Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 6 November 8 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As several commentators have noted, the article probably should be retitled, but the appropriate forum for that discussion is the article's talk page, so they didn't even attempt to form consensus here as to what new title would be better. GRBerry 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article needs to, at best be merged into Satanic ritual abuse and or False allegation of child sexual abuse and at worst deleted altogether due to it's pure speculation. It admits to being pure speculation at several points throughout the article and I feel it is simply not necessary. This is not a personal nomination, it is professional. There has also been much argument over the name of the article which has been causing a lot of problems with a specific user. Carter | Talk to me 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Article is well-referenced and it is a notable series of events. There is nothing speculative about what is recounted in the article; it takes no stance on the truth or falsity of the allegations that were investigated by church and government bodies. (A number of editors are working on the talk page towards consensus for a name change; a problem with the name is not even close to being a good reason to delete. The discussion/consensus process there should probably be permitted to run its course.) Nominator appears to have a long-standing problem with article's existence, having nominated it for speedy deletion (!) shortly after it was created, as well as performing a number of sudden and dramatic moves of the page that were performed without consensus in the middle of discussions aimed at gaining a consensus for a move. Nomination is possibly motivated by WP:COI, since nom's user page indicates he is a member of church that is involved. Snocrates 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[See talk page for discussion on Snocrates's opinion.]
  • Keep (creator) per Snocrates. The problems with the article on the talk page have largely involved concerns with the name of the article, not with its notability. I suggest keeping and then let consensus determine the name, per Snocrates. At time of creation, nominator accused me of anti-Mormon bias, but article content was reviewed by several disinterested parties, including an admin, and was found to be largely free of any POV problems. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy states "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." I believe that this is exactly what is happening here. As Carter states at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&action=edit&section=14 : "Snocrates, while many conclusions can be drawn all the time, not many conclusions other than the LDS church was involved in SRA can be drawn from this title. I've chosen to use something to end the discussion once and for all." Carter is the one proposing the page deletion. I agree with Snocrates "Article is well-referenced and it is a notable series of events. There is nothing speculative about what is recounted in the article; it takes no stance on the truth or falsity of the allegations that were investigated by church and government bodies."Abuse truth 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with the main S.R.A. article. The references do not prove the validity of the allegations, so the title is inappropriate. The article states that the claims were not validated. The reference by Loftus in fact casts doubt on the whole "recovered memory" movement. Edison 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The reference by Loftus should be counterbalanced. See:
Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/prev.html
Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html
This URL has archives of corroborated cases of recovered memory
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/index.html
Memory & Abuse: The Recovered Memory Controversy
http://kspope.com/memory/index.php Abuse truth 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I Strongly agree with Edison here. These are the main points I have been trying to highlight. Carter | Talk to me 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete or merge with False allegation of child sexual abuse, which would be more reflective of events presented in the article. The title is an excellent example of yellow journalism, but not something that should be permitted to continue on Wikipedia. There is not dispute about content of the article! We have a main article for false allegations and this one is best suited for it. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[See talk page for discussion on Storm Rider's opinion.]
  • Merge or Rename: I'd prefer that this article be merged into another article, but the current consensus is going against this. There is a developing consensus for the name of this article and should be allowed to run its course. — Val42 08:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or rename. While noteworthy, I question the need for an independent article. Title should somehow addressed the fact that this is alleged. Doczilla 09:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename or merge per Doczilla. If it is not merged, the name must change to reflect the fact that it is alleged. --AliceJMarkham 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and well-referenced (16 footnotes, mostly WP:RS), as well as different from other churches' scandals, and NPOV - the summary says it all. Problems with specific footnotes, content, etc., belongs on the talk page, not at AfD. Admins: There is no consensus here per WP:SNOW; allow this AfD nom to continue. Bearian 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and well-referenced per Bearian and Snocrates. Appears to be a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of AFD. I can understand the desire for a "rename", but that can be carried out via consensus through the normal move proposal procedures, which appear to be well underway and making some progress at the talk page. SESmith 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a fine article. The statements are neutral, and backed by multiple, reliable sources. Further, statements that officials have "...never been able to independently verify memories of satanic ritual abuse" seem to make it clear that the allegations were never proven. I also agree that the name should change. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP* The references are solid, and very helpful. The article is relatively calm, given the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.239.2 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and edit/move I agree that the topic is noteworthy and shouldn't disappear, but the title is very misleading. I had never heard of this topic previous to seeing the listed title; after reading the article, I can say that the title conveyed a much different content than what is actually there. The title leads one to believe that the church participates in or condones satanic ritual abuse. A similarly misleading title would be "Serial murders and the US government." Titled so because citizens have committed serial murders. Also, the article requires refining to support more of it's claims and remove some bias. Hopefully edits in that direction aren't interfered with. The article implies a connection with a greater movement of accusations in the US; wouldn't this article and the topic in general be better served by combining them? --Wikiquin 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - no, it won't be templated out of existence kthx - David Gerard 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Wikiquin. I can't say I have any brilliant naming ideas, but hopefully that can be resolved via talk page. :) — xDanielx T/C 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is solidly referenced and is notable. Work to rename on talk page. Ubi Terrarum 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename. Good article, terrible title.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the strongest argument to keep is Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, the subject of the article fails the caveat to this criteria. the_undertow talk 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Three Vests

The Three Vests (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable novel/deries of novel per WP:N Henry Merrivale 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Version at time of AFD-nomination→permalink --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: According to the publisher's website, these are the only books they've published, and the first came out four years ago, which strongly suggests these are actually self-published. Googling, I can find only a couple mentions on reading lists and no actual reviews and no awards. Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BK. —Quasirandom 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof of notability, no references. As always, if notability can be established and reliable sources provided, it can always be re-created with them. --AliceJMarkham 10:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Not a lot of independent coverage, but there are at least two references in the first 20 ghits to classroom use, and a later one here. Reviewed here by the Midwest Book Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep I can sympathize with SarekOfVulcan's desire to keep the article. I believe that Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria is satisfied in regard to basic criterion 4, which begins "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools...". The sources provided by SarekOfVulcan support satisfaction of this criterion. I will add the links provided to the article momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The myths of December 25th

The myths of December 25th (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article lacks a reliable source, and thus can be considered original research. Little to no context on subject matter. Borders on fringe theory if not random religious excogitation. Outright non-encyclopedic.

I would have Prod'ed it but there is an ongoing discussion in its talk page on its encyclopedic value. Dali-Llama 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as copyright violation, as indicated at the top of the article's Talk page. The primary author claims to have an email asserting the article is usable under the GDFL but 1) its apparently in Portugese and 2) we cannot take the editor's assertion that the email is real. Beyond that, it appears to be novel synthesis or pure original research. No reliable sources cited. -- Kesh 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio violations and recreation of deleted material (formerly The myth of December 25th. Collectonian 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The discussion on the article's talk page indicates that a number of the claims in this article are in question. Besides the problems described above, Wikipedia already has a much better article on this subject at Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Metropolitan90 says, there is already an article dealing with this (as one would expect). Crazysuit 05:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've heard all these claims before, and they're little more than internet "conspiracy theory" drivel that gets spread around blogs and video sharing sites with plenty of enthusiasm but little in the way of fact-checking. Already covered in a more balanced and reliable way elsewhere on WP. ~Matticus TC 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio and re-creation of previously deleted material that has not been DRVed. If someone wants this to exist, DRV it. --AliceJMarkham 10:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and allegations of possible copyright violation and abuse of processper AliceJMarkham. Bearian 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ☎ 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defective Epitaph

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

Delete a slew of unsourced articles about albums by a barely notable band but with neither sourcing nor any indication of coverage in third party reliable sources for notability as we'd like to see per WP:MUSIC.

I am also nominating:
  • Carlossuarez46 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They're all now linked to at least one (in one case two, since there are two albums which were linked to AMG reviews before this process even began) third-party reviews, and I'm sure I can add more to any of these if needed. While the band isn't up for deletion, I'll just add that an act on an important indie label is generally going to be notable anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Is metal-observer.com a reliable source? Carlossuarez46 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • To the best of my ability to find out, I'd say so. Those reviews don't seem to have been submitted by any old net user (unlike, say Encyclopedia Metallum, which rates albums by averaging out user-submitted reviews). I'm only really on the periphery of the metal subculture, though, so feel free to prove me wrong and I'll hunt up more reviews like that one for "Defective Epitaph" itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Look at WP:MUSIC, it is my feeling that these albums do qualify as notable. While I would not be totally opposed to a merge of them to the band's article, because there are six of them I think it is best to keep them as separate articles. SorryGuy 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn in light of LaMenta3's substantial rewrite and expansion. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Israel

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

Delete unsourced article about a mayor of a mid-sized city - we don't know when or where he was born, or whether he's still alive. Any way, for those who have stated that mayors of cities over 100,000 are inherently notable - Macon's population was 97,606 in 2000 and certainly less when this dude was mayor. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Stubs and unsourced articles are surmountable problems and are not a reason to delete. Further, before nominating things for AfD, please do a cursory Google search for the article topic. In under five minutes I found six fairly substantial sources which can be used to reference and expand this article. Knowledge of a subject's birthdate is not a requirement for inclusion, as some people consider that information private. However, if you care to know, George Israel is 57 or 58 (as I'm fairly certain he was born in either 1949 or 1950, though I wasn't able to find a source offhand that explicitly states that), he is currently the president of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and is on the board of directors of YKK Group. (Fun fact: YKK is a big employer in Macon.) LaMenta3 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have significantly expanded and referenced the article. LaMenta3 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is sourced and asserts notability. --Goobergunch|? 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- just a cursory Google News Archive search turns 330 news items. This took all of 30 seconds and anyone can do it. Why are we even having this AfD?--A. B. (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions and Politicians-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- I agree that the article looked weak at the point it was nominated for deletion. Hats off to LaMenta3 for the timely expansion. I agree with the other respondents who suggest the nominator let us down by failing to do a web search, prior to the nomination, to determine whether the topic of the article had room for expansion. Because the nominator didn't choose to spend a minute or two of due diligence, prior to nomination, they ended up wasting a lot of the time of other people. I would suggest to the nominator that they withdraw this nomination, and be less hasty with their nominations for deletion in future. Geo Swan 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per all above Youtune989 17:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Macon is a major city in Georgia. 100,000 is a considerable population in many states. The article should show his year of birth and whether he is living. This can be found. Billy Hathorn 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yan Jia Jun

Yan Jia Jun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-line bios of wife & husband - she a princess of Wei born in 23 AD - checking our articles about Wei, this state didn't exist from the 200BCs to 200ADs, so this may be a hoax. Anyone more familiar with Chinese history should either add content and sources to these or confirm whether they are hoaxes.

I am also nominating:
  • Carlossuarez46 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete both, per A1. --Blanchardb 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment After 3 days, the originator had plenty of time to expand these articles into valid stubs. --Blanchardb 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources turn up (in which case, leave a note on my talk page). This is a tough one, since if these people were important historical figures, they might have virtually no footprint on the web -- just in books and old journals. The same editor also authored edited a third, much longer and also unreferenced article, Han Xin (disambiguated from another article we have titled Han Xin (Prince of Han)). Perhaps the article's creator has something s/he was working from in writing the article. I left them the standard AfD notification plus a comment. Here are the results of searches I did:
I disagree with speedy deleting for now.--A. B. (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the lists of China-related deletions and History-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I think editors need to be careful with Chinese topics because of different romanization schemes, for example: "Yan Jia Jun" 顏迦珺 can also be rendered as "Yen Chia-hsun" and Han Ruo Xian can be "Han Jo-hsien." Especially for figures from traditional China, googling under the pinyin transliteration may find almost nothing while another system, esp. Wade-Giles

ma produce thousands of hits. Moheroy 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: The Han Xin article has been around for three years with multiple editors, which makes me inclined to believe these two articles about relatives are not hoaxes. --A. B. (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (Changed my vote, see comment below) I can't find anything right now, but being a Princess of Wei in AD 23 has nothing to do with the Kingdom of Wei (Cao Wei) in the three Kingdoms period. Wei was a domain in the Han dynasty, which had "princesses" so it is reasonable that this woman could exist. In addition her dates put her in the generation immediatly following the restoration of the dynasty which was very turbulent, so it is not unlikely that a woman of this period might be in the histories. I don't have a copy of the Han history available right now, but so far this entry is passing the smell test. I think deletion is overly hasty. English language sources on this sort of thing are really terrible and ggogling figures like this is not very reliable. Moheroy 10:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The article for the "father" Han Xin is for the famous general from the founding of Han. The son "Han Ruo Xian" 韓若賢 is listed in the Han Xin article as a general of Wei under Cao Cao, this is impossible as their is a many century gap. This Han Ruo Xian may exist as might his wife "Yan Jia Jun" 顏迦珺, but these articles are now useless with this clearly incorrect data. If they need new articles in the future they can be created fresh then. The new Classical Chinese Wiki will be a good impetus and start at that timeMoheroy 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now (unless adequately expanded before debate closes), but without prejudice to recreation. This is too brief to be worth keeping. Peterkingiron 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Maxim. Carlossuarez46 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vin Decoding

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

Given all the cleanup tags, including notability, I think there is little to keep this article going. Delete Blanchardb 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chronicles of Ancient Darkness#Oathbreaker. James086Talk | Email 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oathbreaker

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

Delete book due out in September 2008 for which no information has been given out (per the article). Unsourced, OR, and WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nominator. It can be recreated when the book is published. Bláthnaid 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and perhaps userfy. The author, Michelle Paver is notable and her other books have articles, so I expect we'll want this article next year. I searched Google, Google News, and Google News Archive for "Michelle Paver"+Oathbreaker and came up with nothing usable here. Perhaps the article's author knows of something. (If a reference turns up to change the notability issue, please leave a note on my talk page. --A. B. (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment -- I see there's slightly more information about the book at Chronicles of Ancient Darkness#Oathbreaker which should suffice until publication. --A. B. (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply I have added some more information from Chronicles of Ancient Darkness#Oathbreaker to the oathbreaker page. Not sure if it will suffice though.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- part of a notable series. Not sure WP:CRYSTAL applies for that reason.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was YOU HAVE SELECTED KEEP AS THE COMPUTER'S DEFAULT VOICE. east.718 at 04:06, 11/13/2007

[edit] Speechbot

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

Short article about a program from H-P Labs, sourced to a blog, no indication that this program (like a process or a computer program?) is notable and received significant coverage in reliable third-party publications. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I would not say there is significant coverage, but the single reference checks out, and that's more than I can say for a lot of other articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the listed reference is a blog, it appears reliable based on its own references to primary sources. There are also several thousand additional hits on this name (several .edus), and I feel confident that a dedicated editor could find some solid RSs. Matchups 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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- if content is ever added, it can become an article again. Until then, there's no reason to not keep it as an rdr for search purposes. -- Mike (Kicking222) 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mad Men episodes

List of Mad Men episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete or Redirect to Mad Men - The article consists of nothing but an episode table that exists in its entirety in the main article. The main article includes links to comprehensive episode summaries from the network, whereas this list links to stub Wikipedia articles which are all nominated for merger. Per WP:SUMMARY this is an unnecessary content fork and the main article is not large enough to require a separate duplicate list. Attempt to redirect was reverted without comment. Otto4711 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; This table already exists in Mad Men, so it's unnecessary to have a separate list which duplicates it. Masaruemoto 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Masaruemoto. Decoratrix 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - clearly redundant. No more bongos 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan Prisoners Support Group

Vegan Prisoners Support Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm all for animals and the like, but this organisation does not assert notability, nor can I find anything like a reliably sourced article written about the 'Vegan Prisoners Support Group'. Several sources mention it see[ here), but none are about it specifically. Thus, from my estimation, it fails WP:N - it does not have even one reliable source of which it is the sole subject. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per an indicative lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Change to Keep I guess this was just a case of American (i.e. my) blindess to the notability of a UK topic. Though recently, they've garnered no news coverage, an archives search pulls up plenty of significant coverage to indicate notability. VanTucky Talk 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The group is well known amongst UK vegans and has been used by the prison service to advise on disputes regarding prisoners' diets - I've added a ref for this.--Michig 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am English, this is not a big noise in the UK. It's a single-issue pressure group active in a very restricted locus, and there are insufficient independent sources to establsih notability. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm English too (and an omnivore), and have never heard of these people before, but just because two English people don't know about them it doesn't mean that they're not notable. Vantucky and Michig have provided sufficient references to establish notability. Phil Bridger 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into Outsider art - done. Neil ☎ 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art extraordinary

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

Suspected self-promotion, and in any case the term seems to lack notability. This article claims that the term "Art extraordinary" is used to describe Outsider Art. To the best of my understanding, the term is used by only one small organization that calls itself the Art Extraordinary Trust--the article was created by a user named artextraordinarytrust. Another user placed templates on the article questioning the notability of the subject and the fact that this read like an advertisement--these were deleted by an anonymous IP. A google search for the term "art extraordinary" reveals a very small number of occurences, all directly affilited with a single gallery/collection in Scotland. I can find no evidence that the term is in circulation more generally, thus it hardly seems to merit its own article. BTfromLA 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge most of the content into Outsider art, as this article contains much useful information, is just not notable enough by itself for WP. Bearian 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Bearian. The Art Extraordinary Trust exists and hosted a conference on Outsider Art in 2000 [1] and would stand a better chance of surviving AfD, but Art extraordinary hasn't any currency as a term in its own right.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever's usable and redirect to Outsider art, where I think it's worth mentioning as a movement (the Trust and its gallery in Pittenweem have a few NewsBank hits). Gordonofcartoon 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Outsider art and Art extraordinary should be combined, in a separate section to the main article. Modernist 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Bearian et al. --AliceJMarkham 10:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. As an aside, if you look on google for "Joao-Maria Nabais" or "Joao Nabais" (no ã), you find quite a few English language hits. Neil ☎ 11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] João-Maria Nabais

João-Maria Nabais (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Twice speedied by me as A7; then a contested prod. Looks like non-notable biography/possible vanity to me, but difficult to tell since most/all references are in Portuguese. android79 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • But that doesn't say that non-English language sources are considered less reliable, just that when there is a choice of sources the English language one should be used for the convenience of readers. Phil Bridger 20:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Hawaiian717, and AliceJMarkham. Violates WP:BIO. Bearian 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced. Jack1956 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep until references are assessed by a Portuguese speaker. The Portuguese Wikipedia article on this person has existed since March 2006. Foreign language sources are acceptable and would should try to avoid an Anglo-US bias. Will reconsider if someone evaluates the sources and finds notability lacking. WjBscribe 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While my feeling looking at the links is that they are not definitely reliable as established by WP:RS, I really have no way to evaluate such and duffer to WP:V and will say keep the article as there do so seem to be multiple sources. As above, however, I will reconsider based on further information on the content of the sources. SorryGuy 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego

Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article that simply excerpts from the lead sections of other articles. These are distinct cities with separate articles and this combined article and title seems extremely unlikely to be of any value. Hawaiian717 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete pointless article. There are already separate articles for the three of the four downtown areas. All information in this article is already in either the city or downtown articles. There is no reason why someone would search the above phrase so a redirect is useless. --Polaron | Talk 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and because this article's basic concept is flawed. It claims to list only the "main" central business districts in Southern California. But how do we decide what is and is not a "main" central business district without engaging in original research and using arbitrary inclusion criteria? Why isn't Long Beach's downtown a "main central business district"? How about Irvine? Warner Center? All four of the cities discussed in this article are county seats, but why isn't Santa Ana here? It's a large city with a distinct downtown, just like San Bernardino, Riverside and the rest. And why can't existing articles cover Southern California's downtowns adequately? Aside from the individual city articles, Greater Los Angeles Area and Southern California can easily cover this subject. szyslak 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--Obviously a misbegotten subject choice. I concur with the reasoning above. BTfromLA 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't need this. All the content is in the specific aritlcs and nobody in their right mind would use the search term "Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego" if they wanted information on one or more of the downtowns. --Oakshade 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Any chance the article creator User:Ie909 is this guy: User:House1090? He also moved Inland Empire (CA) to Riverside-San Bernardino Area without consensus [2]and is currently messing up a navbox I made of IE universities. Ameriquedialectics 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I just moved it back to Inland Empire (CA). --Oakshade 07:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually you apparently did a cut and paste move and did not move the talk page. I undid the cut and past move. If it needs to be moved use WP:RM. Also you may want to consider a move back to [Inland Empire (California)]] which is what appears on the dab page. Vegaswikian 08:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I just didn't know how to move it properly as it wouldn't let me since Inland Empire (CA) already existed. --Oakshade 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nomination. Article provides nothing new. Trying to run comparisons without adequate sourcing would be original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; this is completely pointless. --NE2 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Hammond

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

Second half of article is a direct copy from a now obsolete website. Is the rest worth keeping ? thisisace 21:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Article as it stands does not come close to meeting WP:BIO. It's entirely possible he is just a writer for a local newspaper. i kan reed 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO WheelchairBoy 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not asserted or evident. Decoratrix 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BLP - not notable, no sources, copyvio, etc. Bearian 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — madman bum and angel 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wugging

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

This term appears to be a neologism with little to no notability. It fails WP:N and WP:NOT (dictionary), and it may also fail WP:NFT. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The topic seems legit to me, but I'm not sold on the notability. Probably in a few years this will become notable, and an article can be recreated at that time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I've found reliable sources: [3] (which I added to the article) and [4] but I don't believe it is notable enough. Two results [5], [6] make me wonder if it's a word invented by Everyclick.com, which is the site mentioned in the articles. However the idea is not new (e.g. [7], and the existing GoodSearch article) and I'm not sure whether it has another name. Snigbrook 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KADD. Neil ☎ 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K242AS

K242AS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge agreed, should be merged with the parent station, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete translator stations are non-notable if any recognition is given it should be given in an article of the host station (if any). --DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Translators are not in themselves notable. Fails to satisfy WP:N. Edison 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment K242AS is a translator of KADD - JPG-GR 07:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to KADD. DHowell 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. As said above, the article by itself does not satisfy WP:N by itself but the information could be useful to the parent article. SorryGuy 02:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn - article moved to KNLB. Neil ☎ 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K244CA

K244CA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed, should be merged with parent station page, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you stop creating articles for radio stations you know nothing about. If you're not sure what the parent station is, how can you be sure that a translator has any notability whatsoever? JPG-GR 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend that before creating any more translator stub articles, see http://crtech.org/fxactive.html for a list of FM translators and their parent stations. Create an article about the parent station, and then add info about translators in that article. Though it is still a good idea to not create articles about stations you nothing about. No radio station article should say "broadcasting a format". DHowell 08:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete translator stations are non-notable if any recognition is given it should be given in an article of the host station (if any). --DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Translators are not in themselves notable. Fails to satisfy WP:N. Edison 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment K244CA is a translator of KNLB - JPG-GR 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As with K280DD which I renamed to KRCY-FM and revised, I'm renaming this to KNLB and revising. DHowell 08:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep keep the KRCY-FM article, it's vastly more useful now. Thanks to DHowell.--Rtphokie 12:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator article has been redirected to a more complete article on the parent station. Nomination withdrawn. JPG-GR 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a Secret account 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K295AI

K295AI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed, should be merged with parent station page, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete translator stations are non-notable if any recognition is given it should be given in an article of the host station (if any). --DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Translators are not in themselves notable. Fails to satisfy WP:N. Edison 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment K295AI is a translator of KMRO - JPG-GR 07:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was withdrawn by nominator - note has now been magically transofrmed into a valid stub at KRCY-FM. Neil ☎ 10:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K280DD

K280DD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is about a radio translator station. By definition, translator stations do not provide their own programming, and are therefore non-notable. Possible merge with parent station, if parent station already has an article. JPG-GR 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed, should be merged with parent station page, what is the parent station?--Rtphokie 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete translator stations are non-notable if any recognition is given it should be given in an article of the host station (if any). --DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Translators are not in themselves notable. Fails to satisfy WP:N. Edison 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • AIM..STEADY...DELETE as per nom, also i think i saw this articles creation while on newpage patroll but past over it BUNNYS 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment K280DD is a translator of KRCY-FM - JPG-GR 07:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ...So where does the article merge if there's no parent? Oblivion, I'd say. Delete as NN translator. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For editors future reference: per FCC database, 0.155 kW = 155 Watts, not 15,500 kW. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 03:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename to KRCY-FM and fix. Actually I am going to be bold and do it anyway, ignoring any silly rules that might say I can't. DHowell 07:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note; this article has been completely re-written since 10 November. Relist? --Haemo 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator article has been merged/redirected/rewritten. Nomination withdrawn. JPG-GR 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris vernon

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

Non-notable local radio show host. Per precedent, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sturm) local radio personalities are not inherently notable. Contested speedy. Article cites no reliable sources. Caknuck 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • radio host is very notable.page was just started and is still in progress.page should not be deleted.SpeedyC1 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Removed comment of a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. Caknuck 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Would not object to merge with and redirect to KQPN. -- Satori Son 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable referances have been added.SpeedyC1 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Removed comment of a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. Caknuck Caknuck 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO, the "person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The "referances" [sic] you have added clearly do not meet that threshold. -- Satori Son 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you guys live in america or not but go to google right now and type in Colonel Reb is Crying and then tell me this guy is not notable.I live in Los Angeles and i've herd of this guy and he is in memphis,tn.SpeedyC1 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Removed comment of a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. Caknuck 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you've heard of him or he has a YouTube video doesn't make him notable. See WP:BIO for the guidelines there and tell me how Vernon qualifies. Caknuck 01:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Chris Vernon is notable as he is arguably the most popular media person in one of the top 50 media markets in the country, and he is known throughout the South for his "Colonel Reb is Cryin'", and worldwide for his international disputes with the Kingdom of Spain. Verno vs. Espana. — Pharrlong24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Delete Seems like a non-notable local character. For a sourced article, its very light on content. Mbisanz 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Theodor Lohmann due to copyright violations from the German Wikipedia and delete material on Telephone newspaper copied from Citizendium until such time that a compatible license is agreed upon. Tijuana Brass 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone newspaper

Telephone newspaper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Theodor Lohmann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)– (View AfD)

This article is copied in full from Citizendium, which is listed there under the same title. My concern with this article is not whether the content is well written, notable or verifiable, but rather that Citizendium has yet to define whether their articles are to be public domain, open source, copyleft, GNU, or something else. According to the disclaimer at the base of their page, a decision will be made in the near future, but as I see it, it's best to play it safe in the time being and not wander into any potential legal issues.


