 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band; delete. Jmlk17 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as A7 G4, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Butler

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

Seems to be a non-notable person. Very short stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment is tagged on the page with an A7, but no AfD tag. Is related to a walled garden including Salt lines and others, that were recently G4'ed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 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 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Hatch

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

Contested Prod. A backup (actually 3rd string) quarterback for LSU who has only played in three drives of a football game (see here and here). The only shred of notability asserted about him in the article is that he transferred from Harvard (many players transfer colleges this doesn't make them notable), he took a missionary trip to Chile for his Church (according to the article Missionary (LDS Church) there are over 50,000 missionaries in the Church, it doesn't make one notable), and that he was a National Merit Finalist (I only assume it is the National Merit Award scholarship, which, that article states, 15,000 high school seniors each year are finalists, and doesn't make one notable). He fails WP:N for now (if he becomes the starter before he leaves college he might deserve an article), but right now the article should be Deleted. Phydend (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Incredibly Strong Keep Should never have been nominated. Nominator says himself that this athlete has played in a game; therefore, he has competed at the highest level in amateur sports, and quite easily passes WP:BIO. Full disclosure: I did not create the article, though I did do just about all of the work on it. However I am not an LSU fan, nor had I ever heard of this kid before I rewrote the page. Still, he certainly passes our notability guidelines for athletes. Being a missionary and all the rest isn't a claim to notability, and isn't presented as such. He is notable for playing at the highest level of amateur sports. faithless (^speak) 20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Does college level count as highest level of amateur sports? WP:SPORTS says: "Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not considered notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days." so I'm guessing no. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It depends on the sport. If we're talking gymnastics, then the Olympics are probably the highest level. If we're talking American football, yes, college is the highest level of amateur football. faithless (^speak) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The "amateur sports" clause is meant for sports that are not professional at all, like rowing and a lot of other Olympic sports. Sports that are first and foremost professional, such as football, soccer, basketball etc are covered by the professionalism clause and not the amateur clause. Punkmorten (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete...I've thought more about these. WP:BIO says that athletes are generally notable if they have played in the highest level of amateur sports. However, it also says meeting the guideline doesn't merit inclusion. Common sense would say a person who played 3 drives is not notable...and - there is a higher non-amateur level than college football. I believe the intention of the policy is to cover olympic athletes, not third string college football players. --Smashville^BONK! 20:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I sort of agree with you that the guidelines are a little lenient for athletes. However, until they're changed, I can't see how anyone could argue that Hatch doesn't meet the requirements. Perhaps you're right about the intent behind the guideline, but it doesn't even come close to suggesting that it is meant for Olympic athletes rather than college athletes. faithless (^speak) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • But the guideline specifically says that meeting it doesn't merit inclusion. We're talking about a quarterback who has completed one pass in the NCAA. Per this link in 2004-2005 alone, there were 384,742 NCAA athletes. In 1999-2000, there were 355,098. In 1994-5 there were 289,933. In 1985-1986, there were 288,629. In 1981-1982 there were 231,445. We're talking about a minimum (very minimum - I went in 5 year increments to factor in replacement...in fact, since the NCAA has been around for 101 years and I factored in none of the years in between, the number will be exponentially larger) of 1.5 million people who are notable enough for Wikipedia if competing int the NCAA is considered sufficient notability for inclusion. --Smashville^BONK! 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The guideline is (I believe intentionally) vague. In my opinion, it could definitely stand a revision. But until that happens, I don't see a good reason to delete this. The fact that a lot of people have played college sports is hardly a legitimate argument for deletion (no offense). Rather, that's a good argument for changing the guideline (perhaps change it to those who have started in an NCAA game?). I do believe the guideline needs to be changed so that it is more clear and restrictive, but we have to work with what we have. If it is changed, then perhaps my argument would change. But as it stands right now, he passes notability. faithless (^speak) 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The guideline specifically says that meeting it does not mean it should be included. If at least 1.5 million people (an extremely generously low estimate) meet the criteria, then, obviously this is one of those cases. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just because there is a loophole in a policy that allows potentially millions upon millions of people to be notable. We shouldn't keep an article because of a loophole. That's why WP:IAR exists. --Smashville^BONK! 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd like to reiterate that I think the guideline ought to be amended to prevent these types of articles being created in the first place. I certainly don't think I deserve an article for playing soccer in college. That being said, no particularly compelling reason has been given for its deletion. Your main argument appears to be that not all NCAA athletes deserve articles; I agree with you there. However, the guideline currently allows just that, and since Wikipedia isn't paper, the sheer number of potential articles shouldn't affect our decision here. I'm all for a more stringent notability guideline for athletes (in fact this has me considering seeking a change), but until then... faithless (^speak) 00:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
            • No, you're correct. The number of potential articles isn't a delete reason. But the fact that at least 1.5 million exist means that it's not a valid claim to notability. --Smashville^BONK! 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't this a case of someone who fails the basic criteria for notability under WP:BIO who passes the additional criteria - in this case, competeing at the highest amateur level? Or worst comes to worst, do we ignore all rules? I mean, I certainly respect the skills of a major college quarterback, and I'm open to being persuaded, which is why I didn't record a vote, but is there an argument that, but for the overly-generous guidelines, he's notable? Xymmax (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless stronger evidence of notability emerges. faithless is quite incorrect that college football meets the "highest amateur level" test, and there is ample precedent to show otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I? Please share with us, what is the highest amateur level for an American football player if not college? faithless (^speak) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be very interested to see evidence of the precedent. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this provision of WP:BIO. I do think there is a strong argument for college being the highest level of amateur football, but thats neither here nor there. The guideline is in effect, and Wikipedia is awash with precedent that one only needs to step on to the field to qualify and what the player did while on the field is rarely brought into question. Which, when you think about it, is probably correct - "was he on the field" is an easy question to verify, "Did he do something useful" is somewhat less clear. That soccer player with the one international cap is welcome, regardless if he came in the 80th minute as an injury substitution and didn't even touch the ball. That football player is welcome even if he only played in garbage time. Do I think that either of these players are really notable? Absolutely, positively not. But luckily for all of us, I don't get to make any decisions around here. Keep for strongly meeting the WP:BIO provision and hopefully some day the community pendulum will shift enough so that we can revisit this. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to LSU Tigers Football or delete. After thinking about it for a day, I still don't see that this person is notable. It appears to me that the consensus of those commenting or voting is that he is notable only because he meets, in the most technical sense, the additional criteria for athletes. The essence of WP:IAR is that you do not slavishly follow the rules to reach a result that you know is absurd, and we shouldn't do it here. I understand that there is precedent to the contrary, but in this case that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The most notable thing that can be said about Mr. Hatch is that he was a member of a highly ranked football team, played in part of one game and threw 2 passes. That shouldn't put you into Wikipedia. Xymmax (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A couple of editors have invoked WP:IAR here, so I'd just like to toss in my two cents, as I disagree with the implementation of that policy in this instance. In my opinion, IAR is not something which should be bandied about (just to clarify, I'm not accusing anyone of doing this), but rather should be reserved for exceptional cases. IAR is there so that if something prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, we have a way around it; it's not a loophole to employ when we don't agree with established policies and guidelines. It seems that all of us find the current guideline for athletes unacceptable and should probably be changed. I have already said that I am for a more stringent guideline, one which would result in the uncontested deletion of this article. But we ought not ignore a guideline simply because we disagree with it. faithless (^speak) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No one is necessarily arguing WP:IAR. The fact is that WP:BIO states that meeting the criteria does not guarantee inclusion. In this case, I believe we should invoke WP:COMMON. There are currently over 300,000 NCAA athletes. All-time there is closer to 15-20 million college athletes. It's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. My argument is that if there are 15-20 million of something, then the criteria isn't notable. Based on the census of 2000, there were approximately 27 million people between 18-24. That same year there were 355,098 college athletes. That's over one percent of the population - for one year. And that's just for one year. Using replacement, virtually all of the 375,851 athletes from 2003-2004 and all of the 331,635 from 1995-1996 are unique from those. That's almost 1.1 million former college athletes from the last 10 years alone. That's more than the population of 8 states. The sheer numbers alone show you that being one is not notable. --Smashville^BONK! 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Enough with the numbers! :-) I've said it repeatedly, I agree with you that he ought not to be notable. But going by Wikipedia's guidelines, he is. This needs to be changed. Until it is, the article shouldn't be deleted. faithless (^speak) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Going by the guidelines, he is not. He has not been the subject of any secondary publications. --Smashville^BONK! 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Per the NCAA, more than 3.5 million people have participated in the NCAA. You cannot logically argue that all 3.5 million of those people are notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Once again, it's not an ignore all rules argument. It's a "read the entire policy and use common sense" argument. Nothing in WP:BIO says that meeting this criteria guarantees inclusion. And - as I have pointed out numerous times - the policy states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In addition, the policy also says, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". I don't see anywhere that he meets the secondary source criteria. Everything is either trivial mentions or in the context of something else. All of the keep arguments seem to be ignoring the last part of the policy. --Smashville^BONK! 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. He plays NCAA Division 1 FBS football, the most notable sport it sanctions and the highest amateur level for his sport, on a highly notable team, in the most notable position. It is the sum of those which make him notable, not the mere fact that he is a college athlete. Consuelo D'Guiche (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any secondary sources? I can't find any. And notability is not inherited. --Smashville^BONK! 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Going after sources is a better argument, I think. I have one article [5] about Hatch himself, and a number of articles about Hatch moving up to backup for the last game, and then of course, the box scores for the game, which validate that he played. Meager pickings indeed. The problem is, that all this really does is validate that he is a football player for a Division 1 team which re-enforces the original point that he is notable under WP:BIO. The reason I stick with keep is mainly because I can't muster a good enough argument to delete it, given the guidelines, available information and the body of articles that came before it. And if I was an admin, I probably couldn't delete it, and if somebody else deleted it, I would probably vote to re-instate it at deletion review. I just can't get past the WP:BIO guideline. He stepped on the field, we have the sources to prove it, and Wikipedia has proven time and time again that "stepped on the field" is all we need. I'm sorry. I wish you luck in any efforts to fix WP:BIO, but you are headed for a steel wall of college football fans who will fight tooth and nail for the right to keep the entire roster of any player that has ever played for their school, and no matter what arbitrary notability standards you try to apply, I'm afraid that you'll end up just sliding right back to where we are now. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• The reason to delete would be he doesn't meet secondary source specifications. He hasn't been the subject of any secondary sources. As a former Harvard student, you would expect Harvard's school paper to report on him. There has been no good reason to keep him. He doesn't meet WP:BIO. Again, WP:BIO says that meeting those standards are not a reason to delete. But - he doesn't meet those standards. He has not been the subject of any nontrivial secondary sources that are not pertaining to an event in which he was a participant. The Harvard article is a primary source. --Smashville^BONK! 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per faithless. Notincredible strong", but keep. Andrew Hatch is not Tom Brady, but he is certainly notable. Tiptopper 14:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Again, where are the secondary sources? Why is everyone only reading part of WP:BIO and ignoring the other parts? --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete common sense. The rules are intended to be flexible, and this much participation in what is technically an amateur game is not notable.DGG (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Including this is just begging to have every D-I athlete in America use the Other Stuff Exists argument. Pandora's Box, anyone?--CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of College Football articles in need of attention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 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 speedily deleted as a recreation of content deleted from an AFD from two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry —Random832 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lines

