Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Eluchil404 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riki Lindhome

She is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit an entry on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifbar123 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fixed malformed nom. cab 05:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Needs fixing, but she is pretty notable as a guest star on several shows and directed a known short film with the guy behind Family Guy. Nate 06:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think this is a border-line case. [1] definitely establishes some notability. The Profiles for Courage award adds some more (though [2] is a 404 right now, it can be found at [3]). — Ksero 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I came here looking for information about her after seeing her in a recent episode of Pushing Daisies. Other people might be interested in doing the same. Honestly, the only person who seems bent on deleting the article is Clifbar123, whose contribs page seems to indicate some sort of personal vendetta against the subject. — fdiv_bug 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't notice that he removed info to try to justify the AfD before you brought it up; that's a definite no-no. An additional note to the nominator that one person who may not be notable to someone may be notable to someone else. I'm interested in actresses that are more obscure and don't headline shows, but they are still needed to fill out the soul of a production. Nate 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Some minor acting, some probable future notability, but I don't see how you can hang an article on a high school essay contest. --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It is borderline, but I'd say keep for now.Alberon 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I don't feel comfortable enough with the AfD process to say either way. The article is OK in written style, and has references.... but she doesn't seem quite notable enough yet... —Scouter Sig 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Rocket

The derby has received just enough coverage to qualify for inclusion, but probably no individual members has yet done so. All independent coverage I've seen is of the overall organization starting up, and not any individual in depth. Rob 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But someone's bio has to be created first -- SockpuppetSamuelson 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the team. JJL 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown that roller derby is more than semi-pro wrt WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Rob 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete standards not yet reached Neozoon 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAF Records

{{{text}}} Toddstreat1 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NN Unable to find any secondary sources other than commercial placement/mention of product. Plenty of Ghits, but all are promotional.Toddstreat1 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, one mention in a paywalled NYT article [4] as an indie label. Not much there there. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not establish notability for companies due to lack of secondary sources Neozoon 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per neozoon. —Scouter Sig 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ☎ 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superman II: The Fan Cut

This article should be deleted because it is of no help anymore, and the user's account has been terminated by Youtube. Also, there are many links to Youtube, which is against Wikipedia's external link policy. Limetolime 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete appears to be an nn youtube project. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete more crap nothing offical it's made by a fan! Yourname 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canonfire!

Contensted prod. Now defunct gaming website. This stub has virtually no content, and only remaining source suggests this site was never notable. Gavin Collins 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete probably nn, no sources. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Retracted per below as of OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete More crap, i would say it's a form of spam almost! Yourname 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Canonfire! is one of the oldest, most popular, and respected Greyhawk fan sites on the 'net. Gavin.collins's claim that the website is "defunct" shows either his lack of interest in doing any sort of research. Simply clicking on the any of the links in the article would show that the website is far from "defunct" (of course, he could also simply not understand the meaning of the word). In addition, the website is owned by author Gary Holian, who has several Greyhawk works to his credit[5], & has received enough recognition from Greyhawk IP holder Wizards of the Coast that the later has allowed the website to host a number of articles owned by the company: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].--Robbstrd 06:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Canonfire! is mentioned several times on both ENWorld [11] and the Wizards of the Coast website[12].--Robbstrd 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Robbstrd. This is easily the most notable Greyhawk-related site on the net. On the issue of it being defunct (which it isn't), I'm still certain that its place in the canon of Greyhawk merits an article as long as the site remains on the Net, and perhaps even after it's gone. -Harmil 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Site is not defunct (this nominator has a track record of factually incorrect nominations). Robbstrd has showed both sources and signs of notability. Edward321 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Primary sources (from the site itself) don't meet the requirements of WP:WEB, alas. The only secondary source cited in the article actually demonstrates that the site is not notable[13].--Gavin Collins 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent or mark your comments as comments. You don't have to do both as either way someone reviewing these comments to determine consensus can see what you meant. That said, a poorly sourced article is a poorly sourced article, but this article makes very serious claims to notability which can be challenged without invoking an AfD. Note also that this is a rare case where I'd defend a primary source with respect to notability. It's not ideal, and I'd like to see a better citation, but the citation with respect to Erik Mona's contributions is in support of the assertion that there exist quasi-official missives from the (at the time) editor in chief of Dungeon and Dragon magazines, the official magazines of the Dungeons & Dragons game, on the site. The citation backs up this claim by citing one such publication. This citation was added by myself, I believe, as a result of a previous AfD or Prod (I can't recall details) in which the claim was made that the site contained only "fan fiction". Canonfire!, like many online communities is a difficult thing to get a handle on. Among its community, it's certainly notable so the question is whether or not the community is notable. Within the context of Dungeons & Dragons, I think the parties involved and the material contained on the site are, in fact, notable. In addition, you're just completely off base calling the site a stub. -Harmil 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I maybe mistaken, but the article is a stub. --Gavin Collins 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Robbstrd Web Warlock 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Weak Keep This one seems pretty borderline. If it is kept, then it should certainly be expanded to include references from reliable sources and context. As it is written now, it probably warrants deletion. Someone who cares enough about keeping the article should fix it. Rray 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge Old established and solidly notable within RPG niche. The content seems concise enough to merge with main Greyhawk article. - Ukulele 21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Just because it's ancient and defunct, it doesn't mean it's non-notable or useless. See: Pompeii toilets. Mikael GRizzly 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Kessler

Does not meet biography notability guidelines, and is basically an article about a local rabbi. No reliable third-party sources about him. Karanacs 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete no one special Yourname 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