Comment adding Theodor Lohmann, who is in the same boat. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Should an appropriate license be decided upon at Citizendium - and I'm optimistic that it will - then by all means, let's bring this article over. In the meantime, the wiki can wait - it won't be the end of the world. Delete, albeit temporarily. Tijuana Brass 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Until Citizendium has decided upon a license and officially licensed their articles under said license (and it proves to be compatible with the GFDL), we can't use their material. CSD:G12 applies here, so technically it's a speedy delete. henrik•talk 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Additional comment: Ancient Celtic music was in the same boat as the above, but speedied by me. In the case this AfD determines there was no copyright violation, it should be restored. henrik•talk 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

*Rewrite away the copy vio and then keep. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I posted the ancient celtic music article and also forked another two articles from Citizendium: Theodor Lohmann and Telephone newspaper so whatever is decided should be applied to all three. Anyway when I copied them over I did so because I though they were well written and were missing from wikipedia with the exception of Telephone newspaper which was a stub. At the time I checked citizendium's copyright policy here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Copyrights, which states: All articles with content sourced from Wikipedia to the Citizendium are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All other contributions are considered to be released under an open content license yet to be determined.
So I assumed that this should allow us to copy their content. After this article was nominated for deletion I decided to look into the matter and apperently they are going to decide on their license by november 15 and the three candidates are the GDFL (the same we use over here), CC-BY-SA (which is compatible with the GDFL and again would allow us to usethe content) and CC-BY-SA-NC which would limit commercial use and so would be incompatible with the GDFL. The question remains however if we can copy their material now as they themselves state that its currently distributed under a free license. In any case their deadline for choosing a license is close enough that I think we can wait and then take any appropriate action.
PS: made the same post in two talk pages, hope it explains what happened, as to my vote, as people said above they should proprably be deleted I was under the impression that the content was already free when I copied it, gona have to wait untill november 15 to know for sure I guess. RIP-Acer 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Whatever they conclude, if they intend to keep content forked from Wikipedia, according to the terms of the GFDL used here, they also need to release such content under the same license. From Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks:
Wikipedia's license, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and reproduce a complete copy of the license in all copies of the work, and must acknowledge the main authors (which some claim can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia).
At any rate, that's a matter which will need to be pursued outside of this AfD. To return to the question at hand, should the closing admin decide to delete the material as a precaution, it's an easy matter to restore it should the license decided upon by Citizendium be compatible with our own. Tijuana Brass 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
New Twist! It appears that the Theodor Lohmann article was translated from the German wiki: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Theodor_Lohmann which in turn was based on a third party source. Assuming that the german arcicle is not a copyvio and that they translated it then we could keep it dont you think? Need opinions :D RIP-Acer 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason not to. Since I'm the person who started this AfD, making a decision on that and closing it out myself would be a conflict of interest, but I agree with your reasoning. Tijuana Brass 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
When I first began this article I was careful not to fork the content but to write a "new" stub. Since then the content has been copied across from CZ. Assuming CZ choses an incompatible license would it be sufficient to revert to the last non-forked diff, or would the whole page need to be deleted and recreated? Witty Lama 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment

These are under the IN-LIMBO license: nothing specific, as yet.  :-) Specifically, the articles ARE NOT under ANY free content license, and as such, they are very obviously copyvios, although no one at CZ is calling a lawyer, I assure you.

The Lohmanm article was completely re-written after it was discovered the German WP article was a copyvio.

I'd suggest the articles be speedy deleted lest someone come along and think them GFDL, which just is not so. This and this should not have been removed and was removed out-of-process, apparently.

Basically, you'll need to wait a few weeks till the CZ license is decided. I'm anxious to see what it will be, too! :-)

Stephen Ewen 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete We can't assume that Citizendium's eventual licesne will be GFDL compliant even if it is a free license of some sort, so we can't use their content yet. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Change to speedy keep as the copyvio has been removed and the article reduced to a stub. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. No one has put forth the argument that the articles could be kept right now, and it is important to respect copyrights. Theodor Lohmann ‎ has been deleted by JzG and I just reverted Telephone newspaper to the non-infringing version. The problem this AfD was meant to solve is resolved, anyone want to close this? Once Citizendium has decided upon a license and if it proves to be GFDL compliant, I'd be happy to restore the text. henrik•talk 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Change to speedy keep as the copyvio has been removed and the article reduced to a stub. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
General comment on speedily deleting copyvio's that applies in this instance. Yes, copyvios need to be removed. But this can be done by rewriting as well as deletion. Speedy deletion need not be hasty deletion. Where possible, when the subject is otherwise notable and verifiable, rewriting should be the preferred method. Certainly, even a speedy deletion candidate can be given enough time for someone to effect a rewrite. Where it can be argued that the intent of the source document's creator is to release under some form of copyleft, then a little less haste should be employed in the speedy deletion process. Which is why this afd should have been given more time to proceed to a decision, rather than pre-empted by returning to speedy deletion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate with the stub. Stephen Ewen 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This was non-admin closed. Excuse me, but the thing to do is delete the article then recreate it, since there is complete copyvio version in the history that someone could mistake for a GFDL release. Stephen Ewen 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, non-admin closings are only for simple, non-controversial cases. I'll take care of it. Any questions on it raising a conflict of interest (since I opened this AfD), talk page me. Tijuana Brass 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 04:07, 11/13/2007

[edit] Route 1A Curse

Route 1A Curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

At best WP:SYN, at worst WP:NFT. Cannot find any references - the only external reference listed is nonsense. Failed speedy. Toddst1 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability, appears to be written with random events unrelated to each other other than superstition. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to support this article -- Whpq 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Rodríguez

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

Would probably be notable if I could verify this. This was the largest version I could find, if not the best. Someone had hijacked the article for someone with less claim to notability. Unable to verify subject as a musician or an icon. Nothing at ALLMUSIC. 42 Google hits. Not sure we can rely on Google for a Phillipno icon. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm from the Philippines and I haven't heard of him or read about him in magazines, lifestyle sections of newspapers, or even local blogs. The article sounds very much like a vanity piece. --seav 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This phrase Rodríguez has since become a cultural icon in the Philippines, appearing in numerous magazine articles. is unsourced and no further assertion of notability. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per seav. Non-notable Filipino musician. I'm in a Manila University and even I hadn't heard of him or his radio station--Lenticel (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article claims that Rodriguez is a member of the Wally Gonzalez Band. But according to this site, there's no Rodriguez in that band. --Jojit (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, never heard of him and I don't think his name appears on any newspaper or news source. --- Tito Pao 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanity - made-up game. - Mike Rosoft 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T/S

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/T/S
T/S (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be completely WP:MADEUP. After several searches, the only reference (other than a site that shows new wiki pages) I could find to this game was a single forum post [8]. ARendedWinter 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete household name? yeah right. In three months??? 132.205.99.122 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arna Poupko Fisher

Arna Poupko Fisher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was a prod [9] by User:Oo7565, but let this get a standard vote. The subject appears to fail WP:NN. Being a rabbi's wife with eight babies and lecturing at a college for a living does not make anyone famous or notable. IZAK 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom/Snowball keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salamandroidea

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

This smells like original research or just plain nonsense. Marlith T/C 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. A Google search turns up lots of hits, like this one, that indicate that it's a real biological classification. Pinball22 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with and to Salamander. Seems to be a legit term for a type of salamander, but there's not enough information here yet to justify a separate article, and there is enough room in the salamander article at present to cover this subject. When there is more than just a sentence (at least a couple of paragraphs) of sourced material, this can be split off at that time. Nick Graves 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sounds and smells hoaxy, but isn't, seeing the results of a google search. EDIT: I think suborders (which this is) are inheretantly notible enough for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Salamander. Search results show a legitimate class of salamander, but I agree there is not enough information in this article to justify a separate article, and should be merged with the salamander. No objections to recreation at a later date should the editor provide more information to justify its own article. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. Let us SNOW this debate and close as keep. Marlith T/C 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nom could just withdraw and close. Merge/redirect is entirely editorial and doesn't require administrative attention. Someguy1221 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Civilization Loop

The Civilization Loop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book, published via vanity press Publish America The article omits the author's name - R. Thrift Jason, according to Amazon, which has it at #1,401,136. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Self-published book by non-notable author. Bláthnaid 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But a redirect to Mike Burgmann would be reasonable. W.marsh 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Burgmann

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. A car driver, with no listed victories, dies in a race. Clarityfiend 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability not asserted. Decoratrix 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Burgmann's death was the first death in the history of the Bathurst 1000, Australia's biggest race. There are some common misconceptions directly relating to his death about the construction of the only chicane ever built at the Mount Panorama Circuit which should be calrified by this piece. Perhaps it should be expanded to better define its notability. --Falcadore 08:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bathurst 1000. --Athol Mullen 11:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Adolph

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

This fictional character made one appearance over 60 years ago and has not appeared since. Subject does not meet notability standards. Konczewski 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we delete trivial items that disorganize Wikipedia, making it harder to find things a bit harder. If you don't have a useful opinion on the topic at hand (or even the courtesy to sign your comment), please don't bother to post.Konczewski 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the user has posted the same message to dozens of AfDs so it is probably not worth wasting too much time on them. (Emperor 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC))


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Article was deleted in previous AfD on 26 September 2007: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur). There is no evidence of any new third party sources found to support an article that would comply with WP:NPOV. Re-hashing the same arguments again and again does not seem to be productive. To recreate this article, or similar articles, sufficient secondary sources need to be found for a balanced representation of the subject; primary sources on their own, are insufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur

Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Founder of a non-notable cult. Although there are plenty of Google hits, they all seem to be created by members of this group. Dougie WII 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. That he was the founder of a cult is the only hint of notability assertion that I found in the article. Yet even that is written as if it were a mere footnote. --Blanchardb 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Written as a brief history of somebody who doesn't appear to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Change vote to keep, per DGG and in deference to the under construction tag on the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- Some more assertion of notability is on Talk:Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur which motivated me to remove the speedy tag, but this has not yet been included in the article, but there also wasn't much time yet... --Tikiwont 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE

The article was just begun when the "instant delete" sign came up from Dougie WII, So I stopped to deal with this process. I will continue on the article only after this process is complete. The organizations he founded are now three seperate entities: SRCM (Chennai), SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and ISRC (Institute of Ram Chandra Consciousness). There are also Two Research Foundations: Sahaj marg Spirituality Foundation (SMSF), CREST, in Asia and four SMRTI (Sahaj Marg Research and Teaching Institute) in Europe, USA, India, and Dubai. Is over 300,000 members and 60,000 present for the last seminar, not a "notable" achievement? (How can you tell if the GOOGLE hits are by MEMBERS of the group. There are "researchers" and "seekers" (potential members) and other interested "governments" and UN of which this group is a member (the DPI Program). The group is in many countries as one can readily see at this site: http://www.srcm.org/srcminfo/servlet/CenterTree?NodeId=0&ShowChildren=0 --Roicharlemagne 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Just a note, if you stop while we do this, you endanger the article. What you give is something to be considered, so I would recommend working on the article while we do this. Remember, you have five days. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The article needs a thorough rewrite, but there seems to be plenty out there to write an article with. Martijn Hoekstra 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another related article deleted for non-notability: Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29 -- Dougie WII 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Membership does not denote notability. I don't see much for non-biased, reputable, reliable references. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now From the talk page, it appears thee is likely to be enough material. I remind everyone of the existence of the {{underconstruction}} tag. DGG (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is an attempt to re-introduce text from two deleted articles that were deleted because of a lack of secondary sources, see this and this. This article suffers from exactly the same problems, namely,
  1. Copyright violations; most of this was pulled virtually ver batim from here or this.
  2. Absolutely no secondary sources on the subject of the article. If you click on the "sources" the only secondary sources talk about a school completely unrelated to the life of this person and the book talks about Sufism, not this person.
  3. Currently reads like a PR piece similar to the organizational websites from which the text is drawn. Renee 00:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Aimee (band)

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

Article is completely unreferenced and band is not notable. Prod was simply removed saying that because it toured with a notable band this one is too. There are no given refs and that reason obviously doesn't give automatic notability. Does not satisfy any notability guidelines. Zero pages link to it. Reywas92Talk 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. A quick search shows that not only have they toured with other notable acts, but they are currently touring nationally themselves as headliners. They also performed as part of the Kerrang! awards shows this year. They pass WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles on the basis of their touring. Lack of references is not a valid reason for deletion - tagging the article as requiring references would be a proactive step (I've now done this). No pages linking to the article is also irrelevant. It's a stub created 11 days ago - it's not going to have a lot linking to it yet.--Michig 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Quick Google search reveals several notable efforts by this band. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteClaims of UK tours are not referenced from "report[s] in reliable sources" and until they are, the band fails WP:BAND. Precious Roy 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Are the dozens of online ticket sales companies (e.g [10]) currently selling tickets for their tour not considered reliable? What about a review of one of their gigs supporting McFly in the Eastbourne Herald [11] (yes, I know it was written by a 13-year old, but it was a McFly gig. The source (newspaper) is reliable)? The BBC mention their tour here.--Michig 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The NME should be considered a reliable source, I would have thought.--Michig 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
References which were not included in the article. Changing vote to weak keep. Precious Roy 10:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quarles Elementary

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Quarles Elementary Articles for deletion/Quarles Elementary (2nd nomination)
Quarles Elementary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very non-notable school, giving no reasons for notability. It is only an elementary, and they have generally been accepted as non-notable. The previous AfD for this was a year ago and ended to keep it only because some thought that all schools are notable, which they aren't. This article is uencyclopedic as it includes the location and contact info. No good refs for it. Reywas92Talk 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I see no sign of notability. Arthur 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Winchester Public Schools. No valid reason exists not to combine any useful information and to allow for future expansion once additional information becomes available to establish notability to community standards. Alansohn 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author requested deletion. Davewild 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Mason

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.


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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiverton Town F.C. season 2007-08

Tiverton Town F.C. season 2007-08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A single season of a non-notable team in a not very notable division. OZOO (What?) 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-professional teams should definitely not have season-by-season articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - To refer to Tiverton Town F.C. as a non-notable team is a bit harsh, as they must be fairly notable to have a Wikipedia article about them. However, I will agree that they are not notable enough to have articles written about their individual seasons. - PeeJay 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NOt notable enough and isn't fully professional. Reywas92Talk 18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest that Torrington F.C. season 2007-08 be added to this debate, as that team plays its football at a much lower level than Tiverton.... ChrisTheDude 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. I can't even believe someone went to the trouble of creating that article! By the way, what about Esteghlal F.C. 2007-08 Season and Sepahan F.C. 2007-08 Season? Are they notable enough? - PeeJay 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I favour deleting all current season articles, but at least Esteghal and Sepahan are members of the top division of Iranian football, and should be treated in much the same way as members of the top division of European leagues. - fchd 07:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that they are. I simply skimmed through the category and picked out names I didn't recognise. - PeeJay 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If the team's notable, then so are their stats. Da-rb 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:Football need to address the Season by Season requirements for clubs as well. Da-rb 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would rather put it the way that if their players are notable, then their stats might be as well. Punkmorten 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Season by season team articles are absurd. Decoratrix 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & Comment Non-professional teams should not have season by season articles, which is why I also suggest adding Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08 to the debate. Simon KHFC 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - all "current season" articles - clear examples of recentism. - fchd 07:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The team is notable and the article is verified as well. Moreover, having this article in Wikipedia is important as it contains useful information on the history of this club. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The team notable, they have a Wikipedia article after all, so why not a seasn article? A notable team, a notable league, it should be kept most definetly, its harsh to want to delete it just because they are a lower league club. Andre666 10:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A notable league does not mean that all clubs in the league are notable. Therefore, just because a club is notable, it does not mean that they would have notable season-by-season pages. I really don't think detailed season-by-season pages for level 7 clubs need to be on Wikipedia -- that's what club websites are for. --Balerion 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per PeeJay and Simon. --Angelo 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only author requested deletion. Davewild 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endiannessmap

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

Doesn't seem to deserve its own article separate of Endianness; Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. Dougie WII 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I have added this part in the Endianess article and it was removed. I added it to the talkes page and references it. Then it was removed because someone sayed there should be no link to the talk page. Then I allocated this article. It was previously removed because there was a copy in the talks page. So I removed the talkes page copy and allocated the article again. One cannot understand the Endianessmap.svg diagram without an explanation to it. It is not a howto. It explaines the was endianess work. You should not just delete an article by looking at the structure but also try to read and understand what is the content.Eiselekd 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry if you've been getting the runaround. This should be the best place to discuss where your content should go (if anywhere) on Wikipedia -- Dougie WII 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contains no information not already contained in Endianness, and whatever addition to it should go instead to Endianness as well. --Blanchardb 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It contains an example of how to apply Endiannessmap.jpg. Without it it is hard to understand what the diagram is about. If I'd add the example into Endianness itself it would explode the article. Please show what you mean with "Contains no information...". The content of this article is the example. This example is not in Endianess The article explains the diagram Image:Endianessmap.svg Eiselekd 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete While this description is probably useful and needed to understand the image, these are not criteria for creating an article. Articles cover independent encyclopedic subjects. Perhaps the information could be trimmed into a caption for the image or added to the image description page. It's not an article though. Leebo T/C 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO. Reywas92Talk 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Moved the article to Image:Endianessmap.jpg. Thank you to Leebo's suggestion to move it there. The article can be deleted now

Eiselekd 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arupathimoovar Festival

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

This festival in India seems to fail WP:N. The article does not cite any sources. Google gives some entries in travel guides; so the festival seems to be real, but that does not suffice to pass WP:N. A request to WikiProject India did not turn up sources either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep only if majorly cleaned up, else mention in Mylapore and redirect there. Notable or not, it deserves a better article than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is a lack of notability; the article has no sources that assert importance and has drawn no interest from editors since its inception. --Stormbay 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Little notability and unreferenced. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability established and unreferenced. Article would also need major cleanup. It provides no context, including where this occurs, and has no lead section. Article also has nothing linking to it, is uncategorized, and unwikified. - Optigan13 08:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing verifiable here. --Montchav 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fox and Hounds

The Fox and Hounds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Definition of a pub name, that's it. Not much more can be said, since each pub with this name has an individual history and a different reason for using it. Masaruemoto 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep with a lot of expansion, including listing notable actual pubs, examples of their etymologies and photographs of them (especially their crests) would be helpful. In its current state, it's not worth keeping, but with lots of expansion it'd be worthy of keeping. --lincalinca 06:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Describes an institution, if somewhat undercooked. digitalemotion 07:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Emotion (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Pubs called the Fox and Hounds have nothing in common except the name. Unless the name itself has notability/history to it (other than the obvious hunting reference) there is literally nothing to say. LeContexte 11:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and expand - IMHO an article on the name (which does have some notability/history to it) would be entirely appropriate. Artw 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: While an article about the history of the name might be appropriate, this article ain't it. DCEdwards1966 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not even among the top thirty pub names in the UK.[12] Any discussion of all the pubs using the name would essentially be a listing of loosely-connected topics. --Dhartung | Talk 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a somewhat arbitrary decision, as "top thirty" or "bottom thirty" don't suddenly gain note, see WP:BIGGEST. The number of them doesn't consistute notability, the familiarity with it and its greater importance is. Though this article hasn't been expanded much in 5 years doesn't make it non-notable, it means editors haven't seen it as that. There's certainly due reason to include this article, expand and let it be noted. From a simple google search, you come up with at least 10 large pubs in the UK, and a US chain of bar and grill pubs. Though it doesn't scrape into the arbitrary decision of "top thirty" (from another artbitrary list of the top fifty names of pubs in the UK), it easily establishes notability on the broadness of its coverage. The tent's just thin right now. --lincalinca 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Inappropriate for wikipedia - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The name is not in itself notable, and I fail to see how this could be made into an article of any relevance to anything whatsoever. No more bongos 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A non-notable, unreference definition of a name. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is indeed a common pub name that has significant cultural history. While the individual pubs' reasons for choosing the names might be different and wholly unnotable (with some exceptions, perhaps), the origin of the name itself has some notability. The fact that the article is currently an unsourced stub is a surmountable problem that should not be given as a reason for deletion. LaMenta3 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - and/or redirect to Pub. No sources provided to establish notability, and though it might be a "common" name for pubs, it can be broken off from the main pub article if/when notability is demonstrated. Stubs (even unreferenced ones) are sometimes useful for encouraging expansion if no relevant article exists on the topic already, but that is not the case here. ◄Zahakiel► 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Three years old and still less than 30 words long? No potential for this to become anything more. Crazysuit 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - or at least create a new article, Etymology of British pub names or similar, and move into that (along with Red Lion (inn), and any similar articles that may be out there. I note that the most common pub name, The Crown, does not have an article. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • still Delete - and nb there is already a rather good article on Pub names. LeContexte 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juggs