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

Although the idea of Salt Lines is known, this article is in the relm of WP:FRINGE. The article is not up to wiki standards and the author of the article is under review as a Sock Puppet. Pmedema (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article Alan Butler has been recreated by this author after having been deleted as well. If not a delete then this article is in serious need of a re-write to bring it up to Wiki standards. --Pmedema (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

keep. Appears to be well sourced and meet wikipedia's guidelines and policies on WP:V and WP:CITE. It's all good for me. If this is in the realm of fringe then find another source that says this and start collaborating as we did at Water fuel cell. --CyclePat (talk) 19:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justice as Fairness

Justice as Fairness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a content fork of Equity (law) and for the most part covered by the Equity (law) article. As written, the material is not independent of the topic since the Wikipedia information about the book comes from the book. Delete and redirect to Equity (law). -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, then create redirect to Equity (law) per the nom. Realistically, anything in here should go in the originating article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a content fork of that article; it is a major philosophical meme in the works of one of the 20th centuries most important political philosophers. The edit history for this article goes back to 2003. There is a significant secondary literature on Rawls' philosophical publications. GRBerry 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, which is what I'd assume most people who type in "Justice as Fairness" would be looking for. (Is it really a fork of Equity (law)? I wouldn't have guessed... my first impression, as someone familiar with Rawls's book, was that it must be a spinoff of the article about the book.) - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a famous essay of Rawls which is important in its own right. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement is also important, but this is not a minor piece, and it has had a significant impact on theories of justice to this day. Huadpe (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The idea of justice as fairness has been very influential. Rawls wrote a book and several articles with "Justice as Fairness" in the title and, I'm sure, gave many talks on this topic. The John Rawls article links to Justice as Fairness as one of "the ideas from Rawls's work that have received wide attention", not as an article. There is, in fact, no mention of any article called "Justice as Fairness" except in the publication list at the bottom. (Also, the Justice as Fairness article claims to be about a phrase, not an article.) I would weakly support an article at (lowercase) Justice as fairness that clearly dealt with the idea and its development through Rawls's works and beyond, but I think it's reasonable to expect that (capital) Justice as Fairness redirect to Justice as Fairness: A Restatement; that's what I was trying to find when I typed it in. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 23:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7princess

7princess (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable band Against3 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No press, no information, just some music videos and a web page. Bring some notability in or it goes away. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) -RiverHockey (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity page. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:41, 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 as lacking independent sourcing. WP:COI is not by itself a reason for deletion if the article otherwise meets the inclusion requirements, but if a self-authored article makes claims of accomplishments which are not investigated by independent sources the article fails WP:NPOV and, in a number of claims in the article, WP:V. This is not an injunction against restoration if independent sources are found. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas William Hamilton

Thomas William Hamilton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is written entirely by the person himself, no claim of actual notablity and sources section is cramed with nonsense. The article was tagged with proposed deletion and tag was removed by author. --Joebengo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the field of astronomy and planetarium education to make the statement above. Furthermore, one might expect just about any political chair and former candidate for public offices to be of some significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tham153 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Being the chair of a local interest group in response to a local issue hardly makes someone notable, nor does being the chair of a political party in a specific county of a state make someone notable, and furthermore by being a candidate in a local or state government and losing with only about 2% of the vote constitute as notable? Basically this article is an autobiography written almost entirely by the User himself, along with the fact that every article that links to this article was placed in by the user himself to promote himself. --Joebengo (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable person. Fails the biography requirements. Unsourced and filled with self-serving statements. In addition, this article appears to be an autobiography - users are strongly discouraged from writing articles about themselves. If you're notable, someone else will notice and write the article for you. This saves you a lot of work! : ) - Chardish (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as autobiography of a non-notable scientist. Keep per WP:PROF. While we appreciate your contributions in other Wikipedia articles, I cannot find enough of a notability assertion in your own autobiography to justify an encyclopedia article on your career. Maybe in a more specialized publication, but not in a general-purpose one. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-serving autobio. Nothing obviously notable here. --Crusio (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the work in planetarium development is notable, and is supported by publications. WP:COI very specificially does not say it is a reason for exclusion, and neither does WP:AUTO. a great many articles in WP started out this way. Keep and develop further. DGG (talk)!~
• Keep. Plenty of verifiable sources are listed in the article. Just because they are not online doesn't make them any less verifiable. If there are COI issues then they should be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable for work in science education in informal settings (e.g., planetaria). ... And where are all the fan hordes who usually preserve every person who ever auditioned for some role that was only in the pilot of the TV series that was cancelled after 5 episodes? I guess they're not around for child actors before the 70s. --Lquilter 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a misguided application of WP:AUTO, which is not a criteria for deletion anyhow. RFerreira 07:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Mario (series). Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starman (Nintendo)