*Strong Keep this article is relevant to Jewish Texan history. Bhaktivinode 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please review the speedy keep criteria. You are implying that the nomination is in bad faith. If you simply disagree that the subject is notable, please !vote "keep". --Dhartung | Talk 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep if better sourced. Notability is as founder of the Texas Jewish Historical Society . and as rabbi of what is apparently a major congregation. Must be sourced to show this. If he was important there will have been published articles about him. Bjaktivinode, see what you can do before the AfD ends. There's no point saying speedy keep when the article is marginal. DGG (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Articles concerning Rabbi Kessler have been added. On the external links section is a book review of a text Rabbi Kessler wrote about the Galveston kehilla. The other articles adress his importance and notability as well. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 13:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Other than being one of numerous rabbis for a congregation, he founded a non-notable local historical society. This is not normally at the level of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Article has more than enough secondary sources available to include, although many, such as newspaper articles, are not referenced here and therefore should be added to strengthen the article. The comment is made that the Texas Jewish Historical Society (TJHS) is a "local" organization. The TJHS is the official body for recording Jewish activities and history in Texas....From a geographical and population standpoint, Texas occupies more land and has a larger population than what is considered the US' New England Region. One could pose the question: is an organization who's jurisdiction is comprised of the states of Maine, Mass, Conn. RI, Vermont and New Hampshire "local" or would it qualify as "regional"? Finally, as a highly visible religious figure, of a distinct minority group/religion, it is important to make sure information is preserved and maintained for others to learn from. Precedence for the Kessler article also exists on Wikipedia in the form of numerous wiki-articles on Catholic Bishops and other Christian church leaders who are only considered important in their particular state or region. Wiki (and encyclopedias in general) exist not only for reference but to open people's eyes and help them learn about aspects of the world around them...which they may not be exposed to otherwise. Nsaum75 06:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Jimmy Kessler wrote the entry for the Handbook of Texas Online artilce on, "Jews" in Texas. This is another example showing Jimmy Kessler to be an expert on Jewish Texan history. [14] In the Temple B'nai Israel article of the Handbook of Texas, Jimmy Kessler is the subject of discussion. This article states that, "Kessler was the first native Texan to assume the leadership of the temple. He is also the founding president of the Texas Jewish Historical Society and the second rabbi of B'nai Israel to be elected to the Philosophical Society of Texas." [15] Bhaktivinode 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event - "if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Also, per WP:BIO, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Karanacs 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Please see the Texas Senate Resolution number 709. [16]. Jimmy Kessler has sufficient notability, and sources citing this notability have been provided. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - The Texas Senate Resolution refers to the Texas Jewish Historical Society (helping to establish its notability), but it is not specific to Kessler, and thus does not make Kessler notable. The sources that have been cited in the article are primarily self-published. Has he been covered in any newspapers or books, excluding trivial mentions? Karanacs 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - You requested coverage in newspaper articles. Rabbi recalls child’s eye view of Hanukkah and Kessler helps kicks off Kinky Friedman's Gov. Campaign Nsaum75 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Neither of those mentions him in any depth at all. The second is a whopping four sentences that mentions that he is a) a rabbi and b) knows Kinky Friedman -- neither of which are notable in and of themselves. I can't get to the full article of the first one, but does it discuss Kessler, or focus more on Hannukah traditions (which are notable)? There needs to be more than just passing coverage of this man to establish why he is notable in an encyclopedia, and I haven't seen any provided yet, nor have I found any myself. Karanacs 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Its free to register to view the whole article. It focuses on his life and experiences growing up jewish and specifically his Hannukah experiences as a kid. Please elaborate as to what kind of article you would consider appropriate to establish him as being notable? Reviews of his books by third parties? ... Nsaum75 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        I'm going by the guidelines set down in WP:V and WP:RS ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers....Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.") and WP:Notability, which further specifies that there be significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Karanacs 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per Dhartung. Being a mimister or rabbi does not byt itself justify a Wikipedia bio article, nor does founding a local historical society. Edison 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. He may be known in his community and founded a society of minor importance, but that's not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Crazysuit 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong KeepI believe it is very important. In Texas, Jewish populations existed outside the major cities like Dallas, San Antonio, Austin & Houston in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Cities Like Corsicana, Ennis, Waxahachie, Weatherford and towns of that size had thriving Jewish Communities that later moved to the large Cities because their Jewish Merchant Shop owner citizens moved there. This leaves the many notable citizens of these small towns with histories only a smaller society would better cover that. I believe it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanic@swbell.net (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Galveston Jewish Community or Congregation B'nai Israel because this article is part of a group of articles relating to Jews and Judaism in Texas (the others being James Simon (Businessman), Henry Cohen Community House, Jimmy Kessler, Rosa Levin Toubin, Simon Theatre Simon family, Joe Levin (Businessman), Alex Simon, Sam H. Toubin) that have been nominated for deletion by User Karanacs (talk · contribs) (and another, Temple Freda nominated by another user) yet taken as a whole these articles are a valuable set of records about a topic in a state with relatively few Jews and with an even scantier record of notable Jews, Judaism and Jewish history in it. There is indeed a great need for an article about History of the Jews in Texas and these articles would all be good starting points and resources for it. This article, like the others in this group, cite adequate sources and meet the minimal requirements to be kept. The nominator is requested to reconsider her nominations of these articles. Thank you, IZAK 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- As has been stated before, if the notability occurs only when the articles are taken collectively, then the content should be moved to another article, such as History of the Galveston Jewish Community and History of the Brenham Jewish Community. The individual articles do not establish notability. Karanacs 16:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Karanacs: So then the correct thing for you to have done was to (a) contact the editor/s of the articles you had questions and doubts about and (b) to try and work on combining them into more unified topics, and only as a last resort, (c) requested that they be merged into the History of the Galveston Jewish Community and History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Since these are non-controversial topics it should have been a fairly straightforward thing to do. Thanks, IZAK 20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - I still stand by my original assertion that the Kessler article should stand on its own. There are newspaper articles, however, since many newspapers do not maintain full online archives (maybe a week or months worth of articles at best), its hard to find them in a simple online search. I am working on obtaining online versions of them so they may be referenced here. Nsaum75 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
REQUEST: In order to reach a greater consensus about the related "Texas Jews articles" that have been nominated for deletion, please see and add your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thank you, IZAK 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The sources do appear reliable and establish notability. --Oakshade 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade and IZAK. -- Lchaimgirl 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article seems to be very well written and sourced, but I don't believe he is notable--his scope of effect is too small. Merge info to History of the Galveston Jewish Community. —ScouterSig 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You agree that the article is well sourced. The point of the debate so far has been "do the sources establish notability?" As you have stated, the article is well sourced. Its sources have established its notability. Bhaktivinode 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Dhartung. Doctorfluffy 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep!! This debate is a moot point. The argument whether the Rabbi is wiki worthy is just a smoke screen. This man is an important figure to Texas Jews and deserves to be recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.208.62 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
comment if he did receive an honorary degree from the JTS as well as his ordination, then he might well be notable, depending upon their practices in this respect. But this needs to be documented from third party sources. there should be such. DGG (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Rabbi Kessler's honorary Doctorate has been documented on the Hebrew Union College website. [17] Bhaktivinode 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Another reference, Texas Senate Resolution 709 states that, "The Texas Jewish Historical Society began in 1980 after Rabbi Jimmy Kessler published a letter in Jewish newspapers." [18] Bhaktivinode 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Updated and expanded with articles from The Galveston County Daily News. Bhaktivinode 05:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep The references cited in the updated version of this article are diverse, reliable and most importantly they establish the notability of Rabbi Jimmy Kessler enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 06:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment added info regarding Kessler's membership on the Commission for Sustaining Rabbinic Education and his membership on Editorial Advisory Board for the Texas State Historical Association's Handbook of Texas where he also holds the position of Jewish History Editor. [19] and [20] Nsaum75 06:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment added that Rabbi Kessler wrote Henry Cohen: The Life of a Frontier Rabbi which was pubilshed in 1997. The Galveston County Daily News has reviewed this work. [21]

Keep. This one just skirts by WP:BIO so not the biggest keep endorsement, but I am erring on the side of inclusion just to be safe based on the references given so far. Maybe it will improve over time. Mzoli's sure did. Burntsauce 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. Yahel Guhan 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Screw you guys, I'm going home. the_undertow ^talk 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Not So Jolly Rogers

Does not assert notability, from what I can see, but it's well written at least - although by a single purpose account. Regardless, no assertion of notability, and few if any Ghits, and no Amazon hits, equates in my mind to dubious notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

After explaining this to the user, I received the reply ALright, fine, I will just take the code so i can use it elsewhere. Fuck you.. I think that this may equate to a speedy? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under G7 although the author did not requested nicely.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete same as what he said ^^^^^^^ Yourname 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability? Advertisement? I won't even go into the four letter words. Mindraker 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosa Levin Toubin

This article is about a non-notable individual. Although the article asserts that she has written 2 things, they have not been published by a reliable publisher. Furthermore, the sources cited for the article are either not reliable or mention her only in passing. Karanacs 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep this article is relevant to Jewish Texan history. Bhaktivinode 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you explain how it is relevant and why you feel she meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:BIO? Karanacs 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, local historian, all-around nice lady, but far below WP:BIO. Very disappointing when an editor puts so much hard work into an article that is destined to be removed. Wikipedia isn't about everything. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-natable Yourname 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ancestry doesn't confer notability, nor does what is self-publication; the article doesn't seem to claim notability for the individual about whom it's written; doesn't meet WP:Notable, WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO, and reads like a memorial article. Edison 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. TGreenburgPR 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community or B'nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham because this article is part of a group of articles relating to Jews and Judaism in Texas (the others being James Simon (Businessman), Henry Cohen Community House, Jimmy Kessler, Rosa Levin Toubin, Simon Theatre Simon family, Joe Levin (Businessman), Alex Simon, Sam H. Toubin) that have been nominated for deletion by User Karanacs (talk · contribs) (and another, Temple Freda nominated by another user) yet taken as a whole these articles are a valuable set of records about a topic in a state with relatively few Jews and with an even scantier record of notable Jews, Judaism and Jewish history in it. There is indeed a great need for an article about History of the Jews in Texas and these articles would all be good starting points and resources for it. This article, like the others in this group, cite adequate sources and meet the minimal requirements to be kept. The nominator is requested to reconsider her nominations of these articles. Thank you, IZAK 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, possibly merge any relevant info to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Eliyak T·C 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
REQUEST: In order to reach a greater consensus about the related "Texas Jews articles" that have been nominated for deletion, please see and add your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thank you, IZAK 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Bhaktivinode 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Judging by the sources, it looks like this person might be the wife of a notable person, and therefore isn't inherently notable. I also had trouble finding references to this person in the cites given, as a few of them didn't even mention a "Rosa" or "Toubin" or a "Levin." --slakr^\ talk / 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Rosa Levin Toubin is also known by the name, Mrs. Sam Toubin. Bhaktivinode 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep notable historian of Jewish Texan history. Bhaktivinode 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MediResource