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

Nothing to suggest any notability. Score (magazine) was deleted, and I imagine this is on the same sort of level. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete No assertion notability. If not speedied, delete as fails WP:N and WP:V - can find no reliable secondary source with any mention. No more bongos 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Just curious - where did you look? There are quite a few, see below. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Googling "Juggs Magazine" gave me many mentions, at a second glance. Very few that I coul see from reliable sources though, and none that I could see that was coverage of the magazine. No more bongos 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give me a couple of days to write the article. I tried to reference it a while back, and got sidetracked, to Dian Hanson. Look at all the references there. They are all about her being the editor of Juggs. Trust me, there is plenty there about the magazine. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
These are sources on Dian Hanson, really. Magazine has a two-sentence mention in one and a one-word mention in another. Maybe I was a little hasty though, maybe the article should redirect to her. No more bongos 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. They do go into the history of the magazine a fair bit, actually. Dian Hanson is to Juggs as Hugh Hefner is to Playboy; you can't really write about one without the other. Give me a couple of days, and I'll show it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There, done. Yes, the actual history of the mag is mostly gleaned from the Dian Hanson pieces. I think that's also enough for notability, however. And the Village Voice calls it "the magazine of choice for breast men", which could also be enough. But the really interesting notability isn't from there, it's from "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." (which is really a WP:BIO criterion, but I hope you get the idea). In short, whenever any humorist needs a one-word recognizable name of a pornographic magazine, they use Juggs. That's what the Simpsons cite mentioned below is all about. But more than that, when Wikipedia:Reliable sources, like CNN, or the New York Times need a one-word name of a pornographic magazine, they use Juggs. Between that and the fair history we can get from the Dian Hanson articles, I hope you'll change your opinion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The magazine has been in publication nation-wide (at least) for at least two and a half decades [13]. The article needs a lot of work, sure, but the subject is certainly notable and certainly worthy of an article. I take AnonEMouse's offer to work on the article as evidence that the article will get that work. Dekkappai 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Established porn mag going back at least 25 years. It's part of the landscape. Many 3rd party mentions, even a passing CNN mention [14]. Will work to compile sources. • Gene93k 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll be honest. I've never seen one. I don't want to search for the sources on the work computer, but...in The Principal and the Pauper, Homer asks, "Can I see your copy of Juggs, Armen?" So...by virtue of a Simpsons reference...yeah... --SmashvilleBONK! 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I knew all this Simpsons trivia would be good for something... some day!... Dekkappai 19:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per AnonEMouse; it's a very established magazine with numerous resources out there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as not my thing, LOL, but certainly a notable subject. Bearian 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn in light of the sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn thanks to AnonEMouse's dilligent research. Would appear that bringing articles to AFD seems to be the only effective way to clean them up. Good work! No more bongos 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't possibly comment. :) No more bongos 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box Ghost

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

This is a non notable ghost in a fictional show. It was tagged for several problems, but the tags were removed by 69.251.255.170. However, it does not pass notability standards and cannot be cited by independent secondary reliable sources. In fact, it is not cited at all. Pilotbob 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Although it's not sourced, it is a character in a Nickelodeon show. Good formatting and nicely laid out. BeanoJosh 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FICT. No secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable fictional character. No coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources. A non-notable fictional charactor. Reywas92Talk 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As mentioned, there are no reliable sources given, and indeed, even a general Google search shows the only resut for 'Box Ghost' is this article, but many results for "Ghost Box", which would make me think this is truly a non-notable fictional entity, and could easily be incorporated into the Danny Phantom article. The article itself acknowledges that this entity is "serving mostly as a cameo", so I do not think it warrants an entire article on its cameo appearances. Ariel♥Gold 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 list of Mad Men episodes. --bainer (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men episode)

AfDs for this article:
    Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Also nominated:

    Redirect all to Mad Men. These are all stub articles for individual television episodes which are not independently notable. They consist of nothing but the title of the episode and the original air date. Per WP:FICT these articles should not presently exist until such time as the reliable sourcing for them exists. A complete list, including links to the official synopsis, is already in the main article. An attempt to redirect them was reverted so I bring them here for the consensus of the community. Otto4711 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: WP:FICT does not apply here. The episodes have real-world existence -- they are not fictional objects. —Quasirandom 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine, WP:WAF whatever, the point still stands that the episodes are not individually independently notable. Otto4711 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect per nom. No more bongos 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to List of Mad Men episodes, and make that an actual list instead of a redirect to Mad Men. The individual episodes have not established notability independent of the show, but the stubby information belongs in an episode list. —Quasirandom 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I redirected the list because it was nothing but the same episode chart in the main article, minus the links to the AMC episode synopses. The main article is not so massive, nor is the information about the episodes so extensive, that a separate list article for them is required. Otto4711 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't object to a merge to Mad Max instead. —Quasirandom 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect all for lack of content and established notability. I think the nom is referring to the guideline WP:EPISODE. – sgeureka t•c 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Yes, these are all stubs, they are in the process of being developed. Due to work and life I do not have unlimited time to be working on WIkipedia. Wikipedia has individual episode entries for the television shows Seinfeld, Lost, Family Guy, The Sopranos, The Simpsons, etc., etc. The articles in this AfDs are properly marked as stubs, and should not be deleted just because they are stubs. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The shows you have referenced have ran for years, Mad Men only has 13 episodes and one season. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to List of Mad Men episodes Non notable episodes and fails WP:EPISODE. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I have nominated the list of episodes for deletion or redirect. I tried redirecting it to the main article, where an identical list already resides, but it was reverted without comment. Otto4711 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Day of Contempt

    Day of Contempt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Band page for which I can see no real claim to notability, and definitely no independant references. But since the page has been around for 2 years already, I'll give it a chance at AFD instead of just A7 Speedying it, in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Very Very Very Very Very Very As Borderline as possible Weak Keep Absolute borderline case. I may be wrong but appears to be just about notable due to releasing on epitaph. No more bongos 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC). I would say the article isn't too bad and frankly, it appears to be impossible to determine whether the subject passes WP:BAND. I suggest some cleanup is in order, sadly don't have time. Never heard this band btw, are they any good? No more bongos 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, under notability guidelines:
      • "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." - Epitaph Records and Good Life Recordings are both notable, having released many albums by notable artists
      • "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - Vince Jukic, 28 Days Mr_pand 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\talk 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm so on the fence about this one that I'll refrain from !voting. Epitaph is certainly an important indie label but Good Life seems borderline (most, if not all, of their notable bands have been licensed from other labels). One member of the band (the drummer on their 1st EP) later played on one album by a notable band (28 Days); the other members' bands that have articles on Wikipedia appear to be of dubious notability. On both points the band sort of meets the letter of WP:MUSIC, but not really in spirit. I'm leaning towards delete but can't quite commit. Precious Roy 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unless its claims to passing WP:BAND is sourced, either the releases on notable indie labels or the Jukic connection. Otherwise, we're taking their word for their notability - against WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Per Carlos. Twenty Years 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of people who died on their birthdays

    List of people who died on their birthdays (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Interesting yes, but encyclopedic? I don't think so. Seems like a list of loosely associated people. Clarityfiend 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. Otto4711 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak delete. That's pretty cool. But it's hard for me to think of a situation in which this information might be useful, so it's seeming like a indiscriminate collection of information to me right this second. One thing that would change my mind would be some evidence that the subject of people dying on their birthday has been considered as important by some reasonably significant sources somewhere. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Statistically almost everyone has a 1/365 chance of dying on their birthday. May not seem high, but when you intersect that with the sheer number of articles that the project does or can have on various dead people the list coulde potentially be very large. And still be very trivial. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per all above despite the fact that I like it. Smashville 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:ILIKEIT. I want my wikipedia experience to be as masochistic as possible. Looks like this may be heading for SNOW.... No more bongos 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep - let me explain. It does have some notability in my opinion, however it would need an extensive rewrite, and if the page is available in four other langauges (Korean, Bahasa, Portuguese & Swedish), could it be satisfactory enough to meet their standards? Rudget Contributions 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. It may very well be that the page will be deleted in those other four languages as well. --Blanchardb 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not 1/365.25 chance of dying on your birthday, it's a 1/365.25 chance of dying on a particular day. That day has a 1/365.25 chance of being your birthday. So, really, the chance of dying on your birthday is 0.0000749%, or 1 in about 133,400. Much rarer, but it's still an indiscriminate list, which is a no-no. Delete per nom. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not great at statistics, so I cannot debunk Ultraexactzz systematically, but I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Once you fix the birthdate, at birth, you only have one random value in play, the death date, which should have a 1/365 chance of ending up on *any* *specific* day, including the birthday. (And let's leave leap days out of an already messy discussion. :)) - TexasAndroid 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    A little more. Let's examine the same problem in a world with only two days in a year, to simplify things. If my birthday is on day 1, then I can either die on day 1, or day 2. In either case, I have a 1/2 chance of dying on my birthday. If we take a random person on this weird world, then there are only four cases for b-day/D-day combinations: 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, or 2:2. But again, even though we do not know what the B-day is of this random person, there is still a 1/2 chance of both days being the same. 2 hits out of 4 possibilities, for 1/2. This expands out. For a random person in a world of a 3-day year, the pairs are 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:1, 2:2, 2:3, 3:1, 3:2, and 3:3. Again, 3 hits out of 9 possibilities, for a 1/3 chance of the two being the same. And it corresponds directly up to the 365 day real world. 133,400 possibilities, 365 of those are hits, so for a random person, they have 365/133,400 or 1/365 chance of the two being the same. - TexasAndroid 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I prefer Utraexactzz's line of reasoning - I'd have only a 1/365 chance of dying, period. Clarityfiend 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Twould be nice if it worked like that. :) - TexasAndroid 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    My Math = the fail. With a fixed birthdate, which everyone has, you're right, it's only one in 365.25 (averaging for leap year). So much for me being clever. ^_^ ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
     :] Rudget Contributions 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete — statistics aside, why is this a notable, or important means of classifying people? It seems trivial to me. --Haemo 20:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, preferably on september 4. Martijn Hoekstra 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete; A list of coincidences, and lists of random coincidences aren't encyclopedic, however interesting they are. Masaruemoto 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - For the statistics buffs above, I submit to you the fact that the odds of dying while in a streetcar are almost 1 in 4 million, much rarer than dying on one's birthday. If this article is here because it's rare to die on one's birthday, then I say that we must write List of people who died while riding in a streetcar. (Seriously, though, the article has got to go, as Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of loosely-associated items.) --Hnsampat 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge into birthday. Two suggestions: (1) It would be more interesting if you were to put their birth and death dates (such as Machine Gun Kelly-- July 18, 1895 to July 18, 1954); (2) We should also nominate for deletion the list and category called List of people who were born on their birthdays. It's way too long as it is. Mandsford 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My grandma wasn't born on her birthday. Also, she was my grandpa's sister. Funny stories, both of them; take me out for pad thai sometime and I'll tell you all about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete it's mildly interesting as trivia but isn't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Put this into a category. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was It would appear that the arguments in reference to verifiability and reliable sourcing have been satisfied. However, on the references themselves I will make no judgment, that needs discussion on the article talk page. The result of this discussion is Keep.. Mercury 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Alaskan Hotel and Bar

    Alaskan Hotel and Bar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    I removed a CSD template after a quick Google search, thinking that the hotel in the article was actually the hotel at this site, which would probably be notable for being the first hotel in Juneau, on the National Register, etc. As far as I can tell, it isn't. Other than being 100 years old, I can find no evidence of notability other than mention in an obituary. Smashville 16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. I can't find any evidence that this hotel meets the notability guideline; the article doesn't include any sources, and my google search didn't turn up anything but the travel-directory listings that any hotel would be expected to have. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Sadly, does not appear to pass WP:N and WP:V No more bongos 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - as per not satisfactory in complying with notability and sourcing criteria. Rudget Contributions 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This stub of an article is more about the town than about the hotel. Plus, someone may want to start an article about that other hotel in Juneau. --Blanchardb 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I added two sources... this place was featured on the Food Network, and has a reasonable ammount of news coverage over the years [15] --W.marsh 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • On closer inspection, I may have been writing about the other one. Are we sure they're different places? Anything on the NRHP is notable. --W.marsh 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • My judgment was based on the pictures in the article...they don't look like the same building...the one in the article has flat windows while the one on the website has bay windows. But...might they be affiliated? --SmashvilleBONK! 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, there is so little in the article, that I don't think anyone would object to you putting a notable subject by the same name... --SmashvilleBONK! 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
            • That's what I was thinking... just refocus the article on the one that's on the NRHP, has the media coverage, etc. --W.marsh 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Per above, I have rewritten. If the other hotel by this name, in Cordova, is notable... then feel free to undo my edits. --W.marsh 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Per W.marsh's revamp/redo and the fact that the delete votes no longer reference the article in question, I am withdrawing the nom. Please close. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Willie Macc

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

    Non notable comedian and actor. Google news gives no hits at all[16], regular Google gives 131 distinct hits[17], including Wikipedia, myspace, ... but not any reliable sources. The link given to the STL interview doesn't work (at least for me). Having been in a reality show is not enough to meet WP:BIO, and the other acting roles are very minor. Fram 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per WP:BIO and the article: "Willie Macc aspires to one day have his own TV show" etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. I couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources, and IMDB indicates that he's mainly played minor roles. No prejudice against recreation if he becomes famous some day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete His parents seem to be more notable! Jack1956 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. KNyholm 11:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. W.marsh 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ian McKay (English National Opera)

    Ian McKay (English National Opera) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    A marketing director is not really notable enough for his own article without a very good reason (which this one doesn't have), otherwise we'd have articles on every department head in every organisation of any prominence, which we certainly don't want. -- Necrothesp 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. The sources verify that he exists and holds this position, but his notability is not at all clear. He seems to have made the news only for booing a colleague, which is not a shining moment but doesn't seem to make him particularly important. This doesn't seem like a position that establishes notability in the way that, say Prime minister does, and he himself doesn't seem to have done anything beyond what might be expected of someone in this position. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Non-notable. Jack1956 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Syd Hayes

    Syd Hayes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    • Delete Notability not asserted nor is it inherent from the article Jack1956 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This was the only hit I found for Hayes's book, and it merely verifies that it's for sale. I found no reliable sources discussing him or his work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was No Consensus. the_undertow talk 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman

    Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Does not cite any sources, and is full of original research by banned user Daniel575. Has been tagged since 2/2007. Yossiea (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources using Google. I couldn't even find sources to verify that he is indeed a rabbi at the synagogue named, and if he is, being a rabbi, even at a large synagogue, does not in itself confer notability. I welcome users who find better sources than I did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete Article does not attempt to assert nobility. If not speedied, than delete per WP:N and WP:V No more bongos 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • My error. Being a member of the BaDatz Eidah HaChareidis is enough to indicate significance. -- Avi 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is a huge mistake to delete this article about one of the most significant and notbale Haredi rabbis in Jerusalem. Perhaps that he is alive makes the task of sources a little harder because usually most Haredi rabbis and Hasidic rebbes get known about 100 years after they pass on. I cannot fathom why the nominator did not do better research. I'll try to add a few sources. IZAK 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. As a non-Jewish person reading this article, I did not understand why this person is notable; if the words "Haredi" or "BaDatz" are supposed to signal notability to me, they went right past me. If there's a way to make this man's importance more clear to a general readership, that would be really helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi FisherQueen: The word "Haredi" is not significant but the fact that this rabbi is a member of one of the the highest Haredi rabbinical courts, together with not more than about five other such rabbis, makes him very notable. I have now inserted a few Jewish media references in the article to illustrate that. Nothing in the article is exaggerated, it's quite modest actually, just states the facts about someone who is regarded as a leader by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Haredi Jews in Israal. I know that it may be hard for a non-Jew to assess the importance of any rabbi. How many do you know or have you studied? Just as a non-medical expert would be hard put to explain the workings of the nervous system to a layman, so tread cautiously. There is also the factor, that often one group of Jews (and editors) may dislike another group's rabbis, and vice versa, so that tendency needs to be watched and may be misunderstood from an outside perspective. IZAK 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply and question Thanks for clarifying his importance. Given that tens or hundreds of thousands of people consider him a spiritual leader, is there a reason that google-searching "Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman" yields so few useful results? Should I be googling using Hebrew characters, for example? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment' The New York times recently mentioned (See [18]) an increase in the market in Israel for products certified by Haredi rabbinical councils, using as its lead example a cell phone certified for its inability to connect to the internet (which as the article explains is shunned by many Haredi Jews). The article mentions the Badatz. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi again, FisherQueen: You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, especially to those in Israel, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, rabbis such Rabbi Ulman would surely be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK 05:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is yet another rabbi about whom a coherent article from reliable sources cannot be constructed. If I were less charitable, I would call this rabbicruft - but I am more charitable. -- Y not? 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • There is nothing wrong with the rabbi and the article is very coherent and a good beginning, like tens of thousands of articles it has promise. I cannot fathom why you think an article about this Gadol is "rabbicruft" of any kind? Your statement may also violate Lashon hara about a famous living Torah scholar, posek, and a leader of a significant sector of religious Jewry. Maybe some people suffer from too much "cruft" period, to be charitable when they should be. None is so blind... IZAK 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Agree membership on the Badatz, the highest court of the Edah HaChareidis, is sufficient notability to justify an article and I suspect this can easily be verified. Will check later. The Badatz is mentioned in several articles but does not yet have its own. It should. It should be noted that notable religious media and scholarship sources are reliable sources for notability within the field of religion. Notability is with respect to a field. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Agree the article could better explain the subject to a general audience. Would note that numerous articles in math, science, philosophy, and similar technical fields suffer from similar problems of too much technical jargon and yet are unquestionably encyclopedic subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep because of the judicial role, though it needs to be explained. DGG (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep this is a very important notable leader within the Yiddish speaking community, and since the newspapers talking about him are not printed online its hard to prove his notability. As for motives of the user who created it, he was not blocked because of this article but only because the nominator of this AfD among other users, one of which [19] has even used his sysop tools to speedily delete it, have harassed him and he fought back with personal attacks. so i ask the closers of this discussion to put all views in context--יודל 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Why do you always feel the need to use personal attacks to get your point across? Yossiea (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Answer I don't do this always and i try to stay away from Afd's in a whole, but i know this subject very good and i feel wikipedia can benefit from me now so i am being heard, lets not forget that the nominator, in this case user:Yossiea has given a rational for deletion that the creator is blocked. so in order for this subject to be a speedy keep we must establish the nomination rationales invalid, which i tried to explain, i am sorry U got offended this was not my intention. and i beg u to reconsider my intentions by following policy to assume good faith in others, I apologize for the inconvenience, i would delete it if somebody else, who has not said an opinion here thinks its a personal assault.--יודל 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • RFC My rationale was not based on the fact that the creator is blocked. Please read above, I wrote that there are no sources, and it is full of original research by Daniel. You are not AGF for me and Avi because you seem to have an agenda here on WP. Yossiea (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Reply Then please be so kind and remove this words by banned user from your nomination rationale, and i will delete my words as well. regarding yours and avi's opinion about my motivations it is also faulty u r clearly mistaken since u cannot name one single issue that is my drive, and i still urge u and avi to follow policy and assume good faith don't assume any bad in me please--יודל 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment My suggestion would be to judge the article on its merits without regard to the identity or any possible subjective motivations of either the creator or the nominator. I perceive this as neither a speedy delete nor a speedy keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. IZAK 06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The Hebrew wiki article on Edah Haredit lists all the heads of the court and the presidents, av beit din and rosh beit din. It does not list members unless they have written books or are known outside the community.This article has the trivial stuff- where he lives, that he gave a eulogy, but has no evidence of important legal decisions, books, or leadership. A quick hebrew google did not turn up anything. The English page for Edah Haredit--- Edah HaChareidis basically follows the same pattern. also the references in this article are not to articles about him but only passing mention in articles about other people. --Jayrav 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Jayrav: The point of the three citations in the article (which I found after careful examination) prove that he is notable, because only the most notable rabbis are ever granted the honor and privilege of delivering eulogies for the greatest sages, and the references cite where and for whom that has happened not once, not twice, but at least thrice, and probably more. It's a case of taking note of the "tip of the iceberg" about him. This is a good beginning and there is no doubt about his authority and role in Haredi community of Jerusalem. IZAK 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • According to the yiddish wiki he is youngest member of the court.--Jayrav 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
        • So what? US Chief Justice John Roberts has also broken many of "the youngest" records. Oh, and probably because he is young he can get around too. So being young is not a deficit as far as notabilty is concerned. IZAK 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Izak - That is why I listed it as a comment and not a vote. In 10 years, I have little doubt that he will be notable, it is these premature articles that create the arguments. I was just pointing out the practice of the Hebrew wiki- and not sure if it should play a role here.--Jayrav 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

    that cretae

    • Comment. I'm afraid I'm still puzzled by the lack of sources. The sources on the article- none of them are articles about this person. In each of them, he gets only a mention. And the sources don't verify the information in the article; they tell us only that he once gave a eulogy, and that he presided over the death of the colleague. What was the source for the information in the article itself? And if this man is so clearly notable, where are the sources that have written about him, not just mentioned him in relation to someone else? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The article needs to be better sourced, but it is difficult to find sources for Haredi figures. He is certainly notable. It would be nice if the article was fleshed out better.--Meshulam 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment On reflection this is striking me as a somewhat borderline case. The Hebrew Wikipedia approach of only including the main officers of notable Haredi rabbinical courts as notable due to their position alone does not strike me as unreasonable. Is there any literature reviewing or discussing his rabbinic scholarship? Are their any opinions or decisions he is known for? I understand that in addition to Badatz membership Ulman's claim to notability comes in part from what is described as his close relationship with the former head of the Edah HaChareidis and of the Dushinsky Hasidic dynasty. Do have any more information about this relationship or of his status within the Dushinsky Hassidim? Best, --Shirahadasha 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 05:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist)

    Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Delete. No assertion of notability. EndlessDan 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Question. Which source 'doesn't count?' I offered three. I linked to the amazon page because it included a copy of the Publisher's Weekly review, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a very significant and reliable source, and "A Chef's Table" is a nationally syndicated radio program. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - "Low-selling" refers to just about every academic book, btw. Please, I hope to never see that argument again. Academics don't write for the NYT best-seller list; they write for their peers. The measures of influence are cites to their work. You can use whether their works show up in libraries as a rough proxy for that influence, too. Publication of a book with Oxford University Press and a reference from Garland pretty much guarantees a very wide distribution in libraries. --Lquilter 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep Has published several books, even if they're not best sellers, and appears to be fairly eminent in her academic discipline. Jack1956 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The book reviews are sufficient for the notability, as for any author. DGG (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep -- (Ah, finally musicology! something I do have some expert knowledge of!) She's not in the list of the 25 ethnomusicologists for whom I would shout "ARE YOU KIDDING? KEEP!" in an AfD, but she's a solid researcher, above average in the field after the Oxford book (OUP is a really big name press for academics) and since them extremely well-known outside of it for the Cookbook. The other editors of the Garland encyclopedia series are clearly notable figures. Her books have gotten notice and reviews both in and outside the field, which is unusual. I'm not sure what "Source doesn't count" means in Reywas's argument (and the subject is a woman, as reading the article makes clear). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep In addition to the claims of notability already present in the article, there are several articles available at this Google News Archive search for "Sean Williams ethnomusicologist", which establish notability from independent reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and if appropriate tag for more references needed. If one of her books was reviewed in the Chronicle and she has edited a reference book with a major reference press (Oxford, Garland, etc.) then that's strong evidence of scholarly cred. --Lquilter 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per others above. This seems just the sort of article that Wikipedia needs more of if it's to be considered a serious encyclopedia for adults. Phil Bridger 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep John254 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)

    Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This is a disambig page that includes three links: Euclides da Cunha, an author; Euclides da Cunha Paulista, a stub article about a municipality named after the author, and Euclides da Cunha, Bahia, another such municipality that has no article. (That entry links to the Bahia state, which doesn’t mention the municipality at all and therefore shouldn’t be linked as a reference for it.) Assuming that it is reasonable to think that the first two links could be confused with one another, that still leaves only two existing entries to be disambiguated, with the author obviously being the most likely target for a search on Euclides da Cunha. I feel the disambig page should be deleted and replaced with hatnotes on each article linking to the other. A redirect seems pointless in view of the likelihood that anybody would navigate directly to “Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)” and what such a person would be looking for. Propaniac 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Page is as above useless. The man's article should have links to the towns, the the dab. Reywas92Talk 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I created a stub for Euclides da Cunha, Bahia using information from the Portuguese Wikipedia. As it's a city of 54,000 we should have an article. This was a needless nomination and I would hope the editor would take a more constructive approach in future. Redlinks serve a purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Dhartung. --Tikiwont 08:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as per Dhartung. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Benetin