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

Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Wikipedia is not a video game guide - this is completely in-universe information. Wikipedia does not need a guide offering the gameplay effects of a powerup. Chardish (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge a couple sentences to Mario (series). As with the Mushroom, the Starman has a place in just about all the Mario games, but it doesn't deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Its just a powerup, and the article can be split up into other Mario articles, such as Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. 1yodsyo1 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy merge - Good to have this redirect in place. Judgesurreal777 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge It doesn't need its own article, especially since it can be covered in game articles. Kirby-oh 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Mario (series) per TenPoundHammer. Fin©™ 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included on the talk page for WikiProject Nintendo. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hirstaang Forest

Hirstaang Forest (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) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, no references. —dv82matt 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable and repetitive. --Stormbay 18:53, 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 Redirect to The Grey Fox. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gray Fox

The Gray Fox (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) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Or redirect to Gray Fox maybe?? Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Falls outside of the constraints of WP:FICT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable character, and redirect instead to The Grey Fox (film) as a plausible misspelling. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to The Grey Fox (film) , and move The Grey Fox (film) to The Grey Fox unnecessary dab page. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Character has no notability outside of the game universe. Redirect if necessary as per User: 132.205 --Scottie_theNerd 23:37, 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 11:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corprus

Corprus (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) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability outside of the game. Marasmusine 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elder Council

Elder 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) 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, no references. —dv82matt 13:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.. not really so notable that it needs an article. Yzmo ^talk 13:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, housekeeping. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTP (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page with no real use. Three pages listed, High test peroxide, the most common usage of the term, HTTP Time Protocol - a redlink (should be removed per WP:DAB), and Hypertext Transfer Protocol, for which it is very rarely used (HTTP being the correct and most common term). Therefore this page, and the redirect HTP - Disambiguation should be deleted. The redirect HTP should be edited to point at High test peroxide. If it is really necessary, a {{dablink}} template could be added to High test peroxide for HTTP. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• I dn't think you need to bring this here for discussion - just put a note on the talkpage and do it. 134.58.127.72 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All dablinks and redirects are in place now, and all that is needed now is to delete the page mentioned here. I'll tag it a CSD G6. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:05, 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 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starsky and Cox

Starsky and Cox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Spammy orphaned article on a couple whose sole claim to fame appears to be authorship of a book that ranks #21,980 on the Amazon.com sales list. Edit history of this article and (previously deleted) Sextrology article strongly suggests conflict of interest. bd2412 T 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. They get three paragraphs of mention in the NY Times in the article, the article is not just about them. Not really that notable. Change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and facts above. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom RMHED (talk) 22:50, 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 per consensus.(closed by non-admin) RMHED 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ericsson T66

Ericsson T66 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Insufficient third-party resources exist to reference a sustainable wikipedia article. {{prod}} removed with the argument that the phone's size and weight make it notable. I don't see these criteria at WP:N. WP is not an Ericsson catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A quick search for "mobile phone notability" brought a number of AfD rulings on similar cases and they have all kinds of outcomes and arguments. Here's a few AfDs: Nokia 1100, Motorola C261, Nokia 6151, Motorola C139, LG CU500. I feel that a centralized discussion is in order to establish notability guidelines for cell phones. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I find a large amount of information on this phone when I look around. This article needs some editors to improve it in order to bring it up to standards. Still notable. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—appear to be sufficient references available. Spacepotato 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but needs some improvement --EJF 19:21, 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 No consensus --JForget 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assück

Assück (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC. Seems to be just an advertisement article to promote an unknown band. No references to back up claims of grandeur: "They were one of the most important North American extreme metal bands and still have a strong cult following" Scarian^Talk 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• SPeedy delete. A7 IMHO would be fine, but they also assert the importance - they just don't deliver the goods. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Speedy was declined unfortunately. Scarian^Talk 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Probably because of that assertion. Ah, well. Still, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can come up with better reliable sources than I was able to - a two-paragraph Rockdetector bio and a discography on Rollingstone.com. Unverifiable at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, present on Allmusic as well Aaronbrick (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that Allmusic is a sign of notability. It's kind of like calling a presence in the white pages a sign of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ja, having a page on Allmusic does not guarantee or assert notability. Scarian^Talk 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn subject. Fair Deal (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated above. Seal Clubber 01:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The band is to important User:Crustbastard 5:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Poor article and unreferenced; still, they were a pretty big underground band with many releases, toured the country, and got non-trivial coverage in major zines like Maximumrocknroll. No, I don't have the references, but deleting this article would be exceedingly hasty, especially since the article was tagged for lack of references only 3 hours before this AfD started. Precious Roy (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep-based simply sparse mentions in a couple of notable media sources. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage in Maximum RocknRoll and Allmusic is pretty good for a well-known underground grindcore band; the genre, despite having a loyal fanbase, doesn't get covered in Rolling Stone or Newsweek more than once a lifetime. Chubbles (talk) 14:39, 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 delete. The argument that the sources are about an isolated crime rather than being about the subject of the article is convincing and largely unrefuted.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roxbury Mall

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

Non-notable strip mall in New Jersey. Granted, the sources are reliable third-party sources, but three of the four sources are about a robbery at a Funcoland store there, and Wikipedia is not the news. Beyond that, it's just an ordinary strip mall with nothing notable about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep a very large regional mall with reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• But as I said, three of those four sources aren't about the mall, so much as they are about a robbery at a store there. Robberies (sadly) happen all the time, and they don't make this mall any more notable than millions of other strips across the world. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• The size, scope, nature and characteristics, combined with reliable and verifiable sources do establish notability. I've read your nomination, and I heartily disagree with it (and most of the rest of your deletion crusade). Repeating your statement does nothing to change my opinion of notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This mall isn't notable; it's just another strip mall. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: No sign of notability. The only source not about the robbery is just a listing in a directory of malls. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable power centre which is supported by multiple reliable sources. While some of them are cursory, as a whole they support the verifiability of the subject. RFerreira 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of reliable sources about the mall, rather than events happening at it. Cumulus Clouds 18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Abaddon the Despoiler. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Crusade

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

Merge to appropriate Warhammer article, or delete. Has only in-universe notability, and does not meet the minimum standards of WP:FICT. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Abaddon the Despoiler - Information can be merged into parent article and redirected there. Has already been transwikied per WP:FICT so the logical choice is to redirect. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Abaddon the Despoiler - insufficiently notable for a separate article. Addhoc 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion added to the list of Warhammer 40,000 articles being considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:49, 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 Speedy delete g11 spam, advertising for someone's performance art project. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creative litter

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

Non-notable neologism, borderline speedy A7. Kesac (talk) 17:29, 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 07:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomas Beaujean

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

NN "hacktivist", not the primary author (or even WP:V contributor to) any of the projects listed on this page, cites no sources that reference the subject himself, the product of a WP:SPA account. No news hits. Very few G hits, none in reliable sources. Disputed prod. What's that, I say? Delete. --- tqbf 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete borderline speedy. Forum posts and blogs as "references" = bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources which attest to notability. Pastordavid (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete some of the products he reportedly helped create might be notable, but he does not appear to be. Maralia (talk) 18:50, 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 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anasarca (band)

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. No references to support claims. Doesn't assert notability in any case. Scarian^Talk 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable band, possibly an A7. I would tag it for A7 if it weren't for their album page, which I'm also listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional page being listed:

Godmachine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Lots of G hits (incl. This time around, the lyrics were written by various victims of terminal illnesses. --- nice!), but none in reliable sources. "Mighty Music" doesn't meet WP:MUSIC for labels. --- tqbf 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Ja, they both fail WP:MUSIC either way. Scarian^Talk 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Peter Fleet (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Features of The Podge and Rodge Show

Features of The Podge and Rodge Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, unsourced fan cruft with hints of original research. Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep

True, but the info is being provided, it just needs to be cited. I've said it before but the main article would be too crowded for this. The information must at least be preserved, not deleted entirely but where can it be merged to without overcrowding another article? Some other articles relating to the topic were merged but they were smaller and less significant in content. For those reasons I believe things should be kept the way they are. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft, original research, insignificant material. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or condense into a paragraph or two in The Podge and Rodge Show main article. The show itself is notable but this level of detail is extremely excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete excessive detail needs to be edited out of articles not simply split off into a new article. Wikipedia is not the place for this type of minutia of detail. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:01, 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 Keep per consensus. I trust nobody will have an issue with me closing even though I opined here as my close goes with consensus and not with my personal opinion. Even ignoring the sockpuppet !vote below, consensus is still fairly clear here.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodburn Company Stores