Spam. Has been tagged db-ad once, has been speedy deleted as an ad once, has been re-created by User:MRI, thus making this a conflict of interest recreation. I discussed this with MRI once, but he refuses to take no for an answer. Despite several discussions with other users even prior to creating the article, MRI keeps creating and now re-creating the article. Since the previous deletion was a speedy, I can't retag this as db-repost, so we have to go the AfD route. Corvus cornix 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Spam. Also being created by a user who has admitted to being involved on his talk page and his User ID suggests he is an employee or stakeholder in some way of the subject in question. I see no real encyclopaedic content within this article. Ben W Bell talk 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:WEB, full of external links thus WP:SPAM, and WP:COI as icing on the cake. --Dhartung | Talk 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Source (Charmed). Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shax (Charmed)

I consider it very unlikely for independent, reliable sources to exist about this character. A quick Google search only shows other meaning of Shax, such as the "real" demon (in whose article this character is already mentioned), and an African game. The scarce material could be merged into Charmed or a related article. Goochelaar 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It has some incoming links. I recommend merge/redirect to The Source (Charmed) and/or Charmed Again (Part 1). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The Source (Charmed) seems to make the most sense to me as the target for a Redirect. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 02:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Born for This (Paramore song)

Pointless article. JDFL 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No claims of notability, and it doesn't seem to have charted. Not really even anything there to merge back to the parent article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails Song notability on all five points. SkierRMH 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. No sources establishing notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judd Vinet

Nominated for deletion by 24.20.48.231. I have no opinion on the subject myself. --Finngall ^talk 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm the anon that brought this up for deletion (sorry for the poor wiki skills--I'm working on them). There is no reason to have either a separate article or a redirect for Judd. His name already appears on the Arch_Linux page--we don't need another page just to tell us he's from Canada and went to college. There is no way this article qualifies for Wikipedia, and it should be deleted without delay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.48.231 (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I might also add that Aaron Griffin--the new Arch project leader--does not have his own page on Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to add a page simply to note his involvement in Arch? How is it any less ridiculous to keep Judd's page?24.20.48.231 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I urged the anon nominator (hopefully not dynamic!) to leave their comments here ASAP as to why they nominated the article. Lacking their input, I must, by default, opine Keep.--12 Noon 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)struck my comment based on anon clarifying nomination--12 Noon 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Arch Linux? There doesn't seem to be any real sourceable information out there on him, but his (former) project is notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Arch Linux as above. Just being the creator or lead on a distribution or package is not notability in and of itself. This is, however, a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete due to a severe lack of reliable third party sources about this subject. Do we have redirects for all of the authors who contributed to Microsoft Project? What about Macromedia Flash (now Adobe)? Or how about Turbo Pascal? No? Burntsauce 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per User:Hit bull, win steak. NicM 12:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. krimpet ⟲ 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictitious films

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of fictitious films

Articles for deletion/List of fictitious films (2nd nomination)

Delete - indiscriminate collection of information and directory of loosely or unassociated items. This is a list seeking to capture every mention of every non-existent film from every medium. Fictitious films within other media are almost never notable as there are rarely if ever independent reliable sources that are about the fictitious films themselves. In those rare instances when such sources exist, then an article (such as those found in Category:Fictional films) should be written. This list is boundless as it seeks to capture every passing reference to every fake movie poster that a character in any medium passes, every fake title mentioned as a one-off joke. This list serves no navigational purpose, as the few bluelinks that are in the article are not to articles about the phony films but are instead links to the film that the title parodies or the work of fiction from which the trivial reference is drawn. "It has a fictitious film in it" is not a theme. In most instances the film itself is not a significant plot device, and if it is a significant plot device then per WP:FICT it should be covered in the article for the fiction from which it's drawn or, if there is appropriate reliable sourcing, split into its own article. Otto4711 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Otto 4711, who has left little to be said. Why are the "In films" and "In television" sections in these articles always so much longer than the "In books" sections? Doesn't anyone read anymore? Deor 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete what can I say about this one. Pretty much everything bad about lists right here in this one list. Ridernyc 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Indiscriminate list of trivial notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, unencyclopedic list and probably a violation of policy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, like last time. It hasn't changed. Axem Titanium 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Someone went to a lot of hard work on this, and although the list, by itself, is not encyclopedic, parts of it can be merged into various articles on TV shows. From what I can tell, these are (a) movies that Ginger Grant says she starred in before she was marooned on Gilligan's Island; (b) titles on the marquee in the theater where Josh works on Drake and Josh; (c) movies that were previewed in films like "Kentucky Fried Movie"; etc. I'm sure there is an article about Ginger on Wikipedia. Ultimately, though, this is a list of "one liners" that are part of a movie or TV script. It's like compiling a list of every variety of necktie that President Bush has worn since his inauguration-- it can be done, but it's not worth doing. Mandsford 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

that seems a poor analogy. There is nothing much about his neckties that indicates anything about his character or the nature of his work. (or if there is, perhaps someone has in fact commented in an RS about it--some Presidential clothes has had some degree of iconic significance, such as JFK's practice to never wear overcoats). But the names and nature of fictional films used as plot elements in major works of creative art is not a matter of chance, but a matter that indicates the artistic choices made in the work, and will probably in fact be discussed in reviews. I notice the frequent practice of attacking an article by suggesting an analogy with one much weaker. That's a good way to destroy anything. Anything at all can be compared to the presidents ties and made to seem ridiculous. I think this will fgo into another paragraph on arguments to avoid. DGG (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, DGG, what you're describing is the use of straw man arguments. --Hnsampat 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge useful content into various articles, seeing how I didn't cast a vote. It's not a straw man argument. If someone went to a lot of effort to make a list of the different neckties that President Bush had worn, it would be equally difficult... and equally pointless. The "films within films", yeah, I can understand that. But the names of all the titles seen on the marquee in Drake and Josh? My kids watch it, so I've seen that the theater is pictured for a few seconds. And Ginger Grant's films? Digging into my original research memory, my recollection is that few of them had titles. Ginger would refer to a plot, like "Once I was a magician's assistant in a movie.." And don't get me started on Family Guy or The Simpsons. This is why there's a rule that Wikipedia is not a joke book. Mandsford 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

strong keep otto's opinion is wrongheaded for wikipedia. the material contains much hard work, the material has many notable and verifiable examples. it can be improved, and over time it will be improved. this is his second nomination under the same principles it is worrisome. --Buridan 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it was kept the first time is worrisome. Hard work a good article does not make. The concept of fictional films itself is not notable. Thus, no critical commentary has been made on the use of fictional films in media. Imagine if you will, a world where several books of relatively high impact have been published on the use of the concept of fictional films and their significance in various media. If this were true, then an article about fictional films would be created, citing these books, and if necessary, include a section on the notable use of them in other works. However, it should NOT extend to creating another article about every fictional film ever mentioned because many are satirical jokes or meaningless quips. In the end though, there is no critical commentary on the significance of fictional films and thus, no article on that concept exists (yes, I am aware that fictional film exists but that article is about another concept entirely). Axem Titanium 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