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

    Maps linked to in article are not of this place. First several pages of non-wiki ghits (in both English and French) do not refer in any way to a kingdom or island with this name. Hoax? Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. Probably a real place, though the name doesn't seem to be used by anyone outside of a small circle -- but this is a moot point. No evidence of notability or reliable sources in the article (or available elsewhere that I could find). - Mdbrownmsw 15:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Original article[20] said "Benetin is a nation of seafaring people". Then, it became the "island" of Benetin.[21] Then admitted that it's just a rock.[22] A mildly amusing telling of the Raspail/Patagonia prank (mentioned seriously in the article) gives it away.[23] - Mdbrownmsw 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as WP:HOAX, fails WP:V. They do have nice ads, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Looked on Goggle maps. It's a rock. A small rock, which appears to have moved two degrees south very recently according to the references given. Also, the description of the arms begins "De gueule", which is a mild expletive in French, unless "de gules" (=in red) was meant. But I doubt it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete it's a hoax - look at the nonsense about "an active cavalry and an active naval fleet whose flagship is a type F70 frigate..." JohnCD 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Adams Mill Bar & Grill

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Adams Mill Bar & Grill
    Adams Mill Bar & Grill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Disputed proposed deletion. Only reference is to a local magazine that I don't think the requirement for reliable sources. Possible WP:COI conflict of interest/advertising too, even if it isn't blatant; Wikipedia is not a place to list every single restaurant the world over. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Local bar. Improbcat 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per not noteable. K. Scott Bailey 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Restaurant/bar has significant local importance to the Washington, DC area. Much like The Ivy is to Los Angeles, or the Oak Room is to New York.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc95 (talk • contribs)
    • Can you prove it using newspapers, news reports its been the subject of? I must admit I've never heard of any of the restaurants you're quoting! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The project can not contain an article on every restaurant and bar that has "significant local importance." I'm sorry, but that does not make it noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] MyTopix

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

    There has been a notability tag in place since March, and there is still very little content. Brollachan 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per WP:N. K. Scott Bailey 15:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't claim to be notable. Isn't notable. No sources. Looks like an article created as a location for link spam. - Mdbrownmsw 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:N. Seems nothing has been written on this subject by any reliable third-party sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. No attempt to claim notability. -- Hawaiian717 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Hawaiian717. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect.-Wafulz 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Daniel Geduld

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Daniel Geduld Articles for deletion/Daniel Geduld (second nomination)
    Daniel Geduld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD G10/BLP concerns. However, DRV overturned, finding BLP-compliant, non-controversial revisions in the history. To prevent BLP-related vandalism, both the article and this AfD with be semi-protected. Deletion is on the table (because it is unclear whether the subject meets WP:BIO), as are other creative solutions (merging to his most famous show was suggested at the DRV.) Xoloz 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete as A7, yet another online-video "actor". I'm not sure what the BLP issues may have been, but I don't see any encyclopedic notability here to speak of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      The reason I disagree with speedy deleting is the claim of the gentleman having done work for Hanna-Barbera. It's a weak claim, but that is a famous animation company, and if they have commissioned him, that could convey notability. Xoloz 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge/redirect to The Skeletor Show if it's notable... the name of the creator is a plausible search/link term. --W.marsh 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to Skeletor Show article. The show seems to be quite notable, but there is no clear evidence that the voice actor himself is notable. If his information can be described in two paragraphs or less, it should be merged and summarized in the show's article instead. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and redirect per my previous remarks. Cumulus Clouds 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • DeleteNot nearly notable enough to have his own page.Alberon 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge Not quite notable "yet" ViperSnake151 14:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and redirect There is too much BLP-incompatible material in the edit history to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. east.718 at 04:02, 11/13/2007

    [edit] San-ryu-do

    San-ryu-do (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Recently founded art, no sources, no evidence of notability Nate1481( t/c) 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A lot of this is already mentioned in prose in the article, editors can merge any extra content as they see fit. W.marsh 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Smashing Pumpkins Grammys

    The Smashing Pumpkins Grammys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Aside from its bad formatting (including no intro and questionable title), is this really worthy of its own article? All of this information can easily be merged to the main Smashing Pumpkins article. - eo 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Merge to The Smashing Pumpkins; no reason for this to be on its own page. Propaniac 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to The Smashing Pumpkins. The band is certainly notable, and the info is worth having. Their awards are not, however, a notably distinct topic. - Mdbrownmsw 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to an "Awards and honors" section of The Smashing Pumpkins. Otto4711 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Seems to be an attempt to shorten main article (58K). Clarityfiend 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak-Keep agreeing with the above comment, with more effort this candidate could be rewritten to become a suitable stub-article to compliment its host article. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reformat - Turn it into an Awards and Honors split-off page for The Smashing Pumpkins. ViperSnake151 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was keep. John254 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Woodhaven Boulevard

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

    No assertion of notability. Fails the USRD notability guideline for city streets. Wholly unreferenced. —Scott5114↗ 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Here are a few sources that show its notability:
    • --NE2 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per NE2. The guideline referenced that the article fails is not even a guideline, it is a project subpage. --Holderca1 talk 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Notability is established based on its status as a proto-parkway, which meets consensus on such roadways. It seems clear that WP:USRD/NT#City streets, which seems to be arbitrarily rigid and out-of-touch with general consensus standards on such roads, will need to be revisited and greatly expanded if it is to have any general acceptance as a guideline. Alansohn 16:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Pretty much the same as the Cross Bay Boulevard AfD - Also, I think this falls also under the WP:NYC jurisdiction, Woodhaven falls under ours as well, but this is more of their problem not ours. And same with NE2.Mitch32contribs 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Being a major boulevard in Queens is an assertion of notability. If it's unreferenced, then that's a case for editing, not deleting. As with the (failing) attempted deletion of Cross Bay Boulevard, the nom is equating "no sources currently in article" with "non-notability," despite the obvious notability of the topics. --Oakshade 07:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per NE2 et al. Cited at least once on King of Queens. I'm certain lots of references from a variety of reliable sources could be found. Tag for cleanup, stub it, watch it, and fix it next week. Bearian 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. It is a reference route, but the article needs much help to avoid being a permastub. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep it is a notable street —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasawat (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Hadouken!

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

    Do we need this article? They are not a notable band and only have released two singles neither of which have charted. I don't think we need it. Thundermaster367 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment it does say they charted, and while #34 in the UK is hardly a shining triumph they do pass the letter of WP:MUSIC, or so it appears. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - They've charted, completed a national tour, and even gone on an international excursion. Seems to be pretty solid under WP:MUSIC. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep. One of the UK's most popular indie bands of the moment, have charted, and will have far more chart hits. Are hugely popular at national festivals, have performed internationally and are noted in review after review of up-and-coming artists. To be completely honest, this nomination is a bit ridiculous. 90.208.48.238 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The above was posted by me whilst logged out. Esteffect 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Defiantly Keep I fail to see why this has even been nominated, it is in fact one of the stupidest nominations for deletion i have seen. The band have been featured numerous time in NME, Q and numerous other magazines, they have had chart success, plays on MTV, The Hits, TMF and many other channels, they have played at Reading and Leads festivals, BBC Electric Proms, they also have a demo release, a mixtape and a second mixtape is about to be released and are with Atlantic Records. I'm sorry but there is no way that this article should be deleted, the mere consideration for its deletion is ridiculous. (86.160.91.24 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
    • Please keep WP:CIVIL in mind when commenting during AfD. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep for sureThey are an Awesome up and coming band always in nme theyve completed National tours and are touring at this Moment. So Keep for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hufc2007liam (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    "you all may say yes we dont need this page. but what about the people who enjoy reading this page about a band who they extremely like. look at Hadouken!'s sales for tickets. you will notice how steadily they are being sold out for every gig. Read up Genious" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.248.169 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep - Not released an album yet, but two national tours, subject of several newspaper articles, mentioned in reviews of other bands, etc. Snigbrook 01:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - They seem to be gaining popularity quickly, that's notable enough for me! ViperSnake151 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Packaged To Play

    Packaged To Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article on an album by Kevin Caffrey, an artist on whom we've never had an article. PROD removed by original creator, User:Kevincaffrey, without adding any independent and reliable sources to the article. A quick review of the top google hits proves the album is real (not surprisingly), but gives no evidence of notability or sources that we can use to build out the article. GRBerry 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. John254 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Hitra Wind Farm

    Hitra Wind Farm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This wind farm seems nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Hitra Wind Farm was until 2005 the largest wind farm in Norway, and is currently the second largest; it is 32% to small to come on the List of large wind farms, which by no means should be considered a benchmark for what to include in Wikipedia by installed effect. 55 MW installed capacity in a wind farm is quite a lot. Also, wind farms in Norway have all been quite controversial, and Hitra was no exception, particularly since it was one of the first to be built. Arsenikk 14:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep Notable enough and it has a source, which places it above 30 percent of wikipedia articles, which are unsourced. Decoratrix 00:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • keep per Arsenikk. Beagel 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Arsenikk. Punkmorten 09:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was: Restored redirect to Republic - obvious consensus that this article is redundant. Early closure. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Republican form of government

    Republican form of government (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    POV essay, duplicate with Republic. I'll leave the creator's comments on the article's talk page without any further comments. Delete and redirect to Republic. - Mike Rosoft 13:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete - Redundant to Republic. Cogswobbletalk 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect. Nothing worth preserving; agree with Rosoft - the creator has damned himself as partisan out of his own mouth. --136.223.3.130 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge is what we do with articles covering the same subject. In this case merging only involved redirecting. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and redirect to republic. Agree with Mike Rosoft.Ngchen 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Redirect to Republic. I was actually typing in the redirect on this article earlier today when Mike beat me to the punch. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - anything else would be a blatant violation of consensus. Non admin closure. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Cross Bay Boulevard

    Cross Bay Boulevard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Fails the USRD notability guideline for city streets. Has no footnotes. Skipped PROD because someone would have removed it like always. —Scott5114↗ 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep A major arterial roadway in the largest borough of the largest city in the United States. The use of an arbitrary notability guideline manufactured by the nominator a few weeks ago without any discussion beyond the handful of those aware of the discussion violates any meaningful definition of "consensus". I have actively participated in WP:USRD and had no idea the page existed or would be used as an excuse for deletion of articles. Ample sources exists regarding this roadway, which should have been added by the nominator if Wikipedia:deletion policy had been observed. Alansohn 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The guideline and its discussion page are linked from the WT:USRD talk page, and also the big green box that appears on the majority of the project's pages. If you overlooked it, I'm sorry, but we did the best we could. That said, even if that guideline didn't exist, it's still not notable at all and doesn't assert it. —Scott5114↗ 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "No idea the page existed"? It's been posted everywhere - the project template, the header of the USRD talk page, the USRD navbox, the newsletter... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I have long been disappointed with the manner in which many of the WP:USRD decisions have been made and imposed, and this one fits the classic mold. The fact that there would be a general discussion regarding road notability was made in Newsletter 14, which was issued on September 30th, and included no mention of arterial notability as being within the purview of the discussion. On October 9th, the WP:USRD/NT subpage was updated to include a statement regarding non-highway notability based on the discussion of a small handful of individuals. No statement was offered to the Wikipedia population as a whole or to other WP:USRD participants to accept or reject this proposal; the casual discussion of five people is supposed to set policy. Issue 15, dated October 20th makes no mention whatsoever of this brand new policy, let alone ask for comments or discussion. Now it is being used as the sole justification to delete an article. The problem is that there is a clear majority here of interested parties who believe that this and other articles are notable, despite the fact that they do not meet the rather arbitrary standards promulgated (if I could only hum a few bars of "Give My Regards to Cross Bay Boulevard..."). This should be a resoundingly clear message that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the process of creating rules and regulations that others are supposed to abide by, without making any meaningful effort to obtain consensus on these supposed policies (and the 9/20 announcement was an invitation, not an effort to obtain consensus). The process is broke and it must be fixed. By the way, you haven't participated yet: should this article be deleted based solely on WP:USRD/NT? Alansohn 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It's great to skip steps in the name of expediency, but your obligation as a nominator, as required by Wikipedia:deletion policy is to seek means to edit and improve articles before pushing them for deletion. It took me minutes to find and add sources demonstrating notability. In addition to the ample reliable and verifiable sources, the article makes a specific claim of notability in its role in the first road connection to the Rockaways across Jamaica Bay and as part of what was the world's longest vehicular trestle, all of which asserts and establishes Wikipedia:Notability. Alansohn 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I've got 129 other articles on my plate right now...I lack the time to improve every article. —Scott5114↗ 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • There are 5400 other articles that are more important than this one that need to be improved. We have articles on 700-mile long cross-state highways that are in horrible shape, and time spent on improving some article on some street is (in my view) better spent on a stubby two-digit Interstate Highway article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Nothing in the article or the references assert why the street itself is notable. Cogswobbletalk 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The article and its sources do now. Alansohn 15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep A notable road and the link provided is not even a guideline, it is a project subpage. --Holderca1 talk 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Obvious keep as a notable boulevard-causeway hybrid. The turnpike history alone makes it notable. It's part of the arterial system for eventual takeover by the state. Every other road on that map (other than Woodhaven Boulevard) is a parkway or numbered route. If you need more references, take a look at [26]. --NE2 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Satisfies general notability criteria and is also designated as a principal through route as part of the NYC Arterial System. --Polaron | Talk 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - "is the main north-south road in Howard Beach is an assertion of notability. The main artery in Queens and part of the NYC Arterial System. Easily passed our roads criteria. --Oakshade 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Major keep - As a former NYC-ite, and the one working on all these street articles, I have to ask to keep these, as I will get to them soon as I am done with the Bronx. Cross Bay Boulevard and Woodhaven Boulevard are very major streets in the Queens.Mitch32contribs 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep This article may need a little facelift, but this certainly passes notability criteria. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:14, 08 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Keep yeah, others have said all the obvious reasons. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. east.718 at 04:01, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Civil engineering software

    Civil engineering software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Very broad subject, maybe better suited for a category or a list than an article. Unreferenced. Martijn Hoekstra 13:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Life is an awfully broad subject, but it's not a category or list. The article is so short I'm not sure it really says anything that isn't common sense and needs referencing. --136.223.3.130 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, weakly. Like other software related articles, this raises spam concerns, and I doubt that many packages are of sufficient general interest to meet WP:SOFT. A general article on the sorts of software used by civil engineers is probably better than articles on individual packages, and this text seems a reasonable stub. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. As a category, it would end up being an endless list entries that are all either barely or not at all notable. Only AutoCAD is of unquestionable notability, but there are thousands of other products out there. This is about software not meant for the general public. The lack of referencing should be dealt with by the addition of an {{unreferenced}} tag. --Blanchardb 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Anti-Malay racism

    Anti-Malay racism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    NPOV lack of good resource Zack2007 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete The article's name itself goes against the NPOV policy. That, and the contents of the article, suggests a definite POV of the article. And on a lighter note, the article does not cite its sources. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename. It doesn't strike me as terribly POV or uncited, and it also strikes me as a perfectly valid topic to cover. One could hardly object to an article like Anti-Black racism (even if one wished it had a more mellifluous name), since racism directed against people of darker hue is a well known phenomenon. I have little trouble believing that Malays might have suffered from prejudices as well, since everyone does sooner or later. --136.223.3.130 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is heavily sourced; there are 20 cited materials. How is that not sourced? If it is NPOV, one should work to improve it, not delete it. Consider also Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti-Mormonism, Anti-Pakistani sentiment, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Russian sentiment, among others that fall in similar vein to the article in discussion. __earth (Talk) 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: It seems that many citations are from the same sources. Hence lack of reliable sources.--Zack2007 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Zacharycrimsonwolf.   jj137 (Talk) 01:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep (I change my stand) It contains information that can be improved further. --Zack2007 10:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Sikozu

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

    This is plot summary has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability of this fictional character from the Farscape television series. Gavin Collins 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Cleanup This article neds some serious cleanup. The plot is not a...well, plot. Its far too long, and covers stuff that a normal plot should not be covering, like a character's abilities, personality and such; they should be in a separate article. To top it all off, it does not cite any sources at all and seems to be mainly from self-research. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep in order to clean-up. Red Fiona 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Reasons given by Nom are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. That is a reason for deletion because no amount of effort by Wikipedians can make sources appear. Jay32183 03:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. V and OR violations. I can't find anything on Google to suggest that even a redirect would be necessary. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Thread breaking

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

    Original research, unverifiable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • I agree. It's not verifiable. Please delete. --Fromgermany 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article's sources are totally unverifiable; they are based on a website's forum (which cannot be counted as a source) and are therefore inappropriate as an article's source. Besides, the article's content is very "dangerous"; it basically teaches its readers how to perform "thread breaking". --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's an interesting idea, but the article doesn't convince me it's a well-known or delineated subject (to say nothing of the points other !voters have raised). --136.223.3.130 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Unreferenced, appears violateWP:OR. Cogswobbletalk 14:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to something on trolling or the like. JJL 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Qserv

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Qserv
    Qserv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This company is not even remotely notable, even on a local scale. The article reads like a press release, and seems to be nothing more than an advertisement Mcai7et2 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Google News shows some articles about this company, so I'll add some sources to the article. Bláthnaid 11:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've expanded the article a little and added six sources. Bláthnaid 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. If given some effort, the article can be made better. Its best to keep and see what happens in the next few months. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Stong Keep Notable certainly. Well sourced for a short article. Can be written better but so could most wiki pages. Decoratrix 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Davewild 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany

    Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    List of mostly redlinks and/or nonlinks linked from only one substantive site. Little work has been done on this article in nearly 14 months and it's difficult to see how it's notable within the EN Wikipedia. If anything, notable Envoys, etc can be linked from the parent articles but the usefulness of this list is not immediately apparent. Its creator has not edited in the last 11 months. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Looks like this needs a lot of editing, indeed. However, I can't find anything similarly complete in the net and it is probably helpful for those working on J-G relations. Don't see why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.55.76 (talk) 05:37, 6 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 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Not because an article about foreign relations between Japan and Germany wouldn't be worthwhile, not just because the combinations are infinite (i.e., Paraguay's ambassadors to Belgium), but because this will never be much. This is essentially a chronological list of names, with no clue as to what any of these individuals contributed. Saburo Kurusu (1939-41) is the only significant name on the list; he was in Berlin as Japan's representative when the Axis pact was signed, and he has an article of his own. Even the excellent article Ambassadors from the United States limits itself to "selected" (i.e. well-known) former ambassadors. Mandsford 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. While this article's use may be apparent in the future, its too incomplete currently. Furthermore, it does not cite any sources and it has been like that for quite some time now (since January 2007). And I agree with Mansford; its just a list of names, there's no mention of what the officials did on their trip to Germany. For all we know, they might as well be on vacation :). --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and categorize; on a more humorous note, Mandsford, the number isn't actually infinite, just n^2... But this sort of thing makes perfect sense for categories - Category:Japanese ambassadors, subcats Japanese ambassador to Germany, etc. And you can hardly argue that Japanese ambassadors to Germany were unimportant given the circumstances of WWII. --136.223.3.130 14:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You are correct, 136. The combinations only seem infinite and boring. In reality, they are not infinite, but still boring. Going back to Saburo Kurusu, I think he would probably be the only resident of the category of Japanese ambassadors and the subcategory of Japanese ambassadors to Germany. No ambassadors is unimportant during their time of service; only a select few of them rate more than a footnote in world history. Mandsford 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, I fail to see the ground for deletion here:
    1. Not for english Wikipedia? Please remember this in an English language Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia about English topics.
    2. Useless? A chronological list of ambassadors can be very usefull from a historical perspective.
    3. Redlinks? Either these are articles that can be created, or the wikilinks can be removed.
    4. Boring? Thats just in the eye of the beholder.
    5. Categorize? This is a chronological list, which can never be categorized without losing information.

    Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment to new voters and closing admin, I today changed the article to have better formatting, referencing and show more useful information in English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The individual Ambasssadors, though not the interim ones, are arguably notable--that we havent gotten around to the articles is presumably temporary. The en WP is the WP in the English language, and covers all the world, as do the WPs in other languages, subject only to the limitation ofthere being people to writethe articles. DGG (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - clearly encyclopedic and complete list. If somebody created stubs for all the people, the original submitter probably wouldn't have noticed. Send to appropriate WikiProject/Experts. Lars T. 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - I would be happy to tidy up the dates and rearrange the table more logically (i.e. name - position - date), but will wait until the decision is formally made to keep the article before taking the time to do this. --DAJF 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It would be a greater service if you would do some research to briefly summarize what any of these individuals contributed during their representation of Japan in Berlin and Bonn. Saburo Kurusu is well known. I'm sure that the story of Samejima Naonobu (first ever Japanese envoy to Germany, at the time of Bismarck) must have been very interesting. Sugimura Kōichi and Funakoshi Mitsunojō were present as World War I broke out; Matsuzō Nagai the first after Hitler became Chancellor; Kōhei Teraoka the first after Japan and Germany were free again to control their own foreign relations; I can't help but wonder, however, whether this will ever be more than a list of names. There seems to be no expectation that anyone supporting this list would ever care enough try to research or try to find out anything else about Samejima, Sugimura, Funakoshi, Matsuzo, or Kohei. And frankly, if you don't actually care about what these gentlemen accomplished, then you're making a mockery of their careers as a bit of trivia. Mandsford 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Needs some work, but it is a well written list, with an established subject. - Rjd0060 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: These are very useful lists for those creating biographies. Many notable people are ambassadors and vice versa. This is not an infinite list. Number of countries squared is in thousands not millions. Victuallers 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep lists of ambassadors are credible lists. This might not be a great one and the title might need to be paired down a little but there are comparable lists of English ambassadors as those sorts of lists are more favoured systemically. MLA 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - high reference usefulness - obviously would be improved by more inf on named individuals, which presumably will accrete in the course of time. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep One of the cirteria for lists is indeed useful. The individual people on it do not have to be notable in the sense of WP:N--just the overall topic needs to be, and it clearly is. The category will not do as well, for there is resistance to considering each individual ambassador as notable. (Personally, I think they are, as the highest relevant office) But even if we did have all the individual articles, a list would be the clearest way to organize them, for it would provide the sequence--not just the names, which would not generally be as meaningful to most users.DGG (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of German ministers, envoys and ambassadors to Japan

    List of German ministers, envoys and ambassadors to Japan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Same argument as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:00, 2 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 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Oops-- I think you meant to nominate German Ambassadors to Japan (which I've actually seen). Please save my place in the line for the "delete" ride, then look for a cut and paste statement from me. Mandsford 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    My bad. I added the missingg AfD2 tag, but with a wrong title. Fixed now. --Tikiwont 12:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    1. Not for english Wikipedia? Please remember this in an English language Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia about English topics.
    2. Useless? A chronological list of ambassadors can be very usefull from a historical perspective.
    3. Redlinks? Either these are articles that can be created, or the wikilinks can be removed.
    4. Boring? Thats just in the eye of the beholder.
    5. Categorize? This is a chronological list, which can never be categorized without losing information.

    Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment to new voters and closing admin, I today changed the article to have better formatting, referencing and show more useful information in English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Reinoutr's arguments are made well, and there is no legitimate reason to delete it. Ambassadors can be of historical importance, and whether you like an article or not is not a reason to delete the article. --Solumeiras talk 11:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keeep as above--just as rel;evant and as justified. DGG (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snowball keep. No delete votes. There is also no precedent for deleting articles about TV shows that ran for three seasons all over the world. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Beyblade

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

    Non notable show, the only links I can find at to sites selling toys, has no awards that I can find, finished it's only season about 7 years ago, non-encyclopaedic, just being a TV show should not automatically make it notable, the article is very poor and written heavily "in-universe" using language only someone who had seen the show would know about. Has had a no citations tag up for 8 months with no improvement on the article.Macktheknifeau 10:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep - TV series shown in 20 countries, kind of creates it's own notability, don't ya think? digitalemotion 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Have you read the whole article and the template below it? It seems to have three seasons, games in different video consoles, a movie based on it, a toy line, and a trading card game. A google search turns up [27] 1,850,000 hits. It seems that Category:Beyblade needs merge/delete fixes though.--Lenticel (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Badly written it may be, but "non-notable" it certainly isn't. Having three seasons (not one) in Japan, being broadcast in other countries worldwide, and leading to a movie spin-off sounds notable to me. --DAJF 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Notable for being shown in many countries. I think it was on Irish TV as recently as last year, as were the toy adverts. Bláthnaid 12:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I remember that this manga series, and toy collection gained attention in Norwegian media, although not of the positive type. (Sorry, only in Norwegian) Media attention of this nature which is far away from Japan indicates that the series as a whole is notable. (The fact that I deleted the Beyblade article on the Norwegian Wikipedia was due to that article being infantile nonsense and not a serious article, the article on this Wikipedia is acceptable enough.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Seems more than notable enough to me to stay.Alberon 12:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Its not that bad; although it lacks polish, the article is fine overall. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep It is notable enough for its own article, due to it being shown in many countries, and due to the success of the toys to accompany it. Mr_pand 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs)
    • Keep. I guess Mack missed those years where Beyblade was stupid popular among the kiddos. --136.223.3.130 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep I love the smell of pointiness in the morning. JuJube 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Beyblade has manga, anime, game and toy series which I think qualifies it to be notable. Certainly it is no less notable than any other manga, anime or game series. At worst the article does need some improvement but that is hardly a reason for deletion. I was surprised to see the nomination. Jojas 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Meets the "heard of it before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. Just rename the "external links" section to "references" and Bob's your uncle. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just walk down any toy aisle. EndlessDan 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --bainer (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Australians in international prisons (2nd nomination)

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australians in international prisons - no consensus (2 years ago)

    This is a strange one. This is a well-referenced list, yet is does not belong here. Its criteria are arbitrary and it is obviously being maintained for reasons of campaigning rather than being encyclopedic. It offends against WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a soapbox. Consider the criteria for inclusion "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law..." Why? Why should wikipedia care if laws in one jurisdiction are harsher than another? Do we want List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law? Don't get me wrong, I support Amnesty International - just not on Wikipedia's time.--Docg 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    P.S. Others might wish to consider whether the bios linked in this list meet WP:BIO or whether they are part of the same campaign?--Docg 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. The individuals themselves may be notable and merit articles on their plights, but the criteria used for this list seems overly arbitrary and seems to use sources to advocate a specific point of view. (FWIW, I also strongly oppose capital punishment, yet agree that this list seems incongruent with our NPOV.) --krimpet⟲ 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      Alternatively, this information could possibly be refactored and merged into Foreign relations of Australia as a more thorough, encyclopedic description of the underlying political issues, as this seems to be a very notable point in Australian foreign relations that surprisingly receives little coverage in that article. --krimpet⟲ 11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable information. Twenty Years 11:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment It looks well sourced. DPCU 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The individual cases are, but how do you source "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law" - without falling foul of WP:NOR.--Docg 11:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep, but fix up - this list is a list of notable cases of Australians who were or are imprisoned or executed overseas, but I don't think the inclusion criteria is very helpful; although I'd reject suggestions that it's a front for Amnesty or something like that. The problem criterion is "received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law" - there is quite a bit of objectivity to this given that sentences are comparable by reading the relevant legislation, but it could be judged as POV in some way. I think to delete this article would be to get rid of some well-referenced work and would be a complete waste - but the criteria desperately need changing. Instead of useless commentary like "unencyclopedic, unverifiable information" which doesn't add one thing to this discussion, why don't we suggest better ideas on what the criteria should be? Does anyone have any ideas? JRG 11:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, that's why I think we need to delete. There's no criteria here which would not be subjective or lead to an unmaintainable list.--Docg 12:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    That's rubbish. The more likely reason I think is that you don't want to think about it. What's wrong with changing this page to something better? It's a complete waste to delete all the work that has been put into referencing the page. Come on... please help. JRG 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I genuinely believe that this page is unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I believe I am helping by saying that.--Docg 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm sorry - point taken - but I still would like to see your reasoning why any alternative criteria wouldn't work. JRG 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Don't do drugs, mate!" Mandsford 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Categorize. Where exactly someone is imprisoned is a good thing to know - one expects Australians to be imprisoned in Australia, after all. But it's just too odd an article. --136.223.3.130 14:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    We already have Category:Australians imprisoned abroad--Docg 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete A category would be more appropriate, but I don't see an encyclopedic purpose here. Any individual who's notable enough can be the subject of an article, although I don't see the encyclopedic purpose of that either. I agree with the nom's reasoning.Noroton 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article could include anyone, notable or not was the first thing that came to my mind, so I agree with Noroton and his logic. Clear-cut delete for sure... Monsieurdl 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename. Rename to List of Australians imprisoned or executed overseas or something similar, which is a more accurate title. The article has no red links, so presumably all of the members of the list are notable and thus the inclusion criterion is based on notability. The list is superior to a cat because of the additional info.: the by-country breakdown, the dates, the charges, etc. and because lists help avoid Overcategorization. UnitedStatesian 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - criteria for inclusion not arbitrary. Each time a new case of an Australian being imprisoned comes up comparisons are made to other cases in the same or other jurisdictions. List is referenced.--Golden Wattle talk 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Golden Wattle. The deletion arguments are bunk. Rebecca 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    That's helpful. Please explain why?--Docg 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The deletion arguments were: This is a strange one. This is a well-referenced list, yet is does not belong here. Its criteria are arbitrary and it is obviously being maintained for reasons of campaigning rather than being encyclopedic. It offends against WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a soapbox. Consider the criteria for inclusion "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law..." Why? Why should wikipedia care if laws in one jurisdiction are harsher than another? Do we want List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law? Don't get me wrong, I support Amnesty International - just not on Wikipedia's time.-- My arguments were that the criteria are not abitrary. I didn't touch on the issue of campaigning but I think that is drawing a conclusion that is not warranted and argues about the editors rather than the content which is not in line with Wikipedia guidleines or policies. Given the criteria are not arbitrary (you have to be Australian under some definition and you have to have been incarcerated and you have to have been notable enough to have citations supporting the event) then it is not merely an indiscriminate collection of information any more than any other list. The differentiation between jurisdictions of sentences is actually a matter of passionate interest to Australians, regularly making front page news. In our current election campaign, the leader of the opposition made a remark which by some was considered misjudged and at the very least was debated concerning sentencing in Indonesia - see for example this news story Rudd in fast turn on death penalty published in The Australian on 10 October. Wikipedia is not meant to care about anything, caring is not a criteria for inclusion - what matters is whether it is encyclopaedic. To answer in passing one of the other arguments advanced above, a category has frequently been ruled to not be a substitute for a list - it isn't sufficient in this case in my view either - a list aggregates the information in such a way that a category does not manage to present.--Golden Wattle talk 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Just to follow up the criteria for inclusion are: noteworthy for the following reasons, (1)the prisoner was arrested and charged and / or convicted of notable crimes whilst abroad. or (2) the prisoner is an otherwise notable person in Australia. The criteria does not include: the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law as per the deletion argument which thus misrepresents the list. --Golden Wattle talk 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    If this is a dispassionate list, it should include all Australians in foreign jails, even British or American ones. What justification for limiting to those one someone feels are harsh - that's the root of the POV.--Docg 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Firstly - my bad - the criterion for inclusion on harsheness has just been removed [28] - it didn't used to be there some time ago. I don't think it is a useful criterion and I don't think the list needs to be modified as a result of the criterion having been removed. Inclusion in the list is governed by notability - there have to be references to support the notability. If you end up in jail for some minor misdemeanour and you are not notable and your misdemeanour or the senetence you received is not noteworty, there will be no sources and you will not meet the criteria for inclusion. If I am arrested for jay-walking in New Zeland, I won't make it on the list.--Golden Wattle talk 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fully verifiable and well referenced. I do not believe that the article is being maintained for campaigning: As Golden Wattle said, this is of immense interest to Australians. Inclusion criteria is fine. —Moondyne 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep There are no arbitary criteria for inclusion on this list beyond the arbitary nature of WP:N: there has to be a published source to back up inclusion. This should have been fixed by clean-up and consulting frequent or past editors not by bringing the article to AfD.Garrie 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Question for those who want to keep: What is the encyclopedic purpose of this list? Golden Wattle has said that it's of interest to Australians, and I can easily believe that, but there are all sorts of things that are of interest that are not encyclopedic. My mind is open: Make a good case that an encyclopedic purpose would somehow be served by this list and I'll change my mind. I think others might, too, because it seems to me the list looks good otherwise.Noroton 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      This list is a good launching point for understanding Australian foreign relations policy and procedure wrt citizens that have been accused of committing a crime overseas; stated another way: if the reader reads the entries on this list, they will have a better understanding on how the Australian government and people react to these situations. The list doesnt bother mentioning every Aussie who ends up in an overseas jail because most times the Australian public and government agree 100% with the foreign governments actions. This list contains entries for the times where the overseas detention is contentious. John Vandenberg 05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. This clearly explains why a category is not a substitute for a list. The disadvantages of lists are not outweighed by the advantages. Most of the 12 advantages apply to this list, in particular advantages numbered 1 through to 5 and 11. As per Wikipedia:Lists a list may be a valuable information source - this one in my view is a valuable information source. When the next foolish (or perhaps unlucky) Australian is incarcerated overseas, this list will give instant information on the fate of similar cases whether by country (the main sort criterion) or by alleged crime. The list supports research on the topic and navigates to articles which give more details. This list does not inn my view breach WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.--Golden Wattle talk 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      The failed nomination for featured list gives some clues as to why this list is encyclopaedic. The list was stated to be great list which AFAIK doesn't exist anywhere else in published form. Issues such as it is not comprehensive - the list itself says "This is an incomplete list...", and there are no entries before 1969 and few before the late 1990s mean that it is highly unlikely to be a featured list, that doesn't mean that it is unencyclopaedic.--Golden Wattle talk 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The list seems to be made up of mostly trivial subjects that I don't think deserve Wikipedia articles. Drug dealers convicted abroad of smuggling a couple of kilos of drugs? I saw nothing in those articles that looked encyclopedic, and therefore the list doesn't look encyclopedic. It looks like a nicely organized bunch of trivia.Noroton 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per notability factors--Zingostar 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep -- a unique, verifiable and regularly maintained list. It's unique content like this list that makes Wikipedia the interesting place it is. - Longhair\talk 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as a notable list, and as useful to legal scholars such as myself, and my students studying criminal law. Bearian 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Some of the objections are valid, but the answer in this case should be to fix the list, not throw it out entirely. Baby, bathwater, you know the rest. Orpheus 12:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The list provides useful context, and allows people to compare and contrast noteworthy cases. If a well-maintained and NPOV List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law was created, I'd be in favour of that as well. I'm not speaking as a bleeding heart - I loathe Amnesty International as it currently is. Andjam 17:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete — if you want a copy for merging, or transwiki'ng, just ask. --Haemo 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Timeline of the Sigilverse

    Timeline of the Sigilverse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as it provides no real world content. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional timeline outside of the CrossGen comics canon. Gavin Collins 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Per nom.Macktheknifeau 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF Ridernyc 10:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge into the Sigilverse article. Timelines are useful for understanding long and intricate plots. --136.223.3.130 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge for me works, but in determining a consensus you can also colour me as favouring delete, both are solutions to the underlying issue with the article, which have been identified per above. Hiding Talk 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete; At most the important dates could be covered in a "History" section of Sigilverse. Masaruemoto 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to Sigilverse. The references are so thin this has all the hallmarks of original research. If it is merged it needs trimming down and more sources adding. (Emperor 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
    • Comment There references are very poor and so this article not got primary sources that are verifiable. If this material were added to say a Good Article, it would imediately loose its good status. Merging would cause more damage than a deletion. --Gavin Collins 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge per above. Timelines are useful, and as long as references are included and real-world content is added, there is no reason this material couldn't be incorporated into the other article. Lack of sources and no real world content are reasons to improve articles, not delete them. Rray 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment These kind of pages do exist; Timeline of the Marvel Universe, Timeline of the DC Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.118 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • And that Marvel article is truly frightening in its lack of references - the DC one is a good contrast with the Marvel and Sigilverse ones as it does try and reference the sources for the information (although given the amount of material 70+ footnotes actually looks a bit thin). The Marvel one is a massive source of concern - it references one book, which raises the concern that it is infringing copyright. I think once this is done we need to take a long hard look at the Marvel one. (Emperor 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
      • This page might prove useful if more than one person was editing it (heh). It refs a few sources. Marvel one doesn't ref any really. And "provides no real world content"?? i doubt that this applies to a page about a fictional universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.118 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No secondary source to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Non-notable fanfic compilation Mbisanz 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as disambiguation page. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Language police

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

    Intrinsically POV-pushing article, which started as a "humorous" disambiguation page[29]. No assertion of notability for the phrase. With a couple of cherry-picked references to sources that happen to mention the term, it is little more than a dictionary definition. Some language academies are listed with no apparent reason. Note: see the talk page for more background. --Itub 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep - It needs to be cleaned up and trimmed to conform to the normal Disambig page style, but deletion seems rather extreme. --DAJF 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - As above. digitalemotion 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep I have cleaned-up and formatted this page into a disambiguation page, which is not an article (and AfDs are for articles). I'll let someone else close this nom. – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It was not clear to me whether this was an article or a disambiguation page. It started as a disambiguation page, but started to evolve into something else altogether. A problem remains: who calls these language academies the "language police"? Is the usage notable enough for a disambiguation page? If we remove these questionable (and slightly offensive) nicknames from the list, all that remains is a book called The Language Police. Should we just redirect to the book then? --Itub 12:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I left in an invisible comment sourcing the French "language police". I have also created a new wiktionary page for wikt:language police, which will likely stay as dictionary.com has an entry for that phrase. So there are three sourced entries now. Furthermore, I also consider "language police" a likely search time for the other entries plus the see also section. This is good enough for me as a regular dab editor to keep the dab page. – sgeureka t•c 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Thank you for fixing it. It seems to have been a disambiguation page that someone had added footnotes to; looks fine now, an excellent start for looking for those articles about government agencies that enforce linguistic purity Mandsford 12:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Nomination withdrawn. OK, I withdraw this nomination. I'll delete the Real Academia Española from the list. If someone adds a sourced claim that it is known as a "language police" to the Real Academia Española article, feel free to add it back.


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Radio First Termer

    Radio First Termer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    not notable, conflict of interest (self-written), advertising. (basically WP:VSCA) Dougie WII 06:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep The radio station was first used in Vietman, then in the gulf first time around, then the second time around. So its a well established institution. Article needs re-written and tarted up. scope_creep 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    The radio station existed only for 21 days, and only one of the people involved in it (apparently the author) went to Iraq, and only once. I still think this is more advertising for new commercial endeavors than encyclopedic content. - Dougie WII 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep It seems valuable as a historical curiosity. Eliminating the current projects and focusing only on the historical information in the article can solve the conflict of interest problem. --Phaethon 0130 01:00, 5 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 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep if the approach Phaethon suggests is followed.Alberon 10:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - for historical interest. There is nothing absolutely wrong with self-written articles. digitalemotion 11:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per above. All pirate radio stations have a story; some are notable because of the circumstances in which they were set up. Mandsford 12:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Phaethon 0130 made substantial changes to the article, I have no problem with the way it is now written -- Dougie WII 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with the provision that the list of press releases are removed. Neil ☎ 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Polyglot (webzine)

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

    Article was prodded in April, but prod removed by article creator. It is a large article on a webzine, and very detailed; but as there seem to be no external sources given that assert the subject's notability to satisfy WP:RS and WP:N, and as I'm not sure what other criteria than external sources can be used to demonstrate a webzine's need for inclusion in Wikipedia, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. My opinion's neutral. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep: For now. I would like to see some more secondary sources, as all of the current ones are from the subjects website. A quick google search has over 200k hits, and most of them are related to this. - Rjd0060 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep There are a number of secondary sources which have been added to the article. The large number of Google hits about the Polyglot webzine (the publisher calls it an "online newsletter") more or less underline its notability in the hobby game industry. Really, "notability" is a subjective issue: there are a large number of articles in the English Wikipedia which arguably have less notability than the one about Polyglot; for instance there are many languages that have fewer living speakers than Polyglot has readers; many of the articles in the Webzines category are of dubious notability by any standard because they serve such niche interests (such as the punk music scene in San Francisco, various arts, literary, and political journals of a non-academic nature, et al); a prime example is the Dutch Progressive Rock Page which is about a niche topic and which isn't even written in English and the Greek Alternative Charts page which is similarly obscure. I am not arguing for the deletion of those articles either because regardless of the numbers in their readership, these niche webzines are notable enough to the people who read them. Webzines, almost by definition, have to be about niche interests and for this reason they will be more notable to their readers than they would be to the general public. Many (if not a majority of) articles in Wikipedia fit this description. There is no reason to delete this article unless numerous other articles of a similar nature (articles which have far fewer references, be they primary or secondary), are deleted as well. The door is already wide open for content such as this. — A lizard 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, why did you re-add the very long section titled "Companies whose press releases have been included in Polyglot", which I deleted? Do you feel that it adds to the article? I'm just curious, as we wouldn't normally have a section like this in any other press article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    The section attests to the notability of the webzine by indicating the companies that have a connection to it. Many Wikipedia articles about newspapers, magazines, and the like have sections that list at least some of their staff or regular contributors (e.g. The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph which also has a blog section, The West Australian, Gulf Daily News, Prothom Alo, De Standaard, Gazet van Antwerpen, Amandala, Belize Times, The Guardian (Belize), BH Dani, The Globe and Mail has a laundry list of contributors rivaling Polyglot's, Le Devoir, The Gazette (Montreal), National Post, Toronto Star has a huge list of people who are involved with it, Toronto Sun has a current writers list and an "alumni" list that is also very long, Vancouver Sun, El Observador, Haaretz, and many others). Many of these newspapers are not in English and thus are less likely to be read by most readers of the English language Wikipedia, yet their staff and contributors past and present are listed in the articles about them, often in bulleted list form. Other than the editorials, Polyglot's only contributors are hobby game companies so, I think, it is entirely appropriate to list them. As the "news" section of the article attests, these companies have been coming and going with some frequency lately (the article does not state this but the game hobby industry is currently in a turbulent state of transition) so their inclusion here, in a way, documents the recent history of the game hobby industry. Some of the articles on newspapers cited above have these lists in multi-column formats and perhaps it would be best to emulate these in order to make the article less long-looking, I just have to figure out the wiki code for that. :) — A lizard 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Is the secton title confusing me? I'd have no problem with a "notable contributors" section to this article - or even just a "past contributors" section - but not a "list of companies whose press releases they printed" section. That'd be like a "list of topics written about by the Toronto Star". Also - notability is not inherited; writing about a notable topic doesn't necessarily make the author notable. Being noted does, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    If it is just the section that concerns you, then there is no reason to nominate the entire article for deletion. The article does indeed attest to the webzine having been noted by insiders within the hobby game industry, as do the external sources cited. This is further pointed out on the article's discussion page. The Polyglot webzine has been noted, in other words. The game companies mentioned in that section are Polyglot's contributors. Perhaps shortening that section so that it is in paragraph, rather than bulleted list, form would be a better way to show that the most prominent companies in the game hobby industry consider it to be important for them to make contributing to Polyglot be a part of their marketing efforts. These companies whose product lines are so big and popular that there are entire wikipedia portals about them; if there are multiple articles about Dungeons & Dragons and the company that makes that game, then it follows this is a "notable" topic for Wikipedia; it only follows that a news outlet in which the most important initiatives by that company (and several others like it) are announced on a regular basis is notable as well. — A lizard 19:58, 4 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 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, although the list has to go. Put it in a paragraph or remove it completely; its inappropriate as an article content. The rest of it are quite okay. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The contributors list was re-made in paragraph form and is now substantially shorter; all but one of the companies mentioned have Wikipedia entries of their own. — A lizard 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep, very marginal satisfaction of notability. I removed the silly list of press releases they've published. No prejudice against a later renomination if the article doesn't see improvement after a few months. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    A lack of notability is alleged by two users who have at the same time advocated the removal of a complete section which most forcefully attests to the article's notability: the list of contributors; that the largest companies in the game hobby, computer, and console game industries regularly use Polyglot as a marketing outlet (and these companies have millions of dollars in assets, whole Wikipedia portals about them, and many of them are publicly traded) consider use Polyglot for marketing their products means, at the very least, that they think the webzine is notable. Removing them severely damages the article's notability, this is circular logic. — A lizard 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment No, it is not circular logic, because the notability of a magazine is not dependent on who sends them press releases (which is what I assume you mean by "contributors", unless demonstrated otherwise). This is simply marketing, which is what companies normally do, and their standards for who gets press releases are not ours. Notability is not, as you seem to believe, transferable. Instead, notability depends on reliable, independent secondary sources who choose to write about the topic. Additionally, I tagged the article with {{more sources}} because I think it needs this help. That was a kindness. By removing this tag, I presume you are indicating an unwillingness to take steps to improve the article's sourcing, and so I withdraw my supporting vote above; coupled with your gross misunderstanding of our notability requirements, I no longer have confidence the article will improve. If it survives, I will review in a month or two and consider a renomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep, We are members of the Games Publishing Association (GPA) which has 175 business members, Miniatures and Games Manufacturers Association (MAGMA) which has 847 business members, and Games Manufacturers Association (GAMA) which has several hundred game company owners as members and we all regularly use Polyglot as our prime news dissemination newsletter for press releases and the like about our companies. I am shocked that several individuals have chosen to state a lack of notability for this entry, and would cite the following reasons for my dismay.
      • if the objection by the two wikipedians arguing for deletion were to apply these same standards .. nay rules and judgments ... FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY then they would be arguing for the deletion of much of the content contained on wikipedia. I refer to one of these individuals (AllGloryToTheHypnotoad) personal web blog where he states "A dream of mine... take the entire (English language, for me personally) Wikipedia database, and delete all the indie-rock band articles, all the Simpsons articles, and so on; everything to do with pop culture, meaningless crimes, trivia and everything else. Keep all the science, history, engineering, culture, and so on. As I said, only keep those parts that would be useful in the aftermath of a catastrophe." this smacks of censorship and bigoted discrimination and could and should be addressed by the ACLU.
    Sigh.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have read A Lizard's responses to the arguments for deletion and find it sad that arguments stating the importance of the newsletter's service to our industry, member companies, and their employees is being dismissed with the wave of hand - yet other less relevant material is argued for retention by one of these wikipedians and are considered notable and I would add we have reviewed those entries and our members consider that material as not notable and irrelevant for a page in wikipedia. And before you ask... yes we have conducted a quick survey amongst our members on this before I have decided to wade in and argue for keeping the Polyglot entry.

    I would also cite the following reasons for keeping the entry:

      • Polyglot has been used by our association for the last 3 years in order to reach over 10,000 regular bi-monthly readers. And we have had this number of bi-monthly readers verified by an independent auditing firm.
      • Polyglot has been cited by several of our industry leaders as a recommended source for free dissemination of game and entertainment notable information to hobbyists and aficionados.