Woodburn Company Stores (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An outlet mall in Oregon. Only assertion of notability is a seemingly gratuitous superlative cited to a company news release, which seems to be somewhat misleadingly cited anyway ("one of Oregon’s top destinations among individual and group travelers" does not imply "one of Oregon's most popular tourist attractions", it probably just means they get a lot of shoppers); the news release itself describes an award from a regional marketing organization they are members of. Given that the page has also been regularly used to post attacks against the company (see page history), I'm tempted to just remove the badly sourced assertion and then speedy the article under CSD A7. However, since that smacks of wikilawyering and since it would be nice to have a more binding decision (as I'd expect the user(s) posting the attacks will try to recreate it), I'm instead sending it here for evaluation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable outlet mall, nothing special about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficient sources have been added to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another outlet mall. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Has received coverage from WP:RSs, but someone has been removing that coverage. One such source was Willamette Week, where an editor removed the coverage saying in their edit summary that the Willamette Week is not a reliable source. Sorry, but a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper meets my definition of WP:RS (now the editorial article also removed did not). As one of the top "malls" in the Portland metro area there are plenty of sources to use to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the biggest issue with that source wasn't reliability... it was the fact that it didn't actually say what it was supposed to be sourcing.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but the edit summary then needs to say that, not" "rm Williamette Week - NOT a reliable source". However, note that the remover removed a large chunk of info that included the article I have re-added that did back the claim (about the shuttle bus service). So I think the editor in that case did actually consider the source not to be reliable (that or they screwed up). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, while it can certainly be sourced that the mall exists, there is no evidence that this mall is in any way notable. All sources were local news sources about completely non-notable events (shoplifting & a "Black Friday" midnight sale). Show me one mall in North America where that doesn't happen.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Commet - keep your vote as is, but notability is the substantial coverage in reliable sources. That's it. A person doesn't have to be the oldest, a building doesn't have to be the biggest/tallest, a company doesn't have to meet a revenue minimum or being the largest in its market segment. Notablity is not fame, it is "worthy of note" as in it has been noted, specifically in WP:RS, see WP:NOTE and read the lead to that guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, even with the references, I see absolutely nothing notable here. Sorry. It's less a question about reliability of sources than it is that none of this matters.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess you don't comprehend notability on Wikipedia, here's some help: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability." First part of the lead from WP:NOTE.

Or: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] First part of the first section.

So unless you understand the Wikipedia guidelines, you really should not talk about Wikipedia notability, since Wikipedia notability really is not about your opinion. As the notability guideline makes abundantly clear, it is about the references. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I absolutely understand the notability guideline and I'm completely aware what it says... and that is just what it is a guideline. It wasn't brought down from the Mount on 2 stone tablets by Jimbo: "Thou Shalt not Delete an Article with Non-Trivial Coverage in Multiple, Reliable Sources, verily". We don't have to delete or keep anything just because it fits, or doesn't as the case may be, into this neat little mold of words that we've created. Something can meet the letter of a guideline and still fall completely short of the spirit and intent. I could find at least a half dozen non-trivial, 3rd party, reliable sources about the specific McDonald's location down the street from where I live; that doesn't mean we need an article about it. It's still not notable, even if it meets the letter of the guideline (though personally I think only "local" coverage demonstrates that this place has no notability outside its community)... and wikilawyering the text of that guideline selectively doesn't change that. I stand by my opinion above. That said, if it gets kept, the version that exists now is infinitely better than the previous versions that existed, so at least the content is improved.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Has your local McDonald's been mentioned on CNN.com or in the the AARP's travel magazine? I think both of those would be national in scope. However, notability is not national/international in scope. There is no requirement that everyone in the world needs to know about something to be notable. Further, local coverage for this mall would be the Woodburn newspaper or the Salem newspaper, The Oregonian is a large regional newspaper (top 30 circulation in the US) with a variety of Pultizer Prizes. And though this is orignal research, when I lived in Seattle many of my co-workers talked about the outlet and some even made semi-annual trips to shop there. No sales tax is a huge draw for people. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has not been mentioned in those 2 specific publications, but it has been mentioned in at least 4 comparable national publications at various points in the past... If anything, it would exceed the "notability" of this particular place. I'd link the articles, but that would give away a bit more personal information about my whereabouts than I'd care to.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I guess - If any outlet mall in Oregon is notable, it's this one. Per its own promotional literature, it's the biggest such mall in the state (it's pretty big), and easily the most upscale. It's far bigger then several other (non-outlet) malls in Oregon which have articles categorized at Category:Shopping malls in Oregon. A garden-variety strip mall this ain't. OTOH, it isn't Mall of America either. Note that I am not terribly familiar with notability threshold for shopping centers, so am basing my opinion on what I know of other malls in the state which have articles (some of which, such as Cedar Hills Crossing, might also be AFD-fodder).--EngineerScotty (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now that Aboutmovies has expanded the article with sources. As for local sources, I'm not sure where it says that local sources are not reliable, but the biggest statewide newspaper in the state (The Oregonian) and the biggest alternative newspaper in the state (Willamette Week) are used as reliable sources in hundreds of other articles. P.S. EngineerScotty, Cedar Hills Crossing survived an Afd with no consensus, though the closer didn't put the appropriate tag on the talk page... Katr67 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's appropriately referenced now, and its size and status as a destination trip (because of the fact of no local sales taxes and the most stores of their that kind) does make it more than just a mall. Awotter (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. And I don't understand why this link can't stay [6]. Anti-consumer (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)— Anti-consumer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: it is suspected that Anti-consumer is a sock puppet of (currently blocked) She Who Photographs, who also kept attempting to add that forum link.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to forums are almost never included in articles unless they provide some sort of overwhelmingly unique content critical to understanding the topic.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely Delete: no second-sourve notability, per WP:CORP. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - article is now much better sourced than it was when it was nominated and I believe that enough notability has been shown, as much as is reasonably possible for a mall anyway. nancy ^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep most of the above arguments no longer pertain. Since being brought to the attention of the folks at WikiProject:Oregon it has improved considerably. Cacophony 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete IF it can be shown that other malls its size generally do not have articles, and focus improving the quality of more pressing things. Otherwise I must say keep as it's a pretty big place and has already undergone an expansion/building of a second phase. Also, I do think its unusual for a mall to have its own transit service and think the part on the bus line should stay, especially if it failed and would become forgotten. Lastly, I think I remember it was in the news that their tree blew over last(?) year. Jason McHuff 11:16, 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. Spellcast (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk community

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

Unreferenced and unlikely to be properly referenced. Looks like band-cruft. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:55, 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 all. DO11.10 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ananeuzumab