fictional films are notable, hundreds if not thousands of articles exist to show that, the list supports those articles, notability is transfered in this case. --Buridan 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't prove the notability of other Wikipedia articles. This list does not support anything, as the links in it are in the vast majority of cases not to articles about the fictional films but are links to the film that the title parodies. Otto4711 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, not the least of which was the fact this article survived AFD back in January. What has changed to make it no longer acceptable? The only problem I see is that this article needs more sourcing. That's a content issue. 23skidoo 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As you know, consensus can change. The quality of the keep arguments at the first AFD were overall rather poor, amounting in many instances to potentially useful and people put a lot of work into it. The keep arguments then didn't address the policy issues with the article and "it was kept before" certainly doesn't. Otto4711 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC

deleting on policy rules is against wp:iar.--Buridan 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a trump card. Otto4711 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

it is when people start being rules lawyers. when people start to be rule lawyers, ignore all rules trumps them. consensus rules over policy. --Buridan 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, not quite. WP:IAR is a policy in place for when following the letter of the law will violate the spirit of the law. It is not a blank check for people to do what they want.--Hnsampat 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

er, right, and that is what this nomination is doing. violating the spirit of wp. --Buridan 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this nomination is reflective of the fact that consensus can change. --Hnsampat 21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. If the dry and dusty death of Quirrell in Harry Potter is described as "gory", for instance, then this list has gone out of control. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Userfy, this article is cool, can we move it to someone's userspace plz? Milto LOL pia 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as per last AFD less than a year ago Jcuk 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a "keep" reason, per WP:CCC. Axem Titanium 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Axem Titanium is spot on here. I'm amazed this article survived the previous Afd, even though it has clearly been worked on very hard by some people, for who I'm sorry. Thedreamdied 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as it passed an earlier discussion already this year, satisfies List by being organized coherently and works probably better than even a category would. Also, by being in list format, the article demonstrates the notability of fictional films by clearly indicating how many times they have appeared in notable mediums. I do agree that references would be helpful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep making this argument, that because there is a list of things the subject of the list is notable. No. I could make List of fictional blue clothes and populate it quite extensively with every blue costume from every movie ever made and it doesn't make "fictional blue clothes" notable. This list does not satisfy WP:LIST because it does not satisfy that guideline's constituent Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). As has been noted many times before, consensus can change so citing a previous AFD from nine months ago is hardly conclusive. Otto4711 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the scope of the list is well defined (albeit possibly too broad), and the list is extremely well organized.-- danntm ^T _C 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- How organized the list is is not a "keep" criterion. Axem Titanium 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to wikibooks. There are far more fictional movies out there than this article contains. jonathon 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can't imagine all the backtracking and retroactive work that would be required to find sources for all of these; it would take a long time and SO much work, and in the mean time it would not be an article that meets standards. If someone really, really wants to make this his or her crusade, let them userfy it until they finish it. But it should be deleted as unsourced and all-but-unsourceable. —Scouter Sig 03:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Could potentially list thousands of fictional titles (it's already huge), 99% of these films are not notable anyway, so it's indiscriminate and useless as a list. Category:Fictional films already contains the few notable fictional films. The keep arguments are mainly WP:EFFORT and "it survived afd before". Crazysuit 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and others. Listcruft, breaks a few WP:NOT's. Doctorfluffy 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Information is useful to those who work with such material and is not likely to be found elsewhere. Information, in my opinion, could be organized better (maybe a sortable table?) but hardly reason for deletion. Lede should expand to at least generally explain why fictitious film titles are used. Also a subsection of fictitious film titles later turned into films might be of use. Benjiboi 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL, much? An article dealing with this concept at fictitious film must first be written but since this concept is not notable itself, there is no article there and a list documenting it is not appropriate. Axem Titanium 02:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This list brings together related information about fictitious films and is useful for navigating that subject per WP:USEFUL. Perhaps this is a basis for expanding why fictitious names are used and organizing this literary device within a parent article the use of fictitious names et al. Benjiboi 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This list is not a navigational device because its links are not to articles about the non-existent films, because articles on those non-existent films do not (and in the vast majority of cases should not) exist. Otto4711 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be linked then do so, if it needs to be expanded or explained then do so. AfDing articles you don't like is not the trial by fire way to fix articles. If you want to improve the article to make wikipedia better then step up to the plate. If your intent is to remove items because the articles are flawed then I think you're out of line. I belive the article is useful. By gathering information about the subject from numerous other articles and organizing them can certainly make for an encyclopedic article, that it doesn't as of yet do so is not the reason to delete. I find the elimination of articles that simply need improving quite disheartening and a put-off to those editors who have obviously made a good faith effort to write something of value. Instead of kicking the article around you could try prodding it so that its value is more readily evident. Benjiboi 13:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has survived a previous AFD so as I understand it is not eligible for a prod. My intent is to remove articles that fail Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This list violates multiple policies and guidelines, as enumerated in the nomination, and as much as you may like the article you have failed to address those violations. "It's useful" does not address them (and is disputed). "Editors made a good faith effort" does not address them. "It just needs work" does not address them. If an actual sourced article on the topic of fictional films, which includes a sourced analysis of how they are used, can be written, then I would be interested in reading it (and am in fact trying to free up the article space for the potential article). A list of every time someone makes up a joke title that spoken in two seconds on a TV screen and is never heard of again is not such an article. Otto4711 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then as I feel all your concerns can be addressed by simply refocusing the lede and regularly editing the list to bring it into focus. I feel the list is useful as is and will only improve with regular editing. Benjiboi 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The list can't possibly be refocused in a way that is POV-neutral. There is no objective inclusion standard that can be generated. Otto4711 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. That's quite a skill you have to be able to tell that an article could never possibly be fixed. Thank goodness most of the articles I've pulled from AfD didn't have such a judge sitting as jury and executioner as well. Benjiboi 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DELETE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?????? CAN WE CONVERT TO STABLE VERSIONS NOW?? Burntsauce 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete clear WP:NOT material, fails WP:V, WP:RS, clear case of no application of WP:COMMONSENSE, article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live with Mitch and Paige

Non-notable teen talk show on a local public-access TV station. Tempted to A7 Cap'n Walker 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Only one relevant Ghit, no 3rd party coverage to support notability. SkierRMH 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Jimbo Wales video

Non-notable Rwxrwxrwx 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Delete. Just because it's a) Jimbo or b) on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete' G11 (advertising :) Wikipedia is (*edit*) NOT a place for advertising. SYSS Mouse 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is not notable~~, and as SYSS Mouse said, this article is advertisement for the Wikimedia foundation.~~ Icestorm815 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind about advertisement, but still the same for notability. Icestorm815 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think it meets G11 criteria in that it's basically an informational article. But it is non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - but with no prejudice against recreation if it all turns out to be a big conspiracy :-) THE KING 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ASR. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above (G11) and possibly merge to Jimmy Wales#Audio/video. SkierRMH 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - non notable in-site marketing video for Wikifundraising. B1atv 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - noble cause but not notable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable video. Even if it does involve Wikipedia or Jimmy... --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Do you think we should ask him about his opinion on this AfD or would that be COI?--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly. It is. SYSS Mouse 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - What if he says delete? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrew Jackson. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidency of Andrew Jackson

A poorly writen paraphrase of information found in Andrew Jackson. Rackabello 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not really much information there that isn't in Andrew Jackson. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Just a fork of the main article about Jackson. --Goochelaar 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to main article for time being, copy contents to user's sandbox, let author continue creating article in their sandbox, and post it once it is finished (whether or not it will be AfD'd at that point will remain to be seen). It seems to be good faith at the moment from a relative newbie, just ill-conceived. To the author: see Wikipedia:Article development.--12 Noon 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I forgot to mention that there seems to be a movement to create "Presidency of" articles, see {{USPresidencies}}.--12 Noon 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to main article on Jackson TonyBallioni 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Andrew Jackson until there is enough independent material to justify an article to this specific topic. SkierRMH 22:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Why even do a redirect? This is somebody's school assignment. Your son or daughter is very smart, you must be proud, post it on the refrigerator door, not on Wikipedia. Mandsford 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Andrew Jackson. Why? Because they're cheap, that's why. Burntsauce 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I was bold and redirected the article. I noticed this has already been done on Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. I also left a note on the author's talk page suggesting to create a sandbox and keep working on it and repost it when it has quality content. Suggest closing the AfD at this time.--12 Noon 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - *Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs), and Achidiac (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Closer's remarks -

This is an AFD of a person with a couple of unconnected minor incidents in which they briefly made the media, and at which accusations of meat (connected individuals) or sockpuppetry (multiple accounts) or at least WP:SPA use, were raised. I have therefore summed up the close in detail, and remind newcomers to AFD that AFD is not a vote; it is a chance for individuals to raise policy related points concerning the article.