    Dhdistro 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment In any case, it is completely inappropriate that you change other other peoples comments. [30]]--Tikiwont 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    -- My humble apologizes, I am new to wiki markup code and used the entry above mine as a template for formatting code and then when I previewed it I saw the strike through and; not knowing it meant anything, I removed it as an error and I must have also have inadvertently done it to the entry above mine as it is difficult to edit in the very small editing window for entries that is displayed on my laptop's screen.
    Dhdistro 16:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Aperture card

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

    The article is redundant with text in Punched card. tooold 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Is true. And since redundant, there is nothing to merge. When reviewing them you might have noticed that the Punched card text actually has more detail than the article to be deleted. tooold 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Please read WP:MERGE and WP:DELETE for more details on why redundant articles should be merged and not deleted. I oppose deleting the article. If it were deleted, then when someone went to "wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_card" they would get nothing. If the merge procedure was followed, they would get redirected to "Punched_card". -- Austin Murphy 18:29, 2 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 09:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect As with Hollerith card, most readers would probably not know the name of this type of punched computer card (Hollerith card). I confess that I had never heard of an "aperture card", and was surprised that keypunched cards are still in use anywhere. Mandsford 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge with Punched card. The concepts are way too similar. --Blanchardb 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The conceptsare quite distinct. These are cards that in addition to theone line of characters encoded on a punched card, contain the full data object itself. Sure, theyre essentially obsolete, but this was a very important form of distribution for technical documentation in its era, and widely used in business also. That most readers would not know the name is the stranger reasons for deletion I've encountered -- WP exists in particular to provide information about unfamiliar things. Those who do encounter it, will need the informatgion, and there can be references from the related articles. DGG (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and do not merge. This is not the same thing as a punched card. -- Whpq 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Seven gates of hell

    Seven gates of hell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Original research essay. If anyone can explain to me what this article is about I will remove the nomination. Seems like a hoax. Ridernyc 09:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 10:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom, as it does read like a story made up by the camp fire one evening. I suggest posting this on WP:ANI to see if anyone can vouch for this story, as I am sure the closing admin is amoungst the inmates who escaped. --Gavin Collins 10:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Hmm... I only found forums, blogs and a Yahoo Answer post for sources that covers this topic. No need to warn Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal--Lenticel (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete "Frustrating attempts to nail down any location in conjunction with the legends is that the existence and location of Toad Road is unverifiable"... etc. Yikes, an urban legend about the existence of an urban legend!! Mandsford —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Unsourced, Appears to violate WP:OR. Cogswobbletalk 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. It is not verifiable. The content of the article even contradicts the existence of such a place. Since there is no hard evidence that the place exist, there is no real need of the article, unless some convincing evidence is found. By the way, what is the name of the place? The seven gates of hell or Toad Road? --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article is as vague and unlikely as the story... After reading this article, I was never the same! --136.223.3.130 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Looks to me like an account of a local legend trip. If this legend trip site has notability, it should be mentioned; we do have articles on legend trip sites and legends like the Waverly Hills Sanatorium and the Pope Lick Monster. But a better title should be found if an article on this can be written. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. An article about an urban legend should at least have sources about instances of belief. The Loch Ness Monster didn't become famous just because it was mentioned in an encyclopedia. --Blanchardb 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Patterns in multiple-choice tests

    Patterns in multiple-choice tests (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Original research essay. Ridernyc 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete as pure OR. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom.Alberon 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - in this case, there would be no reason other than notability for anyone to make the unsourced article. It needs cleaning up, and sourcing, though. digitalemotion 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per the two comments above the one above. I don't get the explanation about why this should be kept. It's notable because someone wrote an article? Mandsford 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Unsourced, appears to violate WP:OR. Cogswobbletalk 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Totally goes against Wikipedia:No original research. Other than helping students cheat (will it really work?), there is no other use for this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cheating forum. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This sort of thing would work great in some of the articles devoted to statistics or human psychological biases, but alone...? No. --136.223.3.130 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pure OR and likely to be pure speculation as well. --Blanchardb 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Could not find any WP:RS, fail WP:OR and WP:N. i agree that some of this info (if sources found) should be merged with other statistical articles. MatthewYeager 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Kenosuke Sato

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

    This article appears to be either a hoax or misinformation. The article is not referenced and a Google search does not support the claims made in the article. More outlandish claims have been previously removed as have other claims attributed to Sato on other articles. As a result, I am proposing deletion as the article is either a hoax or covers a non-notable person. --Nick Dowling 09:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete - Searching on Google suggests that there was someone of this name who wrote about Japanese/American relations in the pre-war years, but I can find nothing to support any of the detailed biographical claims made in this article. Not mentioned on Japanese Wikipedia either. --DAJF 10:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is a confusing case. The article itself is quite plausible, plausible enough I almost don't want to damn it as a hoax. A search through JSTOR doesn't turn up anything useful for 'Kennosuke Sato' or variants thereof; however, a search for 'Amanojaku', his supposed pen-name turns up a number of interesting things. There was indeed a correspondent for the Osaka Mainichi, and he is quoted often and at length in at least one article ("In the Eyes of the World", by E. G. in Pacific Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1. (Jan., 1930), pp. 143-153. Mentions of Amanojaku start on pg 150), and the name pops up several times in mythological/folk-tale contexts ie "In a folk tale, it is told that once seven suns appeared at the same time, and the people were very uncomfortable in the heat. To remedy the situation, a giant, Amanojaku, shot down all but one of the suns with bow and arrow.[3] This tale has parallales among the Miaos, Taiwan aborigines, and in Chinese mythology." ("Origin and Growth of the Worship of Amaterasu", by Matsumae Takeshi in Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1. (1978), pp. 1-11. Only mention on page 1.), and Amanojaku seems to figure in variant versions of the Orihime myth (see Tanabata) where he kills or otherwise incapacitates her ("Reality in Japanese Folktales", by Matthias Eder in Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1. (1969), pp. 17-25, Amanojaku mentioned on pg 24 ; "Communications", Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1. (1990), pp. 135-142, Amanojaku mentioned on pg 140). Further muddying things are the first batch of Google hits, which all seem to indicate that Sato was in fact part of the intelligence apparatus: "The Herald Newspaper in Melbourne had an article on 1 January 1946 titled "Invasion Plan for Australia" by Herald Correspondent Denis Warner, Osaka, Japan. The article claimed that a 51 year old, Mr. Ken Sato was to be appointed Civil Administrator for Australia after a successful Japanese Invasion of Australia in 1942."[31] and there are other interesting links[32][33][34]. And so on. So, as far as I can tell based on the research I've done, the '1930s' and 'Pacific War years' are probably correct (and if the assertions are correct, I think the role he played confers notability); the Amanojaku tidbit is probably correct as well, since it seems to be implied by some of the sources and how likely is it they both worked for the same newspaper covering the same subjects without being the same person? The English-speaking part is supported as well. Unfortunately, I see no basis for the assertions about his education and role as a Navy theoretician. Either that is made up, or sources are being used which are inaccessible to me. Thus, my final conclusion is Keep and partially subify. --Gwern (contribs) 15:51 7 November 2007 (GMT)
      • Comment The links about Sato in WW2 are a mixed bunch. The 1st and 4th aren't reliable sources - Ozatwar is a mixture of unsourced fact and fantasy and www.ceaust.com is the website of the Citizen's Electoral Council, which is a fringe political party. The other two links don't say anything more than Kennosuke Sato was an intelligence agent. The Australian and Japanese official histories of WW2 are very clear on the point that Japan never intended to invade Australia, so if Sato did claim that he'd been appointed administrator he was lying. In short, once the fantasy material about Japan invading Australia is removed Sato is not notable. --Nick Dowling 09:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. There seems to exist some notable figure called 佐藤剣之助.[35]. I don't think this is any kind of hoax. For example, this [36] says there is a book called "Japanese-English conversation" by Kenosuke Sato. So, the claims like he was fluent in English seems plausible. -- Taku 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article's factual accuracy may be disputed, and it has very little sources (which are also doubted to be reliable). However, there is evidence that such a person exists, and I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Seeing as the article is new (8 days old), there might be some improvements in the future. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The article isn't new - it was created over a year ago, but has just been moved and this appears to have deleted the edit history (which I didn't think was meant to happen...). The earliest comment on the talk page is from February 2006. Also, existing is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Nick Dowling 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Gwern and Taku. Phil Bridger 13:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)

    United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This long plot summary fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as it provides no real world content. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Star Fleet Universe canon. --Gavin Collins 10:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete fails [[WP:Plot and WP:WAF. No real world context and written totally in universe.Ridernyc
    • Delete. Note that is not about the canonical 'Federation' of the Star Trek canon. Martijn Hoekstra 11:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment But it is the canon version for the Star Fleet Battles game, which has been in print for decades. Edward321 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Reasons give by nominator are reasons for article improvement, not deletion. Edward321
    • Keep Edward321 beat me to my rationale. All of the reasons given for deletion are surmountable problems. LaMenta3 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Wikipedia is for real-world content and not for articles fully relying on events and such that do not exist. Ridernyc is absolutely correct, especially that it violates WP:WAF wholly. Monsieurdl
    • Keep or merge per Pinball22 in related AfD. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Wikipedia is not an RPG guide. 132.205.99.122 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Gavin Collins has made a comment on another related page up for deletion that merging is not a good option. [37] I am posting this response because all of these articles are up for deletion for the same reason and are related. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [38] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [39] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [40] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. Iarann 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete- non-notable in and of itself, and there's nothing worth merging. The episode's article has far more than enough "cultural references" and "notes" without adding to the mention of this song, and the only content contained in this article is plot summary and lyrics, which are copywritten. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Vasectomy Song

    The Vasectomy Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Television trivia with no potential for expansion. Fails WP:N. Alksub 08:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Give this one the snip not-notable. Lugnuts 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect into Sibling Rivalry (Family Guy episode). The "setup" information isn't in the episode article, and if the page is deleted it will probably be recreated later on. Bláthnaid 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect per Blathnaid. That's all we need, a spinoff from an article about an episode of Family Guy. Only on Wikipedia. Mandsford 13:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Merge if necessary, but there is already a solid plot synopsis in the episode article, and the song is also mentioned in the "Notes" section. The only thing I can see to actually merge would be the lyrics themselves, which I'm sure we can all agree would be extraneous. —dustmite 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, I wouldn't agree that the lyrics are extraneous, since without them, there's nothing except the fact that a song was written about having a vasectomy. Nevertheless, it's a silly idea for an article. Before anyone says "The parent article is too big to have this merged into it," I will say that we can all agree that our answer would be "that's too bad" (f-bomb optional) Mandsford 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - no evidence of notability for the song, and quoting all the lyrics is almost certainly a copyvio anyway. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Faxlore

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

    Basically a dicdef. The article starts out talking about urban legends spread by fax. The article then just talks about various urban legends that already have their own articles and have nothing to do with this article. Original research, the only citations are for the urban legends and not for the term Faxlore. Ridernyc 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep It's so easy to dash off the line "basically a dicdef". This one is about a phenomenon of the 1990s, and has references and sources. It is neither "dick" nor "deaf" Mandsford 13:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a distinct cultural phenomenon; it may haven fallen by the wayside in the last decade, but not too long ago xeroxlore and faxlore were rampant. It could stand some cleanup, but the subject is noteworthy. —dustmite 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as non-notable neogolism. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the existence of the term, let alone its notability. --Gavin Collins 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I began this article, some years ago. The term "faxlore" is not something I made up; I first encountered it in one of the books by Jan Brunvand, the folklorist who popularized the notion of "urban legends". Not sure if it's original to him. At any rate, it's a recognized term; Google Scholar yields ten hits, reasonable enough for a 1980s and 1990s pop culture phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I added a reference to one of the Brunvand books, the one closest to hand; just about all of his have examples. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Another comment. We also have photocopylore, which is even sparser than this article. I suggest that the two articles perhaps should merge, and in any case should share a common fate. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yet another comment - the photocopylore was apparently requested as a missing encyclopedia article; see the history. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm familiar with the Brunvand refs as well. Surely the Folklorists out their have journals of their own that have generated reliable sources for this... - Mdbrownmsw 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I'm not thrilled with the title (it implies a dicdef to my sensibilities), but the subject of the article is notable and well documented. -Harmil 00:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. W.marsh 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Economic progress

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

    The article has started as an original research/POV essay [41], and it still isn't anything else. I don't think it can be salvaged, but I am open to suggestions. Until/unless that happens, delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


    REPLY I have a suggestion. If an article is going to talk about economic progress, then instead of writing about the specific CAUSES of economic progress, talk about HOW economic progress occurs in the first place.

    The best way of doing this is to first define what economic progress is. I think the reason why the article is so POV contaminated is because nowhere is there any definition for economic progress. It's surprising that nobody picked this up yet. Once we do that, THEN people can be free to discuss and improve the entry.

    For if we START the entry with explaining how economic progress is spread, why some countries seem not to have it, etc, I think we are just going to go off on tangents.

    I can make some suggestions as to what exactly economic progress is and how it should be defined, and I can do it without having to resort to dogma. I can keep it comletely "neutral". If you want I can define it for you.

    This article is useless and SHOULD be deleted. But economic progress itself should stay, just changed. - Private Freedom 03:00, 7 November 2007

    • delete As nom. And I don't think the page can be salvaged.Alberon 09:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, unsalvageable essay. The phrase colloquially means a number of different things, none of which seem to be addressed by this article, instead vaguely talking about Weber and Rand. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Beancounter pacification

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

    Neologism, unsupported by references. Alksub 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete as neologism. --Oxymoron83 08:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nominator and Oxymoron83. Apart from Wikipedia mirrors, there is nothing on the internet that contains this phrase. Bláthnaid 12:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, concur with all above. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as a non-notable neologism. There don't seem to be any ref's that can verify this phrase. Bfigura (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] 2suit

    2suit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Notability WP:N. Not in the slightest. Firelement85 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this isn't the only such article that has cropped up. Michaelbusch 07:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Doubt it's even notable enough to be merged into the the Sex in space page.Alberon 09:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep definitely notable and noted; if Merged, merge with Sex in space. Redundantbot 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (note: Alberon above appears to be SPA?)
      • Comment How is the 2suit notable? The creator isn't notable, if Wikipedia included all of the gadgets that people came up with, whether they are real or a figment of someones imagination this wouldn't be an encyclopedia which it strives to be. 2suit should not be merged with Sex in space, it does have a section popular culture however 2suit will fit only a handful of people's definition of popular culture. I also take issue on Alberon's behalf about being called a SPA, from an account with only 19 edits, don't mistake a red name for SPA.Firelement85 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply Per your comment, your AfD request appears to be governed by a subjective personal opinion (violating WP:N guidelines) about the notability creator of this 2suit, which isn't the subject or article. I am new here and did mistake a red name for an SPA. No need to get offensive about the number of my edits, hopefully they've been a contribution. It meets notability guidelines, there is objective evidence it meets the criteria because it has received significant coverage from secondary and tertiary sources.

    Redundantbot 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: btw I first read about the 2Suit in OUTSIDE Magazine last year. Found the source and updated the newspapers listed here. Redundantbot 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep Is a descriptive topic, not an advert, and sourced. Mbisanz 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. east.718 at 04:00, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Seneca Technologies

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

    Possibly falls under WP:NOT#SOAPBOX but there seems to be notability asserted and third-party sources. I've declined the speedy tag (although I can understand why it was placed in the first place) brought this to the community for a more final representative decision and take no position. Accounting4Taste 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. While FOIA-pertinent info is beneficial, not sure if there's nough else on the company to warrant their own article. Recommend pilfering FOIA-related info to add to articles related to that and delete this company article. - CobaltBlueTony 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete -- less than 100 unique Google hits; nothing in Google News or Google News Archive. I note that the article was created by a user with a similar name, Senecawill. Finally, please see the discussion at Talk:Seneca Technologies.--A. B. (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Autopsy (Marilyn Manson video)

    Autopsy (Marilyn Manson video) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Seems rather crufty. There's no assertion of any cultural or other impact this video has had, no reference to any mentions of the press, etc. Do not see any way to justify a claim for its notability nor for the article's inclusion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was speedied. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Squeeze Theory

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

    Original research. Alksub 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    I've speedy-tagged it for advertising the technique. Michaelbusch 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/"Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"
    "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. I'm fairly sure portions of this can be merged into zitterbewegung, but as I'm not a science expert or even that knowledgable, it would be beyond my ken. But as it stands, this is obviously an essay and violates WP:NOT. Prod removed by anon (most likely author). JuJube 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Essay advancing an original theory. --Alksub 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 07:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete As above.Alberon 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as above. --NeilN 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


    RESPONSE BY W.GUGLINSKI:


    Let us analyse Alsub's argument: Essay advancing an original theory


    1- From the Alksub's viewpoint, we have to delete all the articles on cold fusion, because cold fusion is considered by the academicians till the present day as an experimental essay with no viability, and so cold fusion cannot be described in the Wikipedia pages.


    2- The item Theory in Cold fusion page must be deleted, because everything written in there is only a theoretical original essay, since the cold fusion theorists cannot explain even that single theoretical question pointed out in Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion: The question then is, where will this additional mass come from?


    3- The item Proposed mechanisms in the Condensed matter nuclear science must be deleted, because everything written in there is essays advancing an original theory.



    But consider the following:

    • A) All the articles concerning Cold Fusion and Condensed matter nuclear science are describing the following FACT: that many experiments, made by several researchers, are performed in the laboratories worldwide. This is a FACT
    • B) Wikipedia is a place for description of FACTS
    • C) So, cold fusion merits to be described in Wikipedia, no matter if it is viable, or not. Even if cold fusion is a fraud, it does not matter, because Wikipedia describes the following FACT: that cold fusion experiments are performed in the whole world, independently if cold fusion is real, or not.

    That’ s why the articles on Cold fusion are not deleted from Wikipedia.



    Now let me show that the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion is not an Essay advancing an original theory. Because actually the article is showing a FACT: that there is a wrong belief among the skeptics. And this is a FACT.


    Actually it’s an important FACT , that people need to know, because:

    • 1) There is a belief, among the skeptics, that cold fusion is impossible to occur, because there is a unsurmountable theoretical question: “The question then is, where will this additional mass come from?” This belief is a FACT.


    • 2) But such a belief of the skeptics is wrong, because actually the question is solved by considering the electron’s zitterbewegung. This is a FACT, as shown in the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion.


    • 3) Therefore the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion shows a FACT:. That it is wrong the belief of the skeptics.


    • 4) No matter if cold fusion occurrence is possible, or not. No matter if Quantum Ring Theory is wrong, or not. The FACT is the following:
      • 4-1) there is a belief among the skeptics.
      • 4-2) the belief is wrong, because the question that supports their belief is answered by the electron’s zitterbewegung. This is a FACT. And therefore, because it is a FACT, it must be reported in Wikipedia.


    That’s why the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion cannot be deleted from Wikipedia. Because, as in the same case as happens with the articles on Cold fusion, the important is the description of the FACTS. And the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion describes the FACT that it’s wrong the belief of those ones who claim that cold fusion is theoretically impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.62.83 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Response tl;dr. JuJube 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Um, you got it all wrong. Wikipedia is meant as neither an arbiter nor a publisher of "facts." Our mission is to publish knowledge that is verfiable by reliable sources, and this includes notable scientific theories. The prohibition against original work, like this article, is in place because such work inherently violates everything I just said. The counterexamples you mentioned don't. Someguy1221 09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete original research, little notability. Seems to be created to promote this theory, in violation of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. An extremely similar article has also appeared on Wikinews, despite the fact it is obviously not a news story. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory. Hut 8.5 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)



    AND THE CONSPIRACY GOES ON

    Dear Wike members

    You are not the only ones that conspirate against Quantum Ring Theory.

    Even the cold fusion theorists conspirate against QRT, as everybody can see in the link below the letter posted to Christy Frazier, entitled CONSPIRACY AGAINST QUANTUM RING THEORY

    http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0



    CONSPIRACY AGAINST QUANTUM RING THEORY

    To: Christy Frazier

    Managing Editor, Infinite Energy


    cc. Bob Wever, Steven Krivit, Nancy Kolenda, David Bradley, Naveen Dankal, Peter Jones, Jed Rothwell, Antonny Leggett


    Dear Christy

    I have noted that there is a s conspiracy against my Quantum Ring Theory among cold fusion researchers and journalists that divulge the cold fusion experiments.


    Interestingly, somebody has deleted my book from the bibliograpy of the Wikipedia page on cold fusion (my book has been added to that page in July-2007, by the physicist Trever McFaddon).


    Many cold fusion researchers and journalists believe that cold fusion will be explained by a theory proposed by some eminent theorist of an important research institute. For instance, the journalist Bob Wever says in his blog Strategy Kinetics:

    “Many believe that the work of MIT's Peter Hagelstein--a tenured professor of electrical engineering--is exemplary and if verified experimentally, stands in line for a Nobel prize.”

    http://www.strategykinetics.com/2006/02/cold_fusion.html#more


    So, there are theorists that hope to win the Nobel prize with a successful theory able to explain cold fusion. And of course that they don’t want my Quantum Ring Theory as an opponent.


    Actually it is funny why the people believe that Hagelstein’s theory is able to explain cold fusion occurrence, since his theory is unable to explain even a single question like that arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch in his blog Chemistry Forum, where Mitch wrote:
    “In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion”
    http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0


    So, Hagelstein’s theory or any other theory on cold fusion did not convince Mitch on the viability in cold fusion.


    But after reading the response to his question posted by me according to Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch wrote:

    “I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response. Sorry for the delay”. And we realize that Mitch is not quite sure anymore that cold fusion viability is impossible, after reading the explanation according to Quantum Ring Theory.


    It is of interest to note that cold fusion researchers complain that there is a conspiracy of the academics against the cold fusion occurrence.

    But the own cold fusion theorists have a conspiracy against the QRT, which is the unique theory able to explain the cold fusion occurrence.

    It’s only a new paradox in the history of the science’s development.

    Regards

    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

    • Response How is this any different than the "America did WTC" nutjobs? Can we close this now before we get another blitzkrieg of irrelevant factoids? JuJube 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - incoherent. - Mike Rosoft 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Mizanation

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

    Appears to be total nonsense. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: fails WP:N, could not find anything on the movie or this character, let alone the movie article is copyvio :/ MatthewYeager 07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete complete and utter blatherskite. JuJube 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete It's nonsense.Alberon 09:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. east.718 at 03:57, 11/13/2007

    [edit] List of churches in Perth, Western Australia

    List of churches in Perth, Western Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    There is already a list of all the churches in Perth in the Perth street directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no need to duplicate it here. Hesperian 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete; Clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR, I suspect most of these are non-notable and so will never have articles, so no use as a list. Masaruemoto 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I think this could be made into a category for churches in Western Australia (if it doesnt exist). WP is not a directory. Twenty Years 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I was hoping to see some information such as date it was built, denomination/religion.... sadly, no, it's just a directory with no encyclopedic information.Garrie 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Meets Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). This is not an obscure list and is a logical grouping by location. There is no WP policy that states that a list cannot be established when there is a similiar list in a street directory (which isn't much use to somebody who has a NavSat system). This is also not a case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization Assize 11:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. This sort of thing is more suited to a category (and many churches will never be notable) - see WP:NOT#IINFO Orderinchaos 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per user Assize DPCU 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demographics of Cape Verde to avoid duplication W.marsh 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde

    Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    See the talk page in Talk:Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde for details. Ten Islands 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment You've offered no deletion rationale. I'm looking at an obviously woefully incomplete article, albeit one that is sort of sourced. There seems to be some objection to using well-sourced but out-of-date data from the CIA World Factbook, which shouldn't be a problem as long as the dating is made clear. So it's possible with some work and dispute resolution this article could be whipped into shape (but it should be moved to Ethnic groups in Cape Verde per naming conventions). On the other hand, as it is, it's lacking key information and potentially misleading about the importance of what is included. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I don’t understand why you said that there is no deletion rationale. I thought that the reasons I’ve written in the talk page were enough, but maybe it is my poor English that doesn’t allow me to explain myself correctly... If by any chance my explanations were not clear, I will gladly try to explain them more thoroughly. And second, why bringing the CIA data issue again? As I said before, not only it is out-of-date but it is certainly not well-sourced, and irrelevant for this subject. Racial groups are not ethnic groups. Ten Islands 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I'll offer a delete rationale - Demographics of Cape Verde already exists and covers everything that this article should. MLA 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. east.718 at 03:58, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Ally Magazine

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

    Conflict of interest. Creator and main editor is affiliated with company that owns the magazine (see admission of affiliation at User talk:Allstarecho#RE: Message). Previous related article was deleted and creator/editor has chosen to remove references to magazine's previous 2 names and history. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Further comment - User_talk:Hemstrong, the creator and main editor, removed the AfD template. I reverted. Also, he/she left the following comment on my talk page: I've contacted Ally magazine's legal department. It seems your just a sore fag because your a wiki editor and not part of something successful. I hope ALly gets on your ass. Then the user blanked my talk page. I reverted that as well. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    That should have no effect on the deletion discussion. Also, I don't think you have to add a comment to delete if you nominate an article. I think it is implied. - Rjd0060 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I see nominators all the time leaving their own comments to delete. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Though WP:NPA can be invoked... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but the civility of a user has absolutely nothing to do with a decision on AfD. -Rjd0060 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: First, COI is no reason to delete an article, ever. Secondly, seems like a notable magazine. Could use a few 3rd party sources, but no reason to delete it now. - Rjd0060 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree on COI but then there's the matter of WP:CORP as also stated in the nom rationale. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete on the basis of being unable to find any reliable third party sources via web or news searches. The only thing that came up via news search was a primary source press release. Not to be confused with the motorcycle magazine "Biker Ally Magazine". --SesameballTalk 06:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources (and nothing signicant found under any of the three names). --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: I've heard of the publication under another name and is a prominent source in the journalism industry. It seems the user who nominated the article for deletion is not in compliance with the best interest of wikipedia due to "Hemstrong" leaving a vulgar comment on the users site. The user should put personal reasoning aside and act in the best interest of the community. Further, sources have been provided by myself and whoever created the article, a search of news sources does come up with several Press Releases about the publication. - bstringer87 19:04PM, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Press releases are primary sources and therefore do not satisfy Wikipedia's policy on notability. Additionally, what evidence do you have that the nominator is "not in compliance with the best interest of wikipedia"? --SesameballTalk 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Considering the vulgar comments were left on my talkpage by the user AFTER the AfD nomination, saying I am not in compliance with the best interest of Wikipedia and saying this is personal, is frankly B.S. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Bstringer87 (talk • contribs • logs) Account created after AfD nom. --AliceJMarkham 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Interestingly, a B. Stringer is listed as Amos Palm's senior VP of Public Relations on their Oct. 21 press release. • Gene93k 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. COI is not a reason for deletion, but failure to establish notability certainly is. --AliceJMarkham 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per above. No evidence of notability from independent 3rd party sources. • Gene93k 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per AliceJMarkham and Gene93k; agree that COI per se is not grounds for deletion. Allstarecho is right, that the accusation of personal animus is B.S. --Orange Mike 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Odd stuff but I got an email today, allegedly from the namesake of the magazine's parent company. Not sure if it's allowed to post the whole email here so if it isn't, then an admin will remove it. Interestingly, the email came From: Hemstrong <info@appmedia.org>, User_talk:Hemstrong of course being the creator and main editor of the AfD article as well as the previous article Queer magazine and the person that kept removing the AfD tag and vandalizing my own talk page. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Allstarecho,

    It came to our attention at Amos Palm Publications that a staff member had mis-represented our management group through various forms of harassment and vandalism on wikipedia. We initiated an investigation through the Professional Standards Division of Amos Palm Publications. Our investigation showed that a staff member created fictional information about the publication and management group. The staff member known as "Jeff Meredith" also uploaded proprietary image of the cover of our December issue of Ally magazine. Further into the investigation we were able to obtain the screename and password to ensure the article that is present on the wikipedia website is deleted.