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

Per discussion on WT:PHARM (see WT:PHARM#Tiratumumab and WT:PHARM#Assessment), this and the 62 articles below, all on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, have been assessed by myself, Paul gene (talk · contribs), and StephP (talk · contribs), and found to be unverifiable by publicly-available sources. While compounds with these names may even exist, we were unable to find reliable sources which could be used to expand or cite them. Their creator, Blake3522 (talk · contribs), has not yet responded to a note left on his Talk asking about sources he may have used. Delete all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Anergrozumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Anrulizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Azulizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Balizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Belizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Betumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cetforlimumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cetinlimumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cetlalimumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cetolimumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cidfusituzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cidtuzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Citilimumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cynosumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Destilimumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doraglizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dorlizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Drinalizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Durlizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Epkizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Extumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Futumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Genosumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hylizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Intumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lucalizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Matenazumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nolovizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Numavizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Oteliximab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pecfusituzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pectuzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Quartuzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Quetumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ralivizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Resatumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reslivizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Restumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Resyvizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rilotumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rosutumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Synosumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Talineuzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Taneuzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tanirazumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Teglizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tilolizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tiratumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tolizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tralizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Treglizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trelizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trilizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tritumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trixatumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tucusituzumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ubrelizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Umavizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Valtumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vexatumumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Xalizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Zulizumab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all I find it hard to believe that the articles are hoaxes, but at the same time, I would need to see evidence that the antibodies actually exist. Some articles on similar subjects have the CAS number - that's all I would need to see in order to change this opinion to "keep all". Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I find it incredibly unusual that these antibodies, some claimed to be used in the treatment of illnesses such as asthma and cancer, have no reliable sources that I can find. Pubmed shows nothing for the ones I searched, and the only google hits I could find were Wikipedia, various mirrors, and lists of antibodies I suspect were copied from a chain that leads to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. that's quite the elaborate pile of bogosity, and I'm amazed it lasted this long. I'd be inclined to speedy some of these for no content, as many of them seem to only have one sentence saying that it's some antibody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. A really strange situation, but there doesn't seem to be anything verifiable in the bunch. Tim Ross·^talk 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. After reviewing the template, the user page, and his talk page, I can only conclude two things: (1) these might be hoaxes, or (2) these might be his own research. He appears to be on a long Wikibreak. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. This is a hoax. Blake3522 (talk · contribs) AKA BlakeCS (talk · contribs) actually wrote on his userpage (see History, now deleted) that he "made up" these names using the nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. The monoclonal antibody names actually consist of the therapeutical target of the antibody and of the source (how the antibody was made) plus the suffix -mab. So the information for the stub can be derived from a fictional name of the antibody, and that is what BlakeCS did. And some of the names just happened to match the real compounds. Paul gene (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

well, he should get a job composing usans--or is that done by computer these days? I see there are apparently another 120 or so still being checked a the project--the ones that happen to have matched. This group are just the ones without any matches at all. I think that's clear enough for a speedy close.DGG (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Art of Cricket (video game)

The Art of Cricket (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article was created in October 2006 with a promise that this computer game was being released in "mid-2007". Its still not here, so this falls into crystal ballery, and there's no reliable secondary sources to explain why it would be notable even if it was here. Article is clearly promotional and the subject is unencyclopaedic. —Moondyne 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if reworded. There is a comment on the "official website" claiming that the project was delayed because the developers had "difficulties with his personal life." -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not for crystal ballery but as non-notable in light of absolutely no independent coverage. Maralia (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete must agree with Maralia - clearly non-notable. Tim Ross·^talk 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is nothing stopping anyone recreating the article if and when the game is released and some reliable sources are provided. —Moondyne 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable game with no secondary sources to speak of, googling the game's name along with windows (the platform) and the developer name (vengeance games) brings up 4 results, one is WP, one is the game's own website, the other two look to be WP mirrors. The article itself is soap-boxy and promotional, the list of features looks like a copy and paste job. Sails close to vanispamcruftvertisement.Someone another (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as completely unsourced crystal ballery. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 13 Winters

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

Creating proper 2nd nomination page for User:Undead warrior, who relisted the first nomination from March. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. No more notable than 20,000 other bands you can find on metal-archives.com -RiverHockey (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment all of the individual band members have their own entries. They should definitely be proposed for deletion as well, thereby making this a group deletion. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unsigned, no indication of good reliable sources to back up any indication of notability. Delete (And wow, they look like one of my old gaming groups...) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteNon notable. No links other than myspace. No albums other than the one demo. This band has nothing. They don't even have a record label. The links from the band member's names only say that the people are members of 13 Winters. Once again, not notable.Metal Head (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green economics

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

Green economics and ecological economics are essentially the same thing except that ecological economics is an actual field and green economics is not. Notice the similarities: Herman Daly as instrumental in both, both pushing the idea that sustainability is more than about externalities, ect. I suggest redirecting "green economics" to ecological economics to reduce confusion and redundancy. Essentially a couple people put up websites about "green economics" not realizing that the field ecological economics already exists. Plus, much of the Wikipedia page appears to be original research cobbled together from multiple sources -- the Wikipedia page has more information than the green economics websites. OptimistBen (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

After some further investigation, I found that most of the article was lifted straight from here. The article it was lifted from says this:

Various subgroups of these economists avoid the label green or Green in part to avoid association ::with political Green Parties and their broader goals. Often these use the term

ecological economics. (Sidenote: why does this not indentation not work with bold?)

To avoid confusion, we ought to go with the standard term of ecological economics. This Green economics article that we are debating is copyrighted anyway.

While I generally support deletion and combining it as suggested, could you clarify what you mean that the article is copyrighted? If this applies to ecological economics, that should also be fixed.--Gregalton (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Have just looked at that other site - content that's lifted from there should be deleted summarily, after which there is not much left.--Gregalton (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for multiple reasons. The article is largely a direct lift from this website. The article is also a kind of POV Fork from Ecological economics, and has POV issues. Best to eliminate duplication and keep (and improve) the Ecological economics article. Majoreditor (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even though it was always my favorite type of economy. I agree it appears to be a POV fork, and parts are certainly written in a POV manner, possibly containing original research or personal opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per above.--Gregalton 10:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - if lifted from another website it is likely to be a copy-vio, which must be deleted. If the article is to go, substitute a redirect to ecological economics. Peterkingiron 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010

Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems notable and likely to take place. Gtstricky (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It may be "likely" to happen, but until any sources verify it, then it should be deleted as crystalballing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Carnac the Magnificent says Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' Little early for this I'd say. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not exactly crystal balling as it is a currently scheduled election. Some brief mentions in the press: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747642/posts], [7], [8]. Though it could also be merged into United States gubernatorial elections, 2010 until we have more to say about it.Kmusser (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kmusser. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I know that American elections go on for ever. Yes, an election is due, but surely we do not need an article until autumn 2008 or even later, any morte than we need one for the 2012 prsidential election (I hope). Peterkingiron 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Kmusser. It could be merged until more happens. America69 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation per WP:CRYSTAL and because it fails WP:NOTE. This election probably is scheduled to take place, but there is little which can be verifiably said about it which could not also be said about the 2016 or 2022 elections. The article is currently unreferenced, and the subject will remain non-notable unless and until there is some substantive reporting of facts relating to the topic: declared candidates, electoral arrangements or whatever might do it, but al we have now is unsourced speculation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You need a citation that a gubernatorial election is the election of a governor? I added sources, even the silly ones. Kmusser (talk) 02:15, 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Dollar

Millennium Dollar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(View AfD)

The Millennium Dollar article is completely unreferenced, very short and unlikely to be enlarged. To me it seems like an insignificant, commercial gimmick by an insignificant, commercial company. A Google search for "Millennium Dollar" gives only 707 results (160 of them being the official site ("Millennium Dollar" -www.millenniumdollar.com)). - S. Solberg J. 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - As per Nom - Article is not encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - As per Nom --Gtstricky (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and the hits get even worse when Wikipedia and its mirrors are removed. I get 274 hits, and not even all of those are related, some are referring to the Sacagewea dollar and other unrelated things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to problems with notability and verifiabity. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:43, 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 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clacker

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

Non-notable fictional character. Too few substantial third-party references exist to write a verifiable article about this subject. {{prod}} removed without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable character from a book - It also looks like User:82.38.220.45 vandalized it just before you put the prod tag on it.--Pmedema (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Vandalism is fixed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, Log shows two prior deletions.Gtstricky (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article has neither primary or secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:37, 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 as non-notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Business (musical)

Funny Business (musical) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable play. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided in compliance with verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 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, Spellcast (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-Citations are not there. And the article/author failed to produce reliable sources, the links lead to MySpace and websites featuring photographs of actors. Very inappropriate. Delete if the author still does not come up with good sources. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep The citations don't conform to wiki standards agreed. But it is a noted play in Toronto with tickets available online from [9] and the main website is at [10]. There have been review of the play from a daily news paper and 2 weekly papers in the Toronto area. Although how much longer the play is going to last is unknown. --Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scissors (song)

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

It is a stub, needs cleanup, violates WP:NPOV and cites no references or sources. It also has orginal research. Thundermaster367^{Thundermaster's Talk} 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Being a stub in need of cleanup is not necessarily a valid rationale to delete, I grant you. But, lacking sources and Neutrality is. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-It violates WP:VERIFY by not citing sources. No evidence for its information, most probably self-research. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable album track, dashed with WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, if they would like one can merge it onto the album page. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's totally unnecessary, unsourced, unverifiable... Zouavman Le Zouave 10:47, 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 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now That's What I Call Music! 69 (U.K. series)