Relevant points from policy:

Motive of article creation is irrelevant. We assess the article, and its capability to be meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria, not its creators intentions.
WP:NOT -- merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia
WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N -- brief mentions or transient interest in the press do not necessarily make a person's biography encyclopedic. That an article is cited does not necessarily attest to it being notable. The two are different.

(WP:NOT#NEWS cite: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events ... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.")
WP:BLP1E -- people famous for one event are usually linked to an article mentioning the event. ("Cover the event, not the person")
WP:COI -- "Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia [neutral encyclopedic reporting]. ... Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is ... if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly..."
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- articles at AFD are decided on their own merits, not by comparison to other stuff. Likewise "There are many more people living and dead who do not have articles and deserve them much more".
WP:NOTINHERITED -- notability is not inherited.
WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING -- that an item is "useful" or "interesting" does not mean it is necessarily encyclopedic.

There is one policy-based "keep" point, by user:DGG ("Using [a DVD] to burn the first recordable DVD at Bill Gates keynote at comdex is another matter--Comdex is not just another trade show") -- notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the issue is not whether comdex is notable, but whether we would usually 1/ consider this achievement notable, or 2/ consider that it made the person who operated the recording notable.

Examining the article itself, there are only two items in it - a claim that he "pioneered" real-time DVD authoring, and that an internet cafe he ran was a finalist in a yahoo competition. Unfortunately these do not much help. The "pioneering" turns out on examination of cites to mean he was a co-party to a publicity incident or trade show first demo, namely the burning of a dvd before a speech had finished (which is actually all that he did, working with world class video editing multinational Pinnacle). This really is not a very strong basis or notable event to justify an article, even though comdex is very well known as a show (WP:NOTINHERITED). If it were to make anything notable at all, it would attest to notability of the businesses or the event, not person. Being a finalist in the cometition does not seem to have encouraged the presentation by anyone of a strong case for notability either, at this debate.

Looking at the deletion discussion therefore:

This press release describes the DVD demo as a first. But doesn't really give much notability to the subject - as Weregerbil says, it's hard to see how being the operator makes him notable in the sense that this was not at all about him, as a person. It could have been anyone holding the camera or operating the software for the companies Opulent Media and Pinnacle, and may well have been.
Most of the comments for "keep" seem to be saying either it is a"quality stub", or that it is useful, or interesting. A few consider as weak keeps, whether the dvd issue is a contribution towards notability. However once the many non-arguments are filtered (which account for much of the "keep"s), there is a strong AFD view that it does not, or does not sufficiently, and that the article should be deleted.

I therefore concur with the nomination. AFD is based upon Wikipedia article criteria and policy, and consensus which draw on these. As noted above, there are good reasons both in policy, and the events being referenced, and the stance of contributors at AFD, to agree that ultimately, this article and discussion do not in fact attest to the subject himself being sufficiently notable to meet biographical inclusion criteria.

--FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Chidiac

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac

Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (2nd nomination)

Vanispamcruftisement of a non-notable person. A guy who once appeared in a trade show demo, then started a cafe. The article attempts to hide the non-notability in flowery language (instead of "start a cafe", try Dilbert-esque "research and develop a concept to progress an integrated venue to cater for socializing in a convergence whateverthehell" — I kid you not.) Has himself (admitted) and a couple of other contributors (User:T3Smile, User:Rdpaperclip) who have no other editing interest than a Chidiac fetish spamming Wikipedia with the name of Chidiac and his business. Enough is enough methinks. Deleted once before after AfD. Weregerbil 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't mean to be pedantic... just want to add my two cents... I think the last AfD was centered around the lack of proper sourcing and the cruft. This version looks like it has better sourcing. Some cruft is starting to creep back in. I agree that the Dilbert-esque language is a clean-up problem. -- Ben 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Though if we clean up the language and name dropping, what is left? "Operated a DVD camcorder at a trade show and started a local coffee shop"...? Very little else in the article is sourced, including the "personal life" section, year of birth, number of children, place of residence. Even whether the DVD operator and the cafe-starter are the same Anthony Chidiac. The trouble with nn self-bios: thoroughly unverifiable. Weregerbil 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm with you. The personal section is a recent addition and totally unsourced. It should probably be removed all at once because of WP:BLP concerns. From the DVD authoring he sounds pretty notable. I just don't know... and my comments are scattered and not very helpful. Thanks for your response, Weregerbil. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes... -- Ben 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Actually the DVD authoring mention of Chidiac is written by User:T3Smile and is wholly unsourced. Which I think demonstrates the main problem with the Chidiac accounts: they don't just document Chidiac in his own article, they spread the inflated claims elsewhere. Reading Internet cafe, Chidiac's cafe appears to need more unsourced documenting than any other cafe in the world, complete with a picture of his parents. Weregerbil 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Despite being briefly in the news, there isn't a great deal of evidence of notability here. A thin case might be made for the compnay, Opulent, or its brand, TrendNET (and I guess there's evidence those articles may have existed in the past), but basically what we have is a guy who started a company with unproven notability. Accomplishment is not notability. Being a product demo or producer at an expo, even for Bill Gates, is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Dhartung. Changed my opinion to keep per Rdpaperclip. Clearly I didn't look into the article deep enough. --Slartibartfast1992 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as clearly notable (sorry, Dhartung, but accomplishments such as starting a new idea or a major company do count towards notability), but WP:BLP requires better sourcing. Bearian 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. This article seems to better than when I first discussed it back in July. Bearian 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't know what policy you're citing, Bearian. But even if such things did count, I see no evidence of either here. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep running a camcorder at a trade show may not be notable, but using one to burn the first recordable DVD at Bill Gates keynote at comdex is another matter--Comdex is not just another trade show. The nternet cafe seems to have also some sources for notability. DGG (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Was that really the first recordable DVD? Neither the article nor the sources (copies of a company press release) make that claim. Mr. Chidiac doesn't appear to have made any ground breaking invention; he once produced (according to a company press release) a DVD using other peoples' software. Comdex was big but not everything that happens in a big trade show is automatically of encyclopedic notability. Weregerbil 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry for abbreviating--first non-professionally-oriented --which i admit is a more qualitative sort of distinction than true "first"DGG (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Sorry guys, I stuffed up, and added a piece of personal life without quoting sources. Article is thoroughly resourced, comments taken from press articles and because it is short and sweet, is quite a powerful statement. All I was trying to do is to conform to WP:BIO. Guy is notaqble because he bought DVD Authoring under the 5k mark, making it consumer friendly and gave it mass-market appeal. Stop picking on this guy ok? There a a lot more articles on wiki that are thoroughly unresearched and have no supporting media to back up the claims. So, I deleted the "Personal Life" part and will only post material that I can post citations to. Thanks to all that support this article, its not about anything non-symbolic and Tracey just wrote it as it was claimed in the articles. No more, no less. Its just a stub, so that more information is compiled by others. People jusyt couldn't work on an article in someones userspace, and, as said before, there are far more articles on wikipedia with no newspaper articles or releases available, yet they are still online. Cheers.--Rdpaperclip 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - wasnt a camcorder - was a complete CBS crew that recorded event as a multi-camera show. In dolby surround 5.1 too. cheers. --Rdpaperclip 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Really well put together stub, and great supporting evidence of such achievements. I would like to know more. I've seen worse written stubs without citations and they are still on wikipedia.--150.101.154.245 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — 150.101.154.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment For the love of God... Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And to Rdpaperclip... what exactly did you delete from the article? -- Ben 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hi Ben. I was about to delete the offending addition to the article I placed yesterday when I found that someone else politely did so and hence helped out positively. This project is all about positivity, and leave God out of this, chidiac is not God. lol. Best regards to you Ben. --Rdpaperclip 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good times. -- Ben 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - and I quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS "If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." Enough said. Its an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. As such,could other wikiadmins help oppose the renomination and wait until more work can be done to the article? There is no advertising chidiacs business in the article itself. Sure, the supporting material does highlight it, but you need the supporting material for citation, so its catch 22. Its a bit early for this process to happen in my opinion, but thanks a lot for caring about it.--Rdpaperclip 04:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    - I think the important part of that page is... "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." Which is a lot of what's going on here. -- Ben 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Though hath scorn on all things YouTube, this is another supporting media piece on the "research project" cafe - hence it being written in that way - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exuqTN5hhUk I am not sure whether this link should be placed on chidiac entry - thoughts appreciated. --Rdpaperclip 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Does it count that I found this article and the links to the cybercafe experiment useful for some research I was doing? I use wikipedia as a start to research on any new topic and an article full of citations is an excellent resource. A low traffic small size article doesn't take up too many resources and so I think the bar for deletion should be set high. Of course this particular article could be improved by removing the Dilbert like marketing speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggplantpasta (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This debate is a waste of time. Sorry. Initiated by someone who just could have deleted irrelevant, non cited material. Stub is short, I agree words used may be "powerful", but theres only so such you can say in a paragraph to get the message across concisely without rambling on. If you don't like the words suggest something different, or do as the stub says - "EXPAND" it. I became custodian of a "train wreck" attempt article in june this year, rewrote it as a stub based on a consensus of recommendation from the same people who recommended article for deletion last time, cited it all, complied with all guidelines that wikipedia set out, and someone zealous about some little aussie guys achievement making notability on wikipedia, cited, verified, and further information completing other key topics of wikipedia actually HELPED others. Its a stub. It needs time to be expanded upon, using cited sources, and I have done my job to the letter in doing such entry. A Stub of the highest quality as far as stubs go. Its now up to others to expand, not delete it. Have a great day. T--T3Smile 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