    The management group has contacted wikipedia and it's officers to ensure the article is removed with the best integrity possible.

    The staff member has been removed from staff and is no longer accessed to our publication and management group. Again, we do apologize for the inconvenience that has been displayed over a simple article. Amos Palm Publications does not publicize itself through public forms of definition as these tend not to be prominent sources of information.

    Again, we do apologize for any interruption in your services to Wikipedia. Should you have further information or conflict, please direct them to our legal department for review at:

    Becky R. James
    Senior-Vice President - Professional Standards/Corporate Responsibility
    james.becky@appmedia.org

    Principal Tower
    801 Grand Ave
    Floor 20
    Des Moines, IA 50314

    All the Best,
    —Damon Amos
    • Keep. Seems to be a great source from what I've read so far. Why not contact the publication office or editor; obtain the references needed instead of inviting it to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.129.111 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Coming from someone who keeps removing the COI and Unrefed tags from the article, using an IP registered to Target Corporation that has been repeatedly blocked from editing due to vandalism? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup, with no prejudice to also refine Category:Conspiracy theories.--Tikiwont 11:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of conspiracy theories

    List of conspiracy theories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Massive unorganized list of conspiracy theories. This looks like one of those situations where a section was becoming a problem in another article and they just split it off. There is no inclusion criteria, but really how can there because anyone can make up a conspiracy theroy. The list starts of by simply being links to articles, then tries to categorize itself by country. Then just falls apart and starts having mini essays on various theories. This really something that should be a category, this list is just a magnet for vandals, OR, and other junk. Ridernyc 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Most of these are actually highly notable. I'll agree there is some unneeded OR here, but that can be removed. Being a vandalism target is absolutely no reason to delete it. And lastly, it has been here for 4 years. Seems like it is acceptable given that. - Rjd0060 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Lots of inappropriate, unencyclopedic articles have been around a long time. Age doesn't mean a thing. --Hnsampat 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep It has organizational value. The blocks of prose should probably each be split off or removed though. --Alksub 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I heard Jimbo Wales, in league with the reverse vampires, is using this AFD to remove all information pertaining to secret wikipedia articles made by the Rand Corporation. Listcruft. At best should be a category. Macktheknifeau 10:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment If this gets deleted, it'll sound like a conspiracy. Lugnuts 12:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Yes, and there won't even be any lists to add it to! - Rjd0060 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Insane as most conspiracy theories are, this is a perfectly decent article. It needs a bit of clean up, not deletion. Where else can someone find a list of conspiracy theories peculiar to Poland? Jewish aliens living in Dick Cheney's underwear drawer have taken my sister hostage to force me to post this message. Nick mallory 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and categorize - This is a good example of why categories and sub-categories exist. --Hnsampat 13:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to category, per Hnsampat. --136.223.3.130 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Article needs a good bit of cleanup, additional referencing and probably some purging of unreferencable/nonnotable material, but it's definitely keep-able. Surmountable problems are no reason to delete an article. LaMenta3 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The Cabal supports conspiracies the Cabal denies this message Martijn Hoekstra 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep It has a good structure and so seems better than a category. Colonel Warden 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep a well done and useful list-- morethan could be done in a category.DGG (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep a reasonable list concept about a notable if annoying subject matter. MLA 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The problem is this is an open list. It can grow exponentially as users add their favourite, little known and obscure theory, or when new theories appear. So I say keep but prune to those theories relevant enough to have their own article. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- commons- es) 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep John254 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] All out productions

    All out productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Non notable per WP:CORP. - Rjd0060 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was keep. east.718 at 03:56, 11/13/2007

    [edit] John Swasey

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. I've clicked through some of the roles listed here, and they appear to be minor ones. Stub since April 2006. Ohconfucius 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


    • Keep: Why not group all of these? Needs some minor expansion (some BIO stuff) but notable enough. - Rjd0060 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Very extensive list of credits, multiple sources. Edward321 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — Number of roles, some aren't so minor like FMP:TSR --ShakataGaNai 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- this result is, however, without prejudice to subsequent deletion if it is established that the article is indeed a copyright violation, as claimed by the nominator. However, deletion as a copyright violation would require that exact source of the article be identified, by a specific url (not to a Wikipedia mirror), a specific page number in a book or journal, or by some equivalently precise means. John254 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Luci Christian

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since November 2005. Ohconfucius 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Same reason as all of the other ones. Seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep need more evidence of notability. JJL 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I'd call portraying a central character on Azumanga Daioh enough notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Multiple souces, played large number of lead characters. Edward321 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. east.718 at 03:55, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Hilary Haag

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since September 2005. Ohconfucius 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Same reason as all of the other ones. Seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Large number of roles. Edward321 —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. east.718 at 03:54, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Cynthia Martinez

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since November 2005. Ohconfucius 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Same reason as all of the other ones. Seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Sourced, extensive number of roles, has portrayed lead character in multiple well known series. Edward321 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — A large number of Lead character roles --ShakataGaNai 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Christine Auten

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since September 2005. Ohconfucius 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep this one may be notable--many roles, incl. popular A.D. anime. JJL 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Sourced, large number of roles. Edward321 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — as per Edward. --ShakataGaNai 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Monica Rial

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since May 2005. Ohconfucius 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak Delete this one may be notable--many roles--but WP:N not clear. JJL 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Large number of roles. Edward321 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Definitely notable. Lots of major anime dub roles. --kweee 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Cult following, roles, etc. The article needs work as I've seen more on lesser voice actors. --Wgfinley 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Kira Vincent-Davis

    Kira Vincent-Davis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. Stub since July 2005. Ohconfucius 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep this one may be notable--many roles, incl. popular A.D. anime. JJL 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep — while lacking on the Bio, person is notable due to number of roles. --ShakataGaNai 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as per ShakataGaNai Edward321 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was redirect. east.718 at 03:54, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Don Draper and Roger Sterling

    Don Draper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Roger Sterling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    Fails WP:NOTE. Both contested {{prod}}s. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Articles are under development. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The above user is the author of the page, and if the pages are under development, they have stayed the same since the 20th of October. And did you take anything I said into consideration at all? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      Comment You say that as if two weeks is a really long time. Does everyone have to work equally fast? —Quasirandom 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not a long time, but I just think the author might have added to them by now. Actually, he just did. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Regarding WP:NOTE, these two characters meet the same standards as Tony Soprano, Peter Griffin, B. A. Baracus, and Daisy Duke.

    — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment With less effort that you spent marking these articles for deletion, you could have improved Wikipedia and added the citations you say you want. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • But they do not comply with WP:NOTE. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • In your opinion. If the exmples I cited above comply with Notability, and they do, then these two articles stubs do as well. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - No attempt to show notability in either case. --DAJF 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non notable characters. Just because the show is notable doesn't mean the characters are. Notability isn't inherited. No sources showing notability, no assertion of real-world notability, nothing. Crazysuit 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment So by this standard all stubs should be deleted? We are only going to accept full "complete" articles now on Wikipedia? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Where did he say that? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't, he's just trying a straw man. All articles, however small, must demonstrate notability. If they don't demonstrate notability, as in this case, they will be deleted. Crazysuit 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete and then consider a redirect to Mad Men, the show on which these characters appear. There's nothing in these articles that suggests to me that these characters are notable enough to warrant articles of their own, separate from the series, under WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge with the main article. The two pages aren't notable enough on their own.Alberon 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect both - why is this even a question? The independent reliable sources to establish the independent notability of the two characters do not exist, the article Mad Men is not such that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic requires that the character information be split off. Otto4711 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. east.718 at 03:52, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Music and politics

    Music and politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article that started with good intentions but now is hopelessly lost as a totally original research essay. Ridernyc 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Weak delete: It starts off good, but the further I read, the more OR it got. Sad to lose all the content though. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Original Research. Bummer. - Rjd0060 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep I see the makings (or should I say potential) of a good article here. It probably needs a complete overhaul, but I don't think that's really a reason to delete it. If it's kept, I'd be willing to chip in to improve it, though I don't have the time to do the entire thing by myself, hence the "weak" part of my "keep." If three or four other guys (or gals) want to get together and try to save it, I think we can make something decent out of it. faithless (speak) 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    just a warning it's major work. It took me 2 months to clean up concept album and that was easy since I just removed 90% of the article. It will also be a constant job, checking the article at least weekly. Ridernyc 08:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Top-of-head musings with no citations. I should know, I created the article. Lancevortex (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep needs to be improved not deleted. A very important theme throughout music. Indeed
    There is no such thing as Art for Art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. —Mao Tse-tung[42]
    with some work this article can be referenced. It certainly seems to be basically correct about the likes of Luigi Nono and Karlheinz Stockhausen. --Salix alba (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    If you look closely the are 5 inline citations, to very good sources, just not picked out in a separate section. --Salix alba (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Original research, unreferenced, POV concerns. But I'm glad to learn of the existence of Stockhausen Serves Imperialism. Sounds hilarious. --Folantin 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, in such cases, one should improve the articles, not delete them. Undoubtly a notable subject. 96T 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve per 96T. Phil Bridger 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as having a good basic core of information, and improve the quality otherwise. DGG (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge into Hyrule. I'll do a rough attempt that interested editors are invited to refine.--Tikiwont 10:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Great Sea (The Legend of Zelda series)

    Great Sea (The Legend of Zelda series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Article is primarily in-universe, and the topic itself is non-notable outside the Zelda series. If there is information that should be kept, it should be moved to The Wind Waker article or more ideally to the Hyrule article. MASEM 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    It is a sub-article, and so since it is important to the main article (The Legend of Zelda), it is acceptable. It would not work very well for the Hyrule page, as it is a different area - Hyrule is the submerged kingdom, the Great Sea is the sea above it (and in PH, to the west) - they're almost treated like different worlds. It would not fit on the Wind Waker article as that is not its only appearance. Also, being written primarily in-universe is NOT reason for deletion - it is reason for cleaning it up. I am trying to clean it up, as I have only recently come upon the page, but as a very important part of the mythos, it is reasonable to include it as a sub-article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    As a side-note, while not mentioned in the other games (possibly alluded to in FSA and OoA, but anyway...), its existence IS important to the overall series, as it is a major turning point in the mythos. Though this is a partially crufty example, it is one of the most basic parts for fans constructing timelines, and its existence was explained by Aonoma and Miyamoto as being one of the main points of the split timeline.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    That's why I think it's better to delete this and merge the content into Hyrule. That article, itself, has significant problems. There is an appropriate need for a Hyrule article since all the Zelda games take place there, and that would make sense to establish notability to explain how Aonoma and Miyamoto point to a key timeline element (the flooding of Hyrule to make the Great Sea). But even then, most of the content on this page is fancruft - an encyclopedia doesn't need to list major islands in a fictional game setting, only that some of the islands were actually the highest points of Hyrule that didn't get flooded. There's a major need to clean up these parts. --MASEM 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's not merely that the country is a few feet underwater - it's supposed to be the difference between the Midwest and the Sundance Sea. Phantom Hourglass also seems to imply that the Great Sea is not "just sunken Hyrule", but the entire sea that was already near it and extended over it. And only a little more than half of the games appear in Hyrule.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sub-articles don't get a free pass. They need to prove notability the same as anything else. Miremare 01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge into Hyrule. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Great Sea is a setting in The Legend of Zelda series later revealed to be a flooded Hyrule. Pagrashtak 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Trim&Merge into Hyrule sounds very reasonable. If some independent non-trivial sources exist for this location (doubtful), they may help justify the Hyrule article first. (I am positive that Hyrule is wiki-notable, it just hasn't any sources added yet). – sgeureka t•c 16:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge into Hyrule; the Hyrule article has few sources itself, and this location is essentially a modified iteration of that. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: Can someone please notify the Zelda Wikiproject of this AfD? It's in their scope and they should know about it, but as the primary defender I don't feel I could tell them without cries of "foul!" going up.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I've done you one better:
    • Merge- Fully deleting this is just a Rack of Rupoors. ViperSnake151 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to Hyrule. Absolutely nothing to suggest this is worthy of its own article. Miremare 01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] FASTCopy

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

    nn proprietary protocol, no real content, spam? Rpresser 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Notability issues. Does seem like an advertisement. - Rjd0060 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Meets A7. Also, can't seem to find any sources proving any notability at all. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. An article about a proprietary file transfer protocol that expounds its advantages over publicly available technologies. Agreed: it reads like an ad. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Dealer's Kid

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Dealer's Kid
    Dealer's Kid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This really isn't something that Wikipedia should have an article about. It also looks like a lot of original research to me. Captain panda 02:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Probably Made up. - Rjd0060 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Something for urbandictionary.com - Not wikipedia. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as neologism. In all likelihood created by some kid to disparage or joke with some other kid. Reminds me of Muffy Crosswire a bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom et al. --AliceJMarkham 12:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Pellmell

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

    WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Captain panda 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep, Wikipedia is a compendium. Bensaccount 02:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - it is a dictionary definition - WP:NOT#DICTIONARY indicates that an article should be more than this. Also, it's already in wiktionary [43], so not worthwhile transwiki'ing. Hal peridol 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Duh, per above. - Rjd0060 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and this particular word is not encyclopedic per se. Antelan talk 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: per Antelan MatthewYeager 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's a great word that I like to use, but it's perfect for Wiktionary - not Wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 16:11 7 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 12:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete but in a straightforward fashion, not in a pellmell way. Bearian 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete per CSD G7. I probably shouldn't have assumed good faith that the information I moved here from dab page Ngozi was accurate. Picaroon (t) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ngozi, Zambia

    Ngozi, Zambia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, town not found on maps, not on earthsearch.net, Google Earth hi-res photos show no town at the location or in the locality given by the FallingRain reference, nearest settlements are v. small villages with no roads, and there are no references to this 'town' on the web except for the Wikipedia article. Rexparry sydney 02:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - empty, unsourced (private?) slang term/neologism. - Mike Rosoft 13:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Deard

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

    WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I also think this may be a hoax. If not, it still qualifies under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Captain panda 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete, does not exist.Bensaccount 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete nonsense, pointless entry, no notable reference to such word or topic. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: Per nom (either a hoax or a definition). - Rjd0060 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: can not establish WP:N, which leads to WP:HOAX. either way WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. MatthewYeager 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Zones of EverQuest

    Zones of EverQuest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article is loaded with unsourced, unnotable gamecruft.

    There are no sources whatsoever on this article, let alone one that would verify its real world acknowledgement.

    Readers who do not play the EverQuest games would very likely not be interested in this article, failing notability.

    Finally, the article appears to be highly dense in gamecruft, having only in-game content and mentioning nothing of its relevance to the real world. Its high file size furthers this issue.

    Such articles are a magnet for original research and would generally be irrelevant to anyone else. IAmSasori 02:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete, unsourced and no real world context, but not a1. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Keep, article seems to have been improved to address the issues since I last reviewed it. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No notability outside of fanbase. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as these virtual zones have no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability outside the EverQuest canon. --Gavin Collins 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to Everquest 132.205.99.122 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    the Nominator's alleged 'agenda' has no impact on whether or not this particular article satisfied WP policies and guidelines for existance of notable, reliably sourced articles. this article does not appear to meet guidelines.207.69.137.26 08:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge to EverQuest. The list, while possibly only useful to the fanbase, is nonetheless useful. The EverQuest fanbase makes up a pretty large group of people. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      Somebody mentioned something about a table...I'd be more than happy to import the table found at Zone Names - EQ KnowledgePit once I get it finished. It's a sortable table with zone information. Someone would have to strip out all the internal links though, and fix the expansion links. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep please keep this article This is an important merge/redirect target for the dozens of articles that spring up for EQ zones. This was, at one point, the world's most popular video game, so it's not totally off-base to keep an article for the geography of its fictional world (primary settings of notable fictional works are notable). -Harmil 14:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've made some improvements in sourcing and the intro. The body of the article needs to be reduced to essential info, still and more sources need to be added. -Harmil 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    And now I've pulled in the table that was suggested above (it was GFDL, and I've credited its source). -Harmil 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed up the EQKP-specific wiki markup that I use for item links on my site; also set the table to class="sortable" to make it a little easier for a user to work with. It should be noted that that table is only 100% complete up to (and including) Shadows of Luclin; it also has complete lists from Gates of Discord and the Lost Dungeons of Norrath. I'll notify you each time I get an expansion complete if you want, either that or I'll just wait until I get the whole thing done, since the bigger expansions are finally out of the way ;) ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as article has no primary sources, making it impossible to verify the content of this article. Nor are there any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, as all the notes are basically off topic. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and there is no sensible argument for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins 07:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In case anyone wants to merge some content.. W.marsh 13:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Efforts to Create A Glass Bead Game

    Efforts to Create A Glass Bead Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Unnecessary fork from The Glass Bead Game. Just an external link section with descriptions. No need to merge to The Glass Bead Game as the links are already there, and the edit history shows this is just based on that article anyway. Masaruemoto 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. DS 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] I Don't Know (Yadelyn album)

    WP:HOAX. There's no listing for this artist on AMG, no results at Billboard, nothing at EW. A google search is similarly unhelpful. Several other articles created by this same editor have been AfD'ed and deleted as hoaxes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Bird (Ashley Brodhead's album) Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete cute MS Paint-ed album cover. Hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom and JuJube. Hoax.   jj137 (Talk) 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete hoax and/or non-notable authors attempt for notoriety. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fairy-locks

    Fairy-locks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article has been speedy deleted twice, but it appears the author is making an honest attempt to establish notability with references, so I would rather allow discussion via AfD than unilaterally deleting for a third time. With that said, I don't believe this is an article of encyclopedic importance - it really seems more like a dictionary definition if anything. Delete. Tijuana Brass 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep: Needs a lot of work, but with cleanup it looks like it'd make a decent folklore stub. A discussion of a folklore trope certainly is beyond a dictdef, and given the sources so far I see no reason it shouldn't be of encyclopedic value. The relevant WikiProject should probably be notified that it needs help. —Quasirandom 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • ?????: I would have thought the first attempts after reading a new article would be to improve it, expand it, and make it better. It was deleted once because I included a reference and the reviewer felt I was promoting the book. (Would have been better, then, to put in no references as I see on more than a few articles.) Another time it was deleted because the reviewer did a quick Google search on "Fairy Locks" and it wound up being the name of a shampoo. Had he tried a bit farther with a +tangles or -shampoo, he might have started seeing more relevant search results. Now, I spend some time working it up and collecting a list of urls which mention or allude to fairy or elf-locks and it is still being reviewed for deletion instead of being added to. Rsweeney 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable and sourced piece of folklore to me. It needs a rewrite, not deletion. Nick mallory 02:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Proposer seems to be unnecessarily disrupting a good faith attempt to create a valid new article. Tsk. Colonel Warden 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Erm... no. This is listed here in order to gain wider community input on whether the article is appropriate for the encyclopedia - it had previously been deleted twice within 24 hours, and as I explained above, I elected to move it to AfD rather than delete it a third time to see if the reasoning of past admins represented community consensus. That is good faith, friend. Tijuana Brass 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Erm was it deleted twice in twenty four hours by you by any chance? It seems those deletions were mistaken, given the clear majority to keep expressed on this AfD. Nick mallory 07:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    [44]. Tijuana Brass 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It perhaps should be renamed as Elf-lock since the OED does not contain fairy-lock but does contain a significant entry for Elf-lock. Besides Shakespeare, its other cites include:
    1596 LODGE Wits Miserie (Halliw.), Curl'd and full of elves-locks.
    1637 HEYWOOD Dialogues xvii. Wks. 1874 VI. 241 What though my thin and unkemb'd scattered haire Fell in long Elfe-locks from my scalpe, now bare?
    1810 Gentl. Mag. LXXXVI. I. 214 Their hair remains matted and wreathed in elves-locks.
    1848 KINGSLEY Saint's Trag. II. iv. 84 The listless craftsmen through their elf-locks scowled.
    1647 R. STAPYLTON Juvenal VII. 83 The elfe-lockt fury all her snakes had shed.
    1946 W. DE LA MARE Traveller 23 Plaiting cramped fingers in the elf-locked mane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - more than a dictionary definition, but it does need some secondary sources. Hal peridol 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, but it urgently needs rewriting. Mr_pand 14:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Elf-Locks already redirects to the Dreadlocks page. (I find the words here hard to express succinctly, forgive me if I'm being confusing.) It seems that the folklore that elves twist knots in a sleeper's hair, by proxy of the Lear character 'elfing up his hair' and other references can also be taken to mean locks of twisted hair created by the owner and blamed on elves (to feign insanity). I have also seen the term used to describe a hag's messy hair, which would be unlikely to have been expected to be a creation of elves, but merely descriptive of the type of tangling resulting from elves or fairies twisting up hair. Queen Mab's 'elf-locks' in horses' manes seems to have mud or mire twisted into it, which might make them appear more like traditional dreadlocks.
      Essentially, if you change the name to Elf-Lock, you'll have to find a clear way of disambiguating elf-locks as 'elf-mischief' (sleeping girls), elf locks as 'messy-hair' without elf mischief (the hag's messy hair), and elf-locks as the dreadlock hair of Celt warriors and Rastafarians (who twist their own hair up on purpose).
      One of the works sited, the children's book of fairies, calls the tangles "fairy-locks" which seems to clearly distinguish between these tangles and dreadlocks. Thus, the reason I used it originally as the title. Rsweeney 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Once this AfD passes, you may want to consider posting that up on the talk page for Dreadlocks. You make a good case for splitting off the material into a different article. Tijuana Brass 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] EverQuest timeline

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (3rd nomination)
    EverQuest timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article appears to be a list of plot summaries in various fictional time.

    Such lists are most likely to be gamecruft and are susceptible to original research.

    Along with that, the article is not notable due to lack of real world references. Only EverQuest players would have any interest in this article.

    Along with that, the sources seems inappropriately used and placed. Sources have to be cited within the article, which this one failed to do so with any of them. Also, there are no third-party references to establish notability. Finally, some of those sources do not even work, like the forum ones.