Now That's What I Call Music! 69 (U.K. series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparent crystal ball on an album with no track listing, sources, confirmation of existence, etc. An anon replaced a prod with some rather colourful threats. tomasz. 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for contravening WP:CRYSTAL. --DAJF (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and DAJF--Rtphokie (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Doc Strange (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Release date added 79.75.130.69 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There's no source for that release date. it could have come from anywhere. tomasz. 18:32, 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. (Non-admin closure). Qst 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Joy Alukkas

Radio Joy Alukkas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable internet radio station Newport Backbay (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The reason is there in the article's talk page. Before leaving your comments, please see this history (about nominator) also. Is the intention about nominator is in accordance with WP:AGF. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep.it is new venture.so it will some time to improve on this article.Naveenpf (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• speedy keep as bad faith nomination. User:Newport Backbay appears to be acting out of retribution for a nomination by this article's author because of a prior AfD nom. That being said, the article needs serious work to avoid being renominated. Keeper | 76 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Re-edited, included more references. I have got a collection of proofs (leading news papers) also. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been improved with addition of references. More work is needed but the article is worth keeping now. --Richard 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Bad faith nomination. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Crab Cooker

The Crab Cooker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete "The Crab Cooker" in google search provides some results. But I think this is a total spam article about a company (WP:ORG). Avinesh Jose (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep More than 500,000 google hits.The restaurant is a local landmark and is famous. This nomination was made in bad faith by an editor who didn't get what he wanted with a {{speedy}} tag. It was meant as a stub to give it a chance to grow. Newport Backbay (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Google test can be deceiving - see WP:GHITS. Add quotation marks and you get 658 google hits rather than 500.000. And most of them seem to be directory entries, blogs, restaurant guides, and the like. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And 355 without duplicates. They don't all seem to be about this "the crab cooker" although most seem to be. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ([by nominator]) A google search provides hardly 100 results, that too many from blog webpages, A google news search provides ZERO results. The article seems pure spam & ad (WP:SPAM). There is no reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE) (No need for separate article, may be just mention about this in Newport beach article --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep provided notability can be established. The initial spammy version was tagged for speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation, but the tone has already been improved, so I think the "spam" argument is no longer valid. The author appears to be making sincere efforts to bring the article up to Wiki standards. --DAJF (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:SPAM Mayalld (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because of a lack of notability. What makes this restaurant different or more special than any other restaurant? "It's known for its paper plates" seems a bit of a stretch. Joyous! | Talk 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like ad-spam to me for a nn restaurant. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.. Marcus22 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Added two images from the commons. --evrik ^(talk) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The restaurant is notable, and meets the google test. The AfD was premature. I think that if it had had more than an hour of existence before it was tagged for deletion it might have had a chance to grow and show notability. --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• KeepOver zealous nomination, the article was just created. The business is over 50 years old and does seem to be a bit of a fixture on the So. Calif restaurant scene. Notability can probably be establish, but lets assume good faith and not be quick to 'delete' before editors are given a chance to make an article that can pass muster.Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep only because article is so new -- spam argument no longer valid since article's been improved. Seems to have a marginal amount of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, lacking independant reliable secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The two cites by the Register qualify as independant reliable secondary sources. --evrik ^(talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Or are they. Seeing that they are identical leads to believe they may be press releases. I couldn't find anything about that on the site. Not sure if it is actual editorial information, or that it is company supplied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just added several more references, linked it to local culture, expanded it and now I'm hungery. Can we speedy close this as a keep? --evrik ^(talk) 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Those got me convinced, keep. Since there is still some opposition that is more than marginal, it seems not prudent to speedy keep now, even if I expect this AfD to fail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, As someone who's actually been there, it is a landmark establishment not only in Newport Beach but Orange County, CA. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This restaurant is notable because of its history in the city and because it is part of the culture of Newport Beach, unlike most restaurants. This article can grow, but needs time. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What's with the "spam" comments? Is the owner posting menus, coupons, and slogans? We have notability standards, might as well use them. The Orange County Register is a significant, reliable source - the major paper for a population of nearly 3 million, and the fourth largest circulation paper in California. Other references include the Oakland Tribune and some business publications. The restaurant is notable because it is famous, iconic, and historical. It gives context to the community. An understanding of the business, culture, and community of Newport Beach and Orange County more generally includes an understanding of the place. The sources [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22crab+cooker%22+%22newport+beach%22&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1999&as_hdate=2002&lnav=d2&ldrange=1975,1991&hdrange=2003,2005. [11] call it "celebrated", "very successful", "famous", "an institution", "landmark", and "world famous". Wikidemo (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are enough sources that say this place is notable to justify the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks like a reasonable article. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Tryl

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

Per WP:BLP and the relevant essays WP:HARM and WP:COATRACK, there's no need for a separate biographical article on Luke Tryl. While he's well-known here at Oxford, his fame nationally stems solely from the Irving and Griffin incident, which can be adequately covered in the article on the Oxford Union; this article is basically a coatrack with very little information about the rest of his life. (Full disclosure: I do know him personally, but that has nothing to do with my belief that this page should be deleted.) A redirect might be acceptable as a compromise solution, but I'm putting this up for community input. Walton^One 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Oxford Union per nom. Local fame does not justify notability, and if this article stays it will remain a coatrack for the Irving/Griffin incident, which will be a POV nightmare... Cricketgirl (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The Oxford Union is one of the major fora for debate in the UK, so I don't think that there should be any doubt that any president is notable. The article should be expanded to provide an NPOV, not deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The debates at the Union do not regularly warrant a mention in local Oxford media, let alone that of the UK. Union publicity still refers to a debate in 1933 as being ground breaking - The King and Country Debate. This is hardly a sign of a leading forum for debate in the UK. Question Time and Any Questions on the BBC are arguably considerably more major as debate forums in the UK.

• Like I said, I know him personally, and I doubt we could draft a full biographical article; although I could certainly find out information by asking him, very little information about his life prior to the Presidency has been published in reliable sources. Furthermore, bear in mind that the Union has a new president each term - that's three presidents a year - and most don't attract the level of media attention that Luke has, so it's implausible to assert that all Union Presidents are notable. Walton^One 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - 10,000 articles online, interviewed live by BBC News, CNN International, ITV, and most importantly THE CHERWELL, his actions single-handedly resulting in a global debate, a mass protest, police scuffles etc... Iheartlongden 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete / Redirect if you must - At this point only relevant for Irving/Griffin story, which is suitably covered in the Oxford Union article. All other information on the page is of no particular interest to the wider public outside Oxford. Union presidency does not warrant an entry, as said before, there are three of them per year, most of whom will not have achieved anything particularly noteworthy in terms of wikipedia by that point in their life. - Charles M (sorry, don't have an account) 07 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matanuska tundra

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

Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If it's not a hoax its WP:OR. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be found, although what would constitute reliable sources for this bit of drug lore is a bit mysterious. FYI, this article is about a strain or brand of marijuana, not about some bit of geography in the Arctic, as the title might suggest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. You know, government documents identifying this strain of Cannibus (DEA, DOJ, FBI, or so on) might work as a reliable source. Court documents from a notable case would as well. I have to believe some agency has a list of different types of weed, if only for enforcement purposes such as tracking origins or growing operations. High Times might also work as an independent source, though that publication obviously has its own bias. The crux of the matter here is that the notability of this particular plant is not apparent. So, delete for lack of notability and reliable sources, though I think that some sources might exist for this sort of thing. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Do you really believe that any variety of this plant "grew and developed wild in the Alaskan Tundras", as was claimed in this article for a related variety? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... no, not really. I was speaking in more of a general sense, as there are indeed strains of pot that might have sources that meet WP:RS. This one, obviously, is not. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP. If anecdotal evidence from thousands of regular cannabis users isn't good enough for you, I suggest you do some serious research as "official" sources of information regarding cannabis strains are extremely hard to come by.