'comment ps Weregerbil, two or more people contributing to an article is called COLLABORATION, which is what Wikipedia is about, especially when compiling citations to support written material. Without sounding rude, are you against collaboration, the guy himself, or just have a problem with people having a go at editing without your permission? methinks weregerbil has had some form of association with chidiac himself in the past and, surprise surprise, is on a warpath to defame and discredit, not to expand and encourage, collaborative efforts to note people of worthy notability in the technology industry. Anyway, off my horse. :) --T3Smile 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Quality Stub, cited sources, v.nice links which give greater insight into contribution. How much can u say in two paragraphs without sounding too long winded. Would like to see how the stub is expanded in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.129 (talk • contribs) — 203.171.197.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Can people pls sign entries? ta.--T3Smile 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think they are all labeled now. I hope. :) -- Ben 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well, being the subject of the article, I was hesitant to comment, but I had a message to contribute to this discussion so heres my 2 cents worth. T3 has done a great job at making a fully verifiabe, cited stub. Rdpaper put personal stuff about me, which was taken from a TV show I did a long time ago that I wanted to forget about, and all you guys just shout "delete delete delete" lol. Its nice to be recognized by wikipedia, and I'm happy with my life and what I do now, and in my spare time I wouldn't mind contributing information to fill in other spots of wikipedia that beg completion. Wouldn't know if I would want to edit an entry about myself, I think that would violate something here. Again thanks to all who have spent the time caring about it. I've had lots of fun doing some neat things in my career, wouldn't change a thing.--Achidiac 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Anthony, thanks for joining into this. I think you CAN contribute to the article about you through WP:SELFPUB, just follow the policy. I think you can write about your "Early Life" which would help out somewhat - can admins comment about this?--T3Smile 11:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK No Probs T3, I'll help but you or others will need to look over it, I don't want to be seen as it being something to promote me or anything. I don't need self-promotion or even promotion anymore, past that. How does weregerbil know the patrons at the internet cafe were MY mum and dad...could be anyones mum and dad!? (BTW My dad is deceased a while ago now) Thankyou.--Achidiac 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I know they are your parents because you labeled them as such. Right here you are saying "mum and dad enjoying food". Of course you were logged in as User:Rdpaperclip at the time. Oops, I guess you just confirmed one of your sockpuppets right here. That's your identity when you are being an Australian aboriginal female who complains others are being racist against "her", was it? Weregerbil 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Holy crap. I don't know that that is called for. Accusing someone of using sockpuppets is the third door on the left... not here... Let's bring it down a notch and discuss the article. -- Ben 19:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - I think it is appropriate in an AfD discussion to note that some of the participiants are really a one and the same person. An AfD is not a vote, but IMHO confirmation that some of the "keep" !voters are socks of the subject of the article is noteworthy. Also when the subject of the article keeps making accusations and wild conspiracy theories against other people, their motives, and speculations on their sexual preference (not that there is anything wrong with that); I think an explanation of the source of the "parents" information is not out of order. Weregerbil 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Dear Mr. Weregerbil - It was already established long long time ago that I am a real person (female), Rdpaperclip is my lecturer at uni, and Achidiac, is well, the topic of the discussion, and none of us are one and the same person we all are different people. I agree with Ben, keep to the subject matter and proof and evidence.T.--T3Smile 21:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

comment Ben, other admins, this discussion has gone past the gutter and into the sewer. All I did was add "Early Life" to a stub and its become a war of words, and all without foundation for such. Its clear the nominator for AfD (weregerbil) has some sort of negative personal affiliation with subject, so should be discluded in this debate. Yes, Tracey, myself, and Anthony all know each other, either as colleagues or friends, and there is nothing wrong with that. We're not related nor are we sockpuppets, we COLLABORATE on articles as two/three heads are better than one. Tracey has been busy writing many more articles as well, she just wanted to get this one right first. Is someone able to edit out any crud that has nothing to with the article review itself? Makes for a less confusing read and a clear, concise review process. Thankyou --Rdpaperclip 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

summary The way I see it - User:Weregerbil saw that "personal life" was added to the article and just went ahead and nominated for an AfD, without going through a process of contacting editor (an amateur at wiki editing) and asking to cite these new details, which would have been the friendliest thing to do. Proof is here. User:Swerdnaneb deleted "offending" details after weregerbil nominated for an aFD - proof: here user:rdpaperclip noted that statements were not cited - proof: 2 last entries in discussion page, and it was all too late as weregerbil pounced on the article as an AfD without just being nice to the newbies. User:Achidiac - the subject of article with his own user ID here, prefers to abstain from writing the article as per WP:COI, but didn't know that he could have added comment of personal life himself (which would have helped considerably, as it would have came from source). This process was all too rushed in going down the AfD line. Notability is established here, not a question about it, citing news articles (still a handful of them online after six years, out of over 1200 articles written in more than a dozen different languages). Six years is a long time in anyones books. At the time the feats WERE notable, but wikipedia generally doesnt delete things that are NOW not notable due to technology advances. If if did, we should then delete things like Knight Rider or ENIAC as well while we are at it. Might as well send Michaelangelo down the AfD route as well, not that I'm comparing chidiac to such, but if it wasnt for that feat at comdex we would be all using Macs to Author DVD's and I know the PC dominant marketplace today would be a very different scenario if this didn't happen. Similarly, chidiac raised the bar on the quality and convergence of the internet cafe, which meant that i could clean up and make the article more coherent. Yes it has a lot of references to the o3 cafe place, but I have called for others to provide more pictures and articles, so that the article can show more scope of the "internet cafe". In years to come, you will see more of his work in that arena as other people become inspired in this idea he had and the research he has done to make sure it can work. Guys like chidiac belong here on wikipedia, we just need to be very careful in how the article expands out, thats all. Thanks to all who have made comment in their vote to justify their reasoning. Simply "voting" does not count as per AfD Guidelines. I have more to contribute to wikipedia, but if all I get is deletion even when I've complied I feel that partaking in such is a waste, and that is unfair with the principles behind wikipedia, especially when I have complied to its rules. T--T3Smile 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, utterly non-notable. There are many more people living and dead who do not have articles and deserve them much more than this person.Grahamec 02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

comment Hi Graham, and thanks for your feedback. If you know of other people living or dead, in Australia, in the IT industry who dont have articles and 'deserve' them, I'd love to write about them! By the way, "deservability" doesnt count in wikipedia, but if they are notable, well I'm keen to write - send me a message and I'll do the research. Hitler doesnt deserve to be in wikipedia, but is notable :) T —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3Smile (talk • contribs)