    Judging by the edit history, not much effort is placed to fixing these problems and it is unlikely it will start.

    It lacks real world acknowledgement outside of the EverQuest games and its players. IAmSasori 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Delete No notability outside of fanbase. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as this time line is writen from a heavy in universe perspective and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game. I don't understand why this article was not deleted after the first AfD; its clear this material is available on lots of other fansites, where it belongs. --Gavin Collins 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Precedent here shows that in-universe timelines sourced almost entirely from primary sources can be kept even (or especially) when there is disagreement about the notability. I realize the article has few listed sources now, but that can be rectified. Powers T 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge to Everquest 132.205.99.122 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The timeline applies to all of the games in the EverQuest series, not just EverQuest. Powers T 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    the fact that unsourced, original research, and fancruft have not been addressed at all since the last AfD suggests that either they wont be improved or they can't be improved207.69.137.26 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Pardon me? The article is extensively sourced, albeit not in-line, and contains no original research. And "fancruft" is not usually considered a very good argument for deletion; unsupported by other arguments, it amounts to "I don't like it." If there is an argument to be made against this article, it's that it's lacking secondary sources to prove notability. Powers T 22:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete the entire article is 'in universe' and I can scarecely imagine any way to make this article reflect real world notability . TheRedPenOfDoom 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The timeline of the (previous to World of Warcraft) world's most popular video game is entirely reasonable, assuming that EverQuest is already quite large (which it is). -Harmil 14:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Namek saga

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

    Poorly written and mispelled recreation of the redirect Namek Saga that is now merged with Freeza Saga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy Redirect to Freeza Saga and a lesson on using talk pages to reach consensus for all parties involved. Edit wars are not the way to go. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is the Namek saga merged with the Frieza Saga (the CORRECT English spelling of Frieza)? They are two different sagas. I say they should be split up. TJ Spyke 01:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment It has already been discussed at wikiproject Dragon Ball. the sagas were merged into their original japanese names to make the articles less sparse and bloated. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • So the project wasn't content with having character articles go against policies and guidelines (by being at their Japanese name rather than their English names), but also want sagas grouped that way? This is why I rarely even look at DBZ articles any more. There have been attempts to move them to the right names, but the DBZ Wikiproject always show up in numbers to stop that (it took a few tries, but they eventually got Hercule moved to Mr. Satan). TJ Spyke 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy redirect per jonny-mt. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. No policy-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Jackie Meretsky

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

    Conflict of interest (subject edited article), no assertion of notability or verifiability Nobody of consequence 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: Non notable person. Although, COI is never a reason to delete an article. - Rjd0060 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment No opinion on deletion, but I would like to point out that the COI edits to the article remained neutral and removed some speculative claims (although rather benign ones that she "likes fashion" and such). COI should not be a primary reason for deletion as in this rare case the article was actually helped by it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: If this article is deleted, so should all articles about MSNBC personnel, and for that matter, all television personalities. Jackie Meretsky is a "stub" article (which I have labeled as such), and should be allowed to remain for future edits. Nothing in the article is inapproriate. Candy62 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Articles must satisfy WP:N and WP:V and this one doesn't satisfy either currently. Although, adding citations from reliable sources would make me withdraw this nom very quickly. Nobody of consequence 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haunts13 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, but why? Nobody of consequence 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • this seems like an okay source... but mainstream news coverage is surprisingly thin for someone with her resume. There's nothing on the 2 extensive news archive searches I tried. --W.marsh 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Woohookitty. Non-admin closure. Deor 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Shonaleigh Cumbers

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

    Prod removed from page before I brought this here. Non-notable, G-hits = 98, no substantial reliable sources I could find. There were a few mentions as part of news articles but not central to the article. I think she fails WP:BIO. Pigmanwhat?/trail 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete G11/spam, although it could also pass for a copyvio (part of it is a direct cut/paste from her site) and/or A7/nn-bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per nom and Starblind. Prod removal looks suspiciously like creator logged out and removed it as IP. --AliceJMarkham 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete (tagged under A7). --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of archaeological world treasures (major and minor)

    List of archaeological world treasures (major and minor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This list has no objective inclusion criteria. Who determines what are world treasures? Who determines which are major and which are minor? We do have lists of these treasures and sites such as List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas which do have objective inclusion criteria (namely that they are chosen by UNESCO) and lists of national treasures such as National Treasures of Japan and National Treasures of South Korea (which are officially determined by the governments of those countries). We also have List of archaeological sites sorted by country. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete simply too broad; indiscriminate. JJL 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as redundant and too broad (and who gets to determine what's "minor" anyway?). I'm kinda surprised we don't have one big category for artifacts & arch. sites though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. As long as all sites/objects are listed in the relevant country lists, this serves no purpose. --AliceJMarkham 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Simply too broad to be useful --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Flesh Eating Foundation

    Flesh Eating Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    I don't want to put up a CSD, for the ammount of effort put into the article, however, I see no signs of notability per WP:BAND. It looks like a lot of work went into the article, so I hope someone puts me right. Martijn Hoekstra 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete nn. JJL 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:MUSIC: handful of self-released EPs and an album on a label so micro-indie it might as well be self-released too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete so not notable. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as non-notable unless notability can be established using reliable source(s) before close of AfD. --AliceJMarkham 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. I'm tempted to tag it for CSD based on the current incarnation, but I have a feeling we might be heading for WP:SNOW anyway. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per AliceJMarkham. no sourcing. tomasz. 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Daniela Gioseffi

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

    This article appears to be in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted." Article is started by user Dorathea, whose entire contributions to Wikipedia appear to be limited to this particular entry and to her own profile; a "Dorathea" is, I think not coincidentally, also named as a friend of the living person who is the subject of the article. (This is inferred from notation by user Dannie66 - likely the same individual who is the subject of the article, as shall be explained momentarily - at one of her edits, stating: "Added a free license public domain, fair use image, a photo of the biographical subject that is in public domain, created by a friend of the author named Dorathea.")

    Most additional edits performed by a "Dannie66," whose contributions are also almost entirely limited to this entry. Given the notation that appears under the image file contributed by this user - "Daniela Gioseffi, 2006 at age 66" - and the username - "Dannie66," and the lack of this user's contributions to almost any Wikipedia entry save for this "biography of a living person" page, it seems reasonable to infer that A) the user and the subject of the page are one and the same, and B) this is a vanity page created by a friend of the author and then edited primarily by the author herself.

    While, as a Wikipedia reader who has no relationship whatsoever, either personally or professionally, with the author who is the subject of the article (whom I had never heard of until today), I have no grudge against any of the parties concerned. However, it is abundantly clear to me that this qualifies as a vanity page. Even if the author's accomplishments are many (and, in all fairness, they appear to be so), it is not appropriate for she and her friend to be almost entirely responsible for the article's content; this is the definition of self-promotion (particularly given the tone of article, which hardly qualifies as neutral; it reads like a literary agent's advertising copy!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivandal2007 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 November 2007

    • keep this article might have some significant problems, and should probably have a cleanup tag on it, however I don't think it qualifies to be deleted. The author seems to be at least somewhat notable. Someone should just take the time to make sure it's NPOV and cited well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) —Preceding comment was added at 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The nominator is mistaken in his reasoning. The subject of the article is either notable or not, it doesn't matter who writes or edits the page. This article does need severe trimming but the subject of it has been published and there are some external sources. If the nominator thinks the article should be edited, why not edit it yourself? Nick mallory 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - it does read somewhat like a vanity page, but the subject appears notable. It's more a cleanup issue than a reason to delete. Mark Grant 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • keep ==the main reason to keep the article is that all the references and links are valid scholarship and this biographee really has done these things and authored all of the works cited. it's factual and no more an advertisement than any other biographical entry that I've read on Wikipedia. Note how the defenders are brief and objective and are Wiki users of the Wiki community, with pages and identities and other work on Wikipedia, but the attacker is ANONYMOUS and has no other work under her or his false name. I note that this biographee comes up with 78 books which she authored or appears within, at Amazon.com, and is on hundreds of sites if you Google "Daniela Gioseffi." This is an accomplished, widely published, biographee according to Wikipedia standards, it seems. The anonymous person calling for deletion sounds emotional and vindictive and protests too much that he or she does not know the biographee, a strange reason to give for deletion. I'm sure there are many biographees on Wikipedia that not everyone who reads it heard of before, but the accomplishments seem to speak for themselves as do all the objective links. 70.107.4.206 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Sophia Josephs, Professor of WOMEN'S STUDIES and WORLD LITERATURE, (alerted to this opinion by others who are not Wiki writers. This was put up for me by a Wiki user who has worked on other articles. I read Wikipedia often, but have not put up comments before. I felt compelled to defend this article with its Women Studiees resonance. )
    • Keep This article should absolutely be kept. Daniela Gioseffi fits the Wikipedia criteria for being notable as she is listed on hundreds of third party web sites and has contributed significantly to the publishing and writing fields for decades. The numerous books, honors and awards mentioned in the article are factual and can be cited by external sources, as mentioned above (Google, Amazon.com, BBC, NYTimes etc. etc.). To say that this article is simply a "vanity page" for promotional purposes is preposterous, as it isn't selling a product or marketing campaign, but listing an accomplished authors' numerous contributions to the fields of publishing and writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmead (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The comments put forward by the person demanding deletion of this article appear personal rather that professional. While the article in question could use editing, the substance is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. Daniela Gioseffi has been a valuable contributor to the world of literature and social justice for decades. Richard Kearney, Assoc. Prof. of Theatre. Nov. 8, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as the subject of the article, I've added viaferable sources, upon request of the author, a professor of Womens Studies in New Jersey, user: "Dorothea." Also, I have given better source for the photo, taken by Pwu Jean Lee, at Dorothea's professional request. Dorothea is not a close friend, but a professional and distant colleague of in New Jersey. I have added links, but I DID NOT COMPOSE THIS ARTICLE, and all publications, facts, and references, as well as links, are correct and verifiable. Also, I have subtracted any subjective adjectives--at Dorothea's, the author of the entry who requested I do so. This is NOT an advertisement, as all poceeds for my books are from not-for profit presses of social conscience, and have now been donated back to those presses. It follows other Wiki profiles, as all seem to agree. I am 66 with a weak heart and my former student, a professor of Women's Studies in NJ, Dorothea, put up this article to preserve my work in writing of peace and social justice issues for over 40 years. She is not a close friend, but a scholar of women's studies. I doubt I will be around much longer, and so students and other professors contributed to the article as they wanted to preserve what they feel is my important work, and to have a reference to it. I have worked on other articles on Wikipedia, i.e. Italian Americans, etc., as I value the efforts of a communal encyclopedia, and have urged fellow professionals to offer financial support and editing, for the sake of avoiding what feminists and ethnic groups call "revisitionist history," that can occur in written and book published encyclopedias, due to editorial bias. I respect the objectivity of Wikipedia, as a communal effort, and usually log in when editing--but have been having difficulty with my log in and attempting to use my old password. The person who marked this for deletion is wrong about "Dannie66" who has contributed OTHER small editings for accuracy to OTHER Wikipedia articles, ie. The Mario Puzo piece, Italian Americans, etc. Would the person calling for deletion mind if a Nobel Laureate were to correct errors in his or her bio or add links for accuracy and scholarship--upon request of the author? Or, is that person just not aware of Women's Studies scholarship and its importance to human endeavors? Does that perosn just simply judge on the basis of his or her own knowledge of what's important? Does that person who called for deletion seem to ignore all the accomplishments and links and references that are accurate and available in the article? Does one have to wait to be dead to receive recognition from fellow scholars and writers? There are many living person's biographies at Wikipedia, as one can readily discover whose entries are put up by colleagues in their given field who respect their work. It is common and usual for colleagues in given field to write of other colleagues. Dorothea is not a friend of Dannie66, but a distant professional colleague. 70.107.4.206 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - the main reason why people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves is to ensure that the articles are verifiable; all details should come from a verifiable third party source that others can refer to, and not direct from the person in question. See WP:AUTO for more details. Mark Grant 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC):
    • Comment what difference does it make if the subject of the article adds links and references and small corrections if these are valid scholarly references and links, small correction of facts and added ethos. Who is a better source than the subject of the article. Would you mind if Einstein or Maria Curie added a few links to their bios and references, IF they were accurate links and references that are verifiable offerings? Most biographical details of a notible life are achieved by direct interview with the subject throughout the history of biographical writing. Yes? Keep.
    • Comment - again, read the WP:AUTO page that I mentioned above; it's difficult for anyone to edit an article about themselves without adding PoV and unverifiable statements, which is why the practice is discouraged. People who don't know the subject and are working from third-party sources can much more easily ensure the article meets NPOV and verifiability requirements. The editing of this article by the subject and their friends appears to be the only real issue here, I don't think there's any doubt that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Mark Grant 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep This article is about a well-known, widely-published author. To consider deleting it makes no sense. I don't consider it promotional. If it sounds so, it's just because this person has, in fact, an enormous number of accomplishments. If, however, someone thinks something about it is promotional, they should specify exactly which parts these are and there should be a consensus of whether these instances are or aren't "promotional" rather than factual. If they are found "promotional," then rewrite them in a factual manner--but to delete the whole thing is a ridiculous proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.2 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Brad Abrell

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

    does not appear to be at all notable. Has had only minr roles. 300Ghits, amongst which quite a few directory. Ohconfucius 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: For now. Once (assuming) more notability is established I will be fine with it staying. - Rjd0060 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete nn. JJL 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Cloud View Road

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

    per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This is just a road, no assertion of notability made. The article is basically one sentence and a bunch of directory type lists. Ohconfucius 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete, no assertion of notability. Appears just to be a random street, no higher credentials like being part of a numbered route or anything. —Scott5114↗ 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete This does not appear to be a main road from looking at a street atlas. --Polaron | Talk 21:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:50k. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD:G12 copyright violation). henrik•talk 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Making of Pi

    Making of Pi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    No sources, written like an essay, Original research VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. east.718 at 03:50, 11/13/2007

    [edit] M. A. Benjaminson

    M. A. Benjaminson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    nn bio Hyeee3 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Insufficient nomination; he looks plenty notable to me even by the old WP:ACADEMIC standards. What d'you want, a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize? --Gwern (contribs) 16:25 7 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete. It's not a great nomination, but where's the notability? He's a professor, chairman, and minor jobs that professors get pulled into, at a relatively minor university. He's wrote 45 papers in as many years, but are any of them really important? He's a director of a division of a company that's so small the only page that references it in Wikipedia is his (unless Zymotech is misspelled.) He's got NASA grants, as have a huge number of other scientists. He's at or just above the average professor level, IMO, which doesn't pass WP:PROF. I can see places where if the article was expanded; in particular, I read his "in vitro edible muscle protein production system" as just run of the mill research, but if other researchers were building off of it or NASA was actually going to put it into use, then that would be different.--Prosfilaes 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: After a quick googling, he's the president of Zymotech, which does business as North Star Research, a division of Zymotech. It looks like Zymotech is basically one-man show; Benjaminson is the contact address, there's no webpage, but there's a history of grants from NASA. center.spoke.com gives Newell Whitcomb the job of president of NSR. In any case, I don't think it changes his notability.--Prosfilaes 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete After removing the MS and PhD thesis, the grant applications & reports disguised as papers, the ones where he was listed only as "technical assistance", and so on, there are 18 papers, almost none of which are in significant journals and none of which seem substantial--almost all are methods papers, which is biology are not usually very creative. Touro, as Prosfilaes says, is not a major university. Unless very high citations can be demonstrated--and I would really doubt it -- he is not notable. DGG (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - I have to disagree on the methods comment. We shouldn't be disfavoring methods papers, per se. Some biologists are simply very well known for developing technologies -- and have even gotten the Nobel for it. --lquilter 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Influential methods papers get cited, lots, Benjaminson's on the other hand... Pete.Hurd 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per DGG. FWIW, ISI WOS lists 28 cited publications, citation counts: 1(15 pubs), 2(7 pubs), and 1 each cited 3, 4, 7, 10, 14 & 15 times. <std disclaimer>h-index==4</std disclaimer>. Pete.Hurd 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. east.718 at 03:49, 11/13/2007

    [edit] Boubaker polynomials

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

    Apparentlty, autopromotion from the creator. Only a subject in one thesis, not notable. Barraki 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • How did you conclude that the creator is Boubaker? The main problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't say what Boubaker polynomials are. (It also doesn't explain what "registered" means.) Michael Hardy 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • [45] (Mmbmmmbm is the creator of the article) Barraki 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not enough data to judge notability. The article doesn't actually explain what the subject is, but merely notes from where the subject was derived. The WP:COI concerns, noted by the nom, are problematic as well, and hint at a possible violation of WP:ADVERT as self-promotion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. No mathematical notability. MathSciNet has 29 hits to "boubaker", but they're all papers by other people with similar names (primarily Boubaker-Khaled Sadallah); none are by K. Boubaker nor about anything named after him. Google scholar had too many Boubakers to look at all of them, but doesn't find anything about the polynomials. —David Eppstein 02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to Delete. ; the references are true 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.203.50.144 (talk)
      • Rem: this IP added a picture which is a sceenshot from Word uploaded by Mmbmmmbm. I assume the IP is Mmbmmmbm. Anyway, neither of them has other contributions than these. Anyway, he could at least use text and TeX instead of pictures. Barraki 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Nicholas Nuttall

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

    A non notable British peer with no claim to an encyclopedia article. unsourced and unfounded Princess Pea Face 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Far from being unsourced the article contains three decent sources. --John 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, John is correct, it does contain sources, however, what in thoses sources of information make him notable?--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Well sourced and as a UK Peer I'd have thought he was automatically notable. Ben W Bell talk 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, actually I dont think that is correct and he is not a member of the peerage and never sat in the House of Lords which is the reason that makes members of the peerage notable. Can someone provide a source that he was a peer, if not he is looking shakey.--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Whether you agree with system or not, peerage is part of the national leadership, and that makes him automatically notable. I'm wondering about this nom, though...there were four sources clearly listed at the time Princess nominated it with the comment "unsourced". Either Princess just overlooked things, in which case she needs to be more careful when doing AfDs, or she's not being completely honest. I'll assume good faith, and assume it was for the former...hopefully her future AfDs won't be so problematic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, again your "keep" !vote rationale is flawed for the same reason that Ben's is - this individual was never a peer. Unlike the AfD on the Baron which Princess also nominated, where I voted to "keep" because there is a much higher chance he was a peer I am leaning towards delete at the moment because he is not a 1st Baronet and there is no asertion to notability, however, I will wait a few days first to see if anything more is added that may change that.--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Baronets are not inherently notable, and a few obituaries and a directory listing in a peerage book do not satisfy WP:N. Edison 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Nuttall Baronets. The Baronetcy is the notable thing. I'd suggest some content from the NN article could be placed in the NB article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    God, you could at least notify the person who wrote the bloody article - I don't watchlist, and it is only by chance that I noticed this.

    No, he was not a peer, just a baronet. But so what? There are reams of notable elements to his life.

    • He was a baronet. Not notable, of itself, perhaps; but there are not that many baronets.
    • The article used to mention the history of his family's civil engineering business, which he ran for many years, but someone thought it was duplicative. Shrug. He owned Edmund Nuttall from the age of 8, and later ran it when it was involved in building the Dartford Tunnel and the Tyne Tunnel.
    • Comprehensive obituaries were published in two British broadsheet newspapers - a distinction accorded to few. The details of his romantic entanglements in the Telegraph obit are quite entertaining, but not, I admit, that notable or encyclopedic.
    • He was involved in marine conservation in the Bahamas. The Times obituary says that he "set up the Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation (Breef). During the next 25 years he transformed almost single-handedly local attitudes to maritime conservation... Few others have contributed as much to the islands’ future wellbeing." The Nassau Guardian called him a "prominent local environmentalist ... at the forefront of a number of important marine conservation initiatives and environmental causes". But that was in the Bahamas, so clearly of no interest to our readers in Northern Ireland and the US. No doubt it would be much more notable if he had counted butterflies in County Antrim.
    • It has in-links from Miranda Macmillan, Countess of Stockton, Edmund Nuttall and Nuttall Baronets.

    I don't see how this can be merged into Nuttall Baronets without throwing most of it away.

    If this is deleted, I invite you to review the 40 odd other articles I have written, mostly from scratch, for WP:DYK and tell me which of them you want to delete too. Perhaps Leonard Miall, "just" a BBC executive? Ian Anstruther, another baronet (and so inherently non-notable, it seems). Ion Calvocoressi, "just" an Army officer and stockbroker? The list goes on.

    Incidentally, User:Vintagekits recently moved it from Sir Nicholas Nuttall, 3rd Baronet to Nicholas Nuttall, creating a double redirect that he has not bothered to correct. -- !! ?? 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment, actually I think if you look at my edit history that you will see I didnt move some of the redirects. I would be interested to hear why you change the name of the article without necessity - anyway that is a side point.
    "No, he was not a peer, just a baronet. But so what?" - the so what is that members of the Peerage usually get to sit in the House of Lords - its is for this reason and no other reason that they are given automatic notability - Baronets do not get a seat in the HoL, therefore do not gain automatic notability.
    All the rest of the items outlined are laudable and grand indeed - but from my perspective not notable and in many cases purely honourary.
    I actually think that Tagishsimon's suggestion that it is redirected to Nuttall Baronets is a good idea and wold work along similar lines that the Stronge Baronets article works.--Vintagekits 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    You said: "I didnt move some of the redirects"? I'm sorry; I don't follow.
    (Incidentally, you said, on 12 August, "I am moving this page" but it took you a while to get around to it.)
    You seem to be quite keen on moving pages - probably for very good reasons; with these baronet articles, there are often good reasons to preemptively disambiguate - but not so keen on fixing the mess of redirects left behind. The same thing happened when you moved Ian Anstruther some time ago, as I commented on the talk page at the time.
    Anyway, back to this article: those quotations from his obituaries make him sound rather notable in Barbados to me. How many "laudable and grand" activities must a person undertake before they are notable?
    If you were to merge this into Nuttall Baronets, how much would you keep in the bullet point allocated to this person? -- !! ?? 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment, I took my time over moving it because I wanted to hear if there was a decent argument against it - I thought that that was fair enough - dont you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Far better than the phonebook entries we have on some baronets, multiple non-trivial sources. Plus his son is a a very interesting character, so I hope he's going to be notable enough for an article at some point ;) One Night In Hackney303 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, I wouldnt disagree that it is a lot better than some of tha fare dished up in the guise of Baronet telephone entry articles but I doubt it pushes it over the line. --Vintagekits 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Multiple, independent, reliable sources attest that he owned an important company and was a significant conservationist in the Bahamas. Clearly passes WP:N which doesn't have any sort of "delete baronets" criteria. Since when are obits in national newspapers disqualified from being reliable sources as Edison seems to be arguing above? --JayHenry 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep A well-researched article which clearly demonstrates the subject's notability. Jack1956 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Three substantial obituaries in major newspapers clearly establish notability. This is a well-researched and well-written article, and I'm surprised to see it nominated for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If you're surprised to see in nom'ed, consider that on the nominator's user page she says "I support a free and socialist republic in Ireland and Britain". This nom sounds like an anti-establishment political statment more than anything. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Robert Borwick, 1st Baron Borwick

    Robert Borwick, 1st Baron Borwick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non notable peer. Not an encyclopedic article Princess Pea Face 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep, assuming he had seat in the House of Lords - may reconsider if not.--Vintagekits 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - A peer of the United Kingdom, that alone makes him notable. Ben W Bell talk 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - I think this nominator needs to review our notability guidelines before any more AfDs are attempted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a rather weak article, in need of expansion, but clearly has presumed notability per WP:BIO through membership of the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per WP:BIO - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per all above. Johnbod 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per all above. In addition I would say that the nominator of this AfD, who declares herself to want a socialist republic, has acted in bad faith and there is WP:COI. David Lauder 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Nobody is knighted that is not notable- this is a clear-cut case of more research required, and not a case of a lack of notability. Monsieurdl 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • (speedy!) Keep the sheer absurdity of this nomination is extraordinary. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's snowing in here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.