Do a Google search though. You'll find about 774 hits under "Alaskan Thunderfuck" with quotes and 9,600 without them. "Matanuska Thunderfuck" with quotes will get you 3,980 hits.

nowhere does it say it grew without human intervention though it is definitely possible. Cannabis is an extremely hardy plant. You can grow it anywhere. Alaska in the summertime is light jacket weather at worst and the sun stays out for a long time Soulpiercer7 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)soulpiercer7

• But it does say that a related variety "originally grew and developed wild in the Alaskan Tundras". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the whole lot of these articles, most of them are fictional strains of marijuana which only exist in the smoker's own delusional minds. Coccyx Bloccyx 16:44, 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 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edgelake Plaza

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

Very non-notable mall in Wisconsin, totally fails WP:RS. Way too small of a mall to have ever been notable.

I am also listing its sister mall, right across the street, for the same reason.

Lakeview Plaza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:37, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom RMHED (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment- nomination is flawed, your basing notability upon size, read WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm basing it on WP:RS. The fact that they're two very small malls is immaterial -- I nominated the two malls since there aren't any reliable sources on them, and no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• my apologies, I must be misinterpreting "Way too small of a mall to have ever been notable." Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 06:20, 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 wasdelete as garbage. DS (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bevurllei willssonne

Probably hoax - Googling gives nothing (the Miro Art Gallery leads to an art college), and the name seems to be Beverly Wilson..! Stephenb (Talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. The lack of a Google presence for a 17th century French painter does not necessarily damn it. The lack of a presence on Google Scholar is more concerning as is the lack of sources. The name and claimed alias adds weight to concerns of a hoax. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:59, 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. Prolog (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk metal

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

It violates multiple Wikipedia policies and is a general mess. These policies include WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could you be a bit more specific of exactly which polices it violates? Lugnuts (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can see nothing about it that justifies a deletion. Definitely needs cleaning up, yes. But deletion seems excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.86.14 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There's been no reliable sources provided since its last deletion discussion (or ever), so this article may contain a fair amount of original research. CloudNine (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Punk metal is a legitimate musical genre. The article does need heavy clean-up though; the only source I've been able to come up with is [12]. Patzak (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. NPOV is also blatently violated. DragonDance (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge or redirect to Crossover or Crossover-trash. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. While this article is unsourced, it has links to more detailled articles that are sourced, and most of those articles link to it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete made up umbrella term. All the geners on this already have there own articles no reason for this information to be repeated here. Ridernyc (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Based on the citation given above (and my admitedly limited knowledge), "punk metal" appears to be an historic term from the 80s that does not apply to contemporary genres. It further appears that this article contains not only original research but that this OR is based on a mistaken belief that anything with both punk and metal roots qualifies as "punk metal". Crossover or Crossover thrash does need to be kept in its own article, however. CAVincent (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment crossover thrash can simply be merged into the the thrash metal article. Ridernyc (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I think Hardcore punk is quite enough. NSR77 ^T_C 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. The description given is largely the same as Hardcore punk and we already have an article for that. A1octopus (talk) 18:42, 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 Redirect to European Potato Famine... and then speedy deleted by User:Fram as an A3 (unlikely redirect). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Potato Famine

English Potato Famine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable. There are only 8 Google hits for this term, only two of which are independent of Wikipedia[13]. More damning, there are no Google Scholar hits for this term[14], nor Google Books[15]. Combined with the fact that the next article created by this author, Rijk Van Roog, is a clear hoax, I propose that we delete this article. Fram (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a hoax. This is either an inept bit of point-scoring or (more likely) simple trolling. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• No hoax - Keep then merge with newly created article - "English Potato Famine" is no hoax (as neither is the Dutch Potato Famine of the same time). Potato famine struck throughout north-western Europe in the mid 1840's. However, in comparison to the Irish experience, the effects elsewhere were to create a food crisis, rarely verging on a true famine. An exception to ex-Ireland Europe are the Scottish Highlands, however, which deserve special treatment as they were particularly harshly struck, and the social/economics effects of the crisis were destroying for the Highlands. The topic would be better treated as three articles: Irish Potato Famine, Highland Potato Famine, and European Potato Famine. I had proposed to start the latter article before. I suggest that Cornish Potato Famine and English Potato Famine be merged into that, as they stand no realistic chance of becoming more than just stubs and would be better treated in the pan-European context. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There was famine everywhere, but do you have any evidence (reliable sources, that is) that the "English Potato Famine" is ever called thus? If not, can you point to some sources (historical books, scientific journals, ...) that discuss this potato famine in England? A it stands, it is unsourced and has a title that is unused elsewhere, so turning it into a redirect would still serve no purpose. Fram (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll not close this, as I may seem to be too involved in this by now, but the article should be deleted as a copyright violation of Cornish Potato Famine (thanks to Sony-Youth for bringing this indirectly to my attention). Fram (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not possible to copyvio a Wikipedia article given that WP articles are GFDL-tagged...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's perfectly possible to copyvio, since the GFDL requires attribution, and none has been given here. Please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Fram (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Close has already been rightly redirected to European Potato Famine. MLA (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CGI animal adventure movies

CGI animal adventure movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has had a notability tag sitting on it since May. A Google search turns up nothing but forum posts and Wikipedia mirrors. Simply put, the fact that CGI movies sometimes have animals in them is not part of human knowledge. szyslak 08:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but the fact that CGI movies sometimes have animals in them is part of human knowledge. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I really meant "part of encyclopedic human knowledge". szyslak 08:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep, it's a list and could use a little more text, but I don't see what the harm is in keeping it, many of the movies mentioned are noteable, and the list might prove useful for someone. --.Tom. (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM are basically what your argument comes to. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I see little value in this list. It's just going to get out of date and get forgotten. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Seems like a recurring trend in recent movies, and I'd bet there are sources out there on the trend itself, but I can't find any. - Chardish (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingual worship songs

Bilingual worship songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pointless list from the point of view of an encyclopedia. Nothing notable about the subject. Wrong title as well (they aren't bilingual, they are translated), and there are thousands of translated worship songs (from any language to any language, no reason to restrict it from "English to Spanish".). If something is unethical or not is not our business, we deal with the noteworthy, encyclopedic things. Basically, this is just a directory, and WP:NOT a directory. Fram (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete That a song is translated into Spanish, or any other language, doesn't set it apart in any way. szyslak 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The list notes that these are "legally translated" then includes many old public domain songs as well as recent copyrighted songs. The list might be useful to someone wanting Spanish translations of English praise songs, but per the nomination seems to fail WP:NOT since it is an indiscriminate list. Edison (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A cleverly disguised catalog of songs recorded by Paul Wilbur, made by throwing in other pieces that might be bilingual worship songs Mandsford (talk) 23:08, 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 11:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master Sword - Continued

Master Sword - Continued (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject does not fulfil our notability guidelines (WP:N); the only coverage available seems to be ModDB news entries written by a member of the project. Marasmusine (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment no substantiation of the claim that it's not noteable. Do you have any information on how many players and fans it has, how widely it is know, or if it has been mentioned anywhere that you don't necessarily know of? Google returns 190,000 hits, most of which seem to be about some other "master sword" in other games, but I don't have the time to scan them all - did you? --.Tom. (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  A google search for "Master Sword Continued" returns a rather more modest 3280 hits; the first hundred or so hits are download pages, directory entries and other trivial mentions. The onus is on contributing editors to provide assertion of notability, particularly with mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to redirect it to? Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to publicize your pet project. - Chardish (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Your creation might be cool, but Wikipedia is not a place to show off how good you are in modding. 1yodsyo1 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus so the article is kept. The arguments on both sides make sense. Consensus seems fairly evenly split. The one change that seems to have some support and logical power is to rename the article to Next Australian federal election. I randomly picked a country (Germany) and found Next German federal election as an example. Not to compare Australia with Germany, but the context of future elections in both countries seems very similar. (This example is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument about keeping this article or the validity of the German article. It is only used here as a guideline to the renaming of the article to be in line with other articles of this type.) Pigman☿ 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian federal election, 2010