Hitler deserves an article, because he is notable. This person is clearly not notable, however many real or imagined friends he has.--Grahamec 01:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Besides, Graham, that's just an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. --Slartibartfast1992 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Slarti, agree with your point, but there are two sides to that argument. Notability should not be the question in this debate - the articles and references assert such, And I just made a stub that is a compilation of all the articles. AfD was initiated in spite, without due consultation with contributors, and far too quickly. Note: please read the entry itself - the remarks read - "This is not a recreation of deleted material. I have unsalted the article and moved a new creation here per request of an editor. I'm watchlisting this though, so if it begins going down the same road as the old one, I'm re-deleting. User:^demon" - It didnt even have a chance to be re-edited! I and others can only contribute so much in such a short space of time as we all have real jobs :) Over months and years there will be more from credible media sources, so others will continue to expand through contribution, and I can also contribute as well. Thats for sure. T --T3Smile 09:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

comment adding a bit more history here for reviewers - [this]- a likely excuse as to what user:weregerbil is after. His/Her own fame. user:^demon, a notable deletionist admin, was the person who in fact included this stub here in wikipedia - The guy speedily deleted an article written by Jimmy Wales!! Now my very first article has become the subject of such debate. Really, we all have other things better to do with our time, especially me (I'm just bored of watching the ARIA's so I have a few mins spare lol). Leave the stub alone and take the wikiwar to someone like Jimmy Wales, I want to do more contributing to this thing. OK I've said more than enough. T--T3Smile 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith in other editors. -- Ben 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Swerdnaneb, if you did assume good faith, then this stub would not be an article for deletion and debate topic in the first place. Assuming Good faith would have had admins communicate with editors first before going to such extreme measure as an Article for deletion. I think that is what I am getting from this debate, and the debate takes up more space than the article about me itself. Thats v.funny! --Achidiac 03:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
comment I was here to see whether I could change the (quote) dilbertesque form of paraphrasing that T3Smile did on the entry on me. I tried to look up real time and found computing speak for it, but nothing that notes real time MPEG-2 video encoding, which is what was achieved at the Gates' Launch of Windows XP at comdex in Sep. 2001. Instead of setting up a new article, does anyone have thoughts on how something such as real time video encoding can be represented? a MERGE into real time??? I also pionered Real-Time Digital Audio Editing with Hybrid Arts, Inc. Back in the 80's. Not looking for claim to fame of $$$ for the claim, its just not represented here in wikipedia. Real-Time Video Editing involved the manipulation of GOP Interframes and keyframes to produce a result that only changes the elements that need changing in video. That work was done in Real Time in 2001, today, we're doing that work at 10x real time on consumer equipment. For the folks at home, thats when you merge edits, transitions, effects, without having to re-render a whole piece. Thats what we did in 2001, and in 1988 we did it in real time in audio with Michael Jackson's remix. I'm sure you all can write about it in depth - its definitely encyclopaedic material and should fascinate most of you! Please contact me if you have some ideas to recognise such on wikipedia so the kids can use it as a reference, I believe that is the aim of the people behind my article and other articles thast spurn from it or add to existing material. regards --Achidiac 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I am trying to ASSUME GOOD FAITH which really means I'll just keep my personal reservations to myself. Burntsauce 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This AfD discussion is a mess, so I'll try to remain on point. Simply, this subject appears to fail WP:BIO and is non-notable. Doctorfluffy 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
comment Hi Doctorfluffy, thanks for adding a point, makes a difference as others think its a vote and it doesn't help this so-called debate - see Deletion Policy. I'll put it plain and simple, the initiation of this AfD process itself is invalid for the article. The initiating admin cannot cite Vanispamcruftisement as a reason to begin a proposed deletion, especially when he did not assume good faith in communicating with the admin that authorised the addition and myself, the initiating author of the article. This just lead to a debate that turned into a mess. The stub was only put up for only a few days when this AfD initiating admin pounced on it. Nobody had time to expand the article from a stub to make it conform to WP:BIO Rdpaperclip tried - see discussion on article, and got pounced upon for trying to expand. I need to ensure the article doesnt end up as a train wreck again as an unofficial custodian of article due to a piece I am writing as my Uni Thesis. Its not because I am the subject himself or a sockpuppet of subject. I was told in the last AfD Debate that starting with a stub and expanding, doing it in this way and having both myself and another admin "keep an eye on it" would be the best way to complete to conform fully as well as keep the quality and standard of the article high. This takes time as people have their own lives and live in different timezones. Could some admin please close this AfD as it is invalid, and allow others to expand the article please. This AfD has been active for 8 Days now, well over the 5 days as per policy The initiating admin has cited some untruths about why he has initiated such AfD in this messy debate. The article stub was added and is being "watchlisted" by a notable wikipedia admin, and needs no further AfD debate until others can contribute to expanding the article, by ensuring they cite sources as they contribute as per the stub that fully complies to such. Again Doctorfluffy, thankyou kindly for at least making a point worth noting which I agree with, but I can't work miracles in only a few days by myself: but rest assured both I and others will ensure the quality of this article is not compromised as it expands once this AfD is closed. Nobody likes to waste time expanding an article when it is proposed for deletion. Thankyou.--T3Smile 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sophomore

Do we need an article? Discussions on the talk page have proven inconclusive so I ask for a wider audience. The article is basically a dicdef (a disputed one at that) and I don't see any way it can be expanded. One possible option would be to redirect it to second year or educational stages, but it is also used as an equestrian term. Or should we just leave it as a little article and accept that it'll never be more than that? violet/riga (t) 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Well written stub article Rackabello 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article seems too much like a definition and essentially restates what the Wiktionary entry says. Icestorm815 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I've expanded some of the educational bits. There's much that has been written both in terms of formal "student career" checklists and in books and magazines. It could also be reduced to a standard disambiguation page, but I think there's enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think your additions might be better in the tenth grade article that already includes references to this term. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. In its current form, its an acceptable article, and even if it is nothing more, at least wikipedia has something on the term. People who search for the term would prefer to see this than nothing I'd say. THE KING 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to Tenth grade. Nothing substantial to say here beyond a dicdef. Unless someone can rewrite the article to actually show some sort of notability to this concept, it's just another name for your second year of school. -- Kesh 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Second year. Lenticel made a good point below, so I went looking. Currently, Freshman redirects to First year, which is a nicely balanced article with multiple national views. The current article at Second year is Scottish-oriented, but could be expanded to match First year. We can merge the relevant info into there, and leave this article as a redirect. -- Kesh 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I looked at the tenth grade and other grade levels and I think it is a little bit ethnocentric (US, Canada and Australia mostly). I got curious of these grade levels because it is rare in our country (6th grade is the last level here and then the student becomes a High School freshman). If the grade levels were discussed in a world view I'll be okay with delete if those articles stay as is then the article is worth keeping to house the views of other countries.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment it does have the feel of a dictionary definition (the first source IS the Merriam Webster dictionary). This would be a cute subsection to a theoretical article called "high school". However, I don't know if it warrants its own article, unless it gets flushed out a LOT. Mindraker 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, as obviously something that ought to be in WP, which can be verified and sourced reliably very easily into more than a dicdef. Bearian'sBooties 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think this has highlighted the wider issue of our coverage of years in education, with second year, tenth grade, and educational stages all being rather poor. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. When I (as a German) first became interested in College Football back in the 1980s, I wondered what a Sophomore is. Freshman, Junior and Senior was easier to figure out. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't understand a word you look it up in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. violet/riga (t) 09:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Actually Violet/riga, I look everything up in Wiki. whether it be during college work, or at the job. This article is an acceptable stub. Viperix 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the Wiktionary/Wikipedia overlap debate, but we shouldn't simply give out a dicdef. The question is whether or not the article constitutes more than that, and you believe it is which is fair enough. violet/riga (t) 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep as WP:POINT violation. VioletRiga appears to have been waging a one-man war against the use of the word "sophomore" in music articles to refer to a musician's second album. Every time I use this word in an article, Riga changes it. And I'm not the first one to notice his extreme distaste for the term, which is now discouraged at WP:MUSTARD, apparently much due to his instigation. Sorry if you don't like the word, and all, but it's a commonly used term in both education and music, and quite encyclopedic. Chubbles 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Silly thing to say. You might note that I initiated this to be a discussion and haven't even voted to delete it myself. violet/riga (t) 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Most folks consider nominating an article for deletion to be an inherent Delete vote, unless otherwise specified. -- Kesh 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    - In many cases, but I think the way I worded it was sufficient to convey that it wasn't really a delete vote. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Rlevse as nonsese. J Milburn 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiz-giggle