Australian federal election, 2010 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Australian federal elections are not held on fixed terms and there is no way of knowing when the next one will be held. There is nothnig that can be written on this topic at this stage that would not be pure crystalballery, including the date. This is a contested PROD, tag removed with the rationale - "removed PROD, have some sources about the next federal election" Needless to say, this does not address the fundamental issue of not knowing anything about the election and any sources will be only speculation as well. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Melburnian (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but change article title to Next Australian federal election to overcome misleading title as done for Next Bangladeshi presidential election, Next German federal election, Next Greek legislative election, Next Palestinian general election, Next United Kingdom general election, Next Serbian presidential election, Next Danish parliamentary election. Article now has some basic, but valid content. --Melburnian 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - LOVE that idea. Would fully support any change to that. Auroranorth (!) 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also article says nothing. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The next election could be anywhere from 2008 to early 2011. Serious crystalballism - Peripitus (Talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't know anything about the election yet including the date. In fact, there has been an early election the first time after the election of a new Government every time since World War II (1949, 1951 - 1972, 1974 - 1975, 1977 - 1983, 1984 - 1996, 1998) Depending on how things go in the Senate, there may well be one again. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - can it be speedied on total lack of meaningful content? Anyway, delete per above. Cricketgirl (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Chances are good that the next election will be a double-dissolution in 2008. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
• Keep I know everything about it is a bit crystal-ish, but the fact here is that there will be an election, and if it does happen in 2008, 2009 or 2010 the articles name can just be changed accordingly. There has been talk about how the libs can get back to power over in our local rag, and i think that information of that sort should be added to the article. Twenty Years 15:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Carnac the Magnificent says Delete. 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Nothing worthwhile to write in that article until the next election campaign is officially launched. Not to mention that we don't even know whether it will indeed be in 2010. As for Twenty Years's concern, whatever may be written until then would probably be easier to find in other articles. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a need for expansion, but there is enough potential information to justify keeping the page.Thewiikione (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  And how exactly would the article expand if there are no reliable sources out there that can predict any of the happenings related to the 2010 election? Plus, the article doesn't provide much context on what the election is, rather, on that the election is to be scheduled for that year. Looks like a clear cut delete to me. Spebi 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. That a federal election will happen within roughly 3 years is known, but nothing else is - not even the degree of swing that the opposition will require to unseat the government, as there's almost always a redistribution in between elections which changes margins around a bit. This will be a very useful article as the campaign draws closer, but it's beyond premature at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - An article with no meaningful content. Additions to this article at this point would be purely speculative Even the article title is speculation - as Federal terms of office are not fixed there is no reason to assume the next election will be in 2010. A more accurate sentence would read

  "Elections in Australia are held at the Prime Minister's discretion but may not occur significantly prior to the three-year mark unless approved by the Governor General following Senate rejection of a piece of legislation twice within the term. Otherwise, elections must be called within three years of the first meeting of parliament (Constitution, s28). The next Australian Federal election will therefore occur sometime after about mid-year 2008 and before January or February 2011 (depending on the date of the first Parliament following the 2007 election)."

  Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and cites the next US election as an example. The only difference I can see is that the year is uncertain. The election we just had could have been as late as 2008. This didn't stop the 2007 article from being created with the "2007" in the title, shortly after the 2004 election. There is currently no meaningful content in the article but a "election calendar" section, as in this revision of the 2007 election article, would be entirely useful, accurate, verifiable data. I'm not sure when parliament is due to sit again so I can't do the calendar myself. -- Chuq (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I understand the point you're making but future election articles are generally only valid where there is at the very least some useful data to add (for example, candidates or major policy themes). They should not be created so far in advance that there is nothing useful to say. Where they have been created this far in advance, they are usually deleted (see here for example). I would support an article on the next Australian election in say, 18 months when the date and likely leaders will be clearer. For the immediate future we have no useful information other than that there will be another Federal election one day and it might be at any time within the next three or so years. This doesn't notable enough to justify the article. Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That exact article is used as an example in WP:CRYSTAL as to what should be deleted. It's equivalent would be Australian federal election, 2013 or something similar. This article is more similar to United States presidential election, 2008 (eg. "the next one".). So far as the Aus 2010 article goes, we do know by what date the election must legally be called. We do know the latest it can be held. We do know on what date the senate terms expire. Barring anything unusual, the election is going to happen. it's a textbook case of what is allowed under WP:CRYSTAL. People write these policies for a reason, so that we only need to have discussions like these once! -- Chuq (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a considerable difference between the next US Presidential election and the next Australian federal one, though. In the US, they're already campaigning for the party nominations, so there's a wealth of content that can be added about who's running and whatever else. In Australia, they haven't even sworn the new PM and his cabinet into their positions yet, so the smoke hasn't really cleared from last Saturday. Except in the sense that all politics is election-driven, there's not anything approaching an election campaign on yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You're correct about this exact example at WP:CRYSTAL. To clarify my point, the quote is: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Applying this to the next Australian election article - preparation is not in progress, speculation about it is not well documented and the article cannot be considered an appropriate topic because nothing can be said about it which is verifiable and not original research. Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • The point of my longwinded comment being - just being the next election is not notable. There needs to be some verifiable information to make the article more than an empty shell. This article has no such information and none will be available for a long time to come. Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Great argument by Chuq - why should the US get its article so early and Australia can't? I would suggest that 2010 would be appropriate but 2013 (or whatever year it's held in) is not. Auroranorth (!) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oh please, because the US election is next year, and so is closer than 2010, and therefore there are more reliable sources out there and there is already discussion about candidates in the election, and other content related to the topic – nothing can be said about the 2010 election right now. Spebi 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  The 2008 U.S. presidential election article was created in 2003, nominated for deletion, and survived. We didn't even know who the sitting president would be at the time! Note that I don't have any particular affinity for this article, I'm just wondering why the inconsistent application of policy? If this article gets deleted, it will be recreated over and over by people even if they read the policy. I'm not a stickler for needless procedure/policy, I just don't see an obvious reason or precedent that indicates the article is inappropriate. -- Chuq (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  We have the ability to prevent pages from recreation for a reason, and I don't really see how keeping this article will do much more than please those who don't read policy, and save them from the effort of recreating the article. I'm not complaining that this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL", I'm complaining about the fact that the US election and the 2010 election are being compared to each other. It's quite obvious that there is content that one can use to make an article out of about the US 2008 election, but there's pretty much nothing out there about the upcoming 2010 election apart from the fact that it will occur in 2010 (unless Rudd or whoever is in government decides to delay it until early 2011, hypothetical, but meh), and so it serves pretty much as a fork for unsourced rumours that are obviously untrue. Should more information become available about the election, I'd be happy to have the page restored or support a complete rewrite of the page containing only the information that is sourced reliably. Spebi 09:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Comment - the point is not solely the amount of time to the next election. Its the facts that a) preparation is not in progress; b) any speculation about it is not well-documented and c) nothing, not even the year it will be held in, is verifiable. In 2003 preparations were already under way for 2008 Presidential campaigns. Sitting Presidents are rarely defeated after one term (four times in the last hundred years) and are never defeated in primaries, so serious Democratic and Republican candidates were already preparing for 2008 in 2003. The US campaign machinery and fundraising is also of a scale that requires many years of buildup, especially given that there is no such thing as uniform party support for any candidate (unlike Ausralia). So - a 2003 article on the 2008 Presidential campaign might be justified. This doesn;t of itslef justify an article on the 20?? Australian election campaign, for the reasons outlined above. Euryalus (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  I agree completely. As I said, as more reliable sources that verify new facts that are uncovered about the elections are found, I am happy to support the recreation of the article. As it is right now, as just a placeholder, assuming that the election will be held at all, and if it is, in 2010, I see no valid reason to keep the article. Spebi 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  I hope that's a worldwide view you're taking, there. We can safely assume that the election will be held. Auroranorth (!) 10:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  Sigh. There you go again, "assumming" that the election will occur in 2010. That's all anyone can do, "assume" things about the election, but provide no reliable sources to verify these things that are being assumed. Who knows? Rudd (or whoever is in government) may decide to delay the election all the way until early 2011, and so the election won't be in 2010. You can't "safely assume" anything will occur in the future, hence why we have policies like WP:CRYSTAL in place, so articles like these aren't created. CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." – terms go for three years, but I don't think that elections are scheduled as such, as said above by someone. I'll say this for the last time – there are no reliable sources to guarantee that the election will occur in 2010. Spebi 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)