Non-notable neglogism. Prod removed by IP without comment. Hut 8.5 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete WP:NEO or not, it sounds like patent nonsense Rackabello 18:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at 19:27, October 23, 2007 by Violetriga. This afd discussion closed by B1atv 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)

[edit] Todays television

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as a "duh". - Smashville 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking about tagging it, but I didn't know what it would fall under. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't either...which is why I think there should just be a duh. Like if someone creates "Joey Jones is the King of the Universe and is teh awesome"...technically..."King of the Universe" is an assertion of notability... Smashville 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't think anyone would mind in this case if an admin excersized the right to IAR. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete...yes but it's an unproven, unsourced claim, plus you can also say that article was little or no context too :) Wildthing61476 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - I tagged it as speedy using the "little or no context" - I'm not sure if that's a valid use of that reason; but there should be a snow or iar reason for articles such as this - You may joke about "king of the universe" asserting notability; but I've had csd nominations rejected on (what appeared to me to be) similar grounds ;-) B1atv 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Jorgensen

This person does not appear to meet the notability criteria; prod removed by creator FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delete no sign of notability. Doesn't even mention the award winning company he supposedly created. Or is "award winning" refering to youth awards he won in the 70's? Improbcat 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :*Weak Keep I light of major changes to the article I'm changing my vote. Needs wikification, and references but now looks like an article that might go somewhere. Improbcat 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I'm reverting my vote (yes again), given the authors failure to add any source, and failure to answer my question on his talk page regarding possible COI. Improbcat 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was not to be submitted in that form. It was grossly incomplete. I have updated the article to include both items you referred as missing, as well as the rest of the article. Sorry for the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejsport (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete None of his accomplishments seem to be verifiable. The Chicago Youth Film Festival may exist, although I can't find proof of that anywhere, but it hasn't any established notability, and WP:NOTE calls him notable only if "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." A minor, local youth film festival shouldn't qualify. He also isn't notable because he "worked on" major films; lots of people pushed mops on the Star Wars set, but they aren't notable. The main criteria under the notability guideline for people require:

The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Please read WP:BIO and WP:AB before trying to re-create this page. While this person may achieve notability someday (googling him brings up a myspace page calling him only 28; dude's got lots of career ahead of him), he doesn't seem to have reached the bar yet. Deltopia 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: for Notability. I looked for secondary sources and came up with promotional material. I've added the {{unreferenced}} template to the article twice now, hoping to get at least one reliable secondary source from the author. This appears to be a vanity autobiography, although the author hasn't answered that question on his talk page. Toddstreat1 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Original author is the subject of article. He acknowledges unknowingly violating COI with the article. Improbcat 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Chom

Non-notable neologism, contested prod. A meager number of Google hits indicates that the term is not in wide use. Article on the journalist who allegedly coined the term is also up for deletion for non-notability as of this moment. --Finngall ^talk 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article is a non-notable neologism, as the nom suggested. Icestorm815 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, promoting it on Wikipedia is not the way to get your protologism into the dictionary. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, urban dictionary dot com is a better place for fake new words, not wikipedia. Mindraker 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Possibly libelous. i kan reed 02:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete that's even less clever than "General Betrayus" Ewlyahoocom 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Animal (Gaoranger)

This page is entirely fancruft and has solely an in-universe context. No amount of editing can save this article Pilotbob 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The information within the article is splitfrom other pages, as the formatting of the list (which is sourced) and much of the other material (also sourced) would clutter up the character biographies, where the content of this article would normally be. If anything, the in-universe tone can be fixed, by referencing the content more to be part of a fictional setting. In all, this is a list of fictional secondary characters, which would qualify as notable as a whole, and not fancruft as far as I can see.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT states that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series." This is a detailed summary of the events in a series, with nothing else. Please explain why the policy does not apply here. Varlak 04:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I have not stated anything to that effect. I am just stating that it is a list of minor characters, of which there are several (don't quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on me, either). If its necessary, all of the plot summary can be cut down and the barebones of the article can be remerged into its parent article. Deleting something just because it has plot summary seems deleterious to the encyclopedia as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    - WP:NOT isn't about containing plot summary, it's about containing just plot summary. What else does this article contain other than a summary of the events of a series (i.e. the plot)? Varlak 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      - It serves as a sourced list ofvarious minor characters (as well as conceptual characters) for the particular television series that the article is related to. As most of these are mecha, they also serve to describe the combinations. This has real world info, as the second half of the article lists conceptual information, which is often mentioned in various other articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this is just a summarization of plot. See WP:NOT Varlak 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: The info is needed. Fractyl 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: per Ryulong and that it was intended to avoid too much page detail and can be trimmed if necessary to avoid over-detail of plot related info. If necessary this information can be Trans-Wiked over to the Power Rangers Universe Wikia which has it's own sentai section which could use a LOT of work. I would like to say that I wish that the nominator in a cleanup tag or left some other kind of warning on the talk page first before nominating this article for deletion.-Adv193 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Much of the information, particularly the second half of the article, are taken directly from japanese source (which are referenced and available for view), and can't be found elsewhere in english. Angel the Techrat 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per all of the above. I also agree with WP:NOT#IINFO. Greg Jones II 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Strong keep? Even keeps? Has anyone read this article? There is significiant unsourced information that (even with sources) would be garbage information. I will take a quote from the beginning of this article to demonstrate the drivel contained within: "All of the Gaoranger mecha use the command "Hundred Beast Fusion" (百獣合体, Hyakujū Gattai?) to combine, with the exception of GaoHunter Evil, which used "Demon Beast Fusion" (魔獣合体, Majū Gattai?) instead. When an additional Power Animal is being added to a combination, the command "Hundred Beast Armament" (百獣武装, Hyakujū Busō?) is used".
There may be a lot of information in this article, but it is complete and utter garbage. There are few worse articles on Wikipedia. Transwiki this to Power Rangers land and throw it in the dumpster where it belongs. Again, there is no notability here, it is entirely fancruft and plot information, and cannot be cited from reliable sources. Pilotbob 04:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only reasons you think it should be deleted because you think its not salvagable. The only issue here is that you have no idea what the article is about or what its related to. The quote you cite makes perfect sense to people who know about it, and it is certainly not "garbage" or not citable to reliable sources. And I seriously think you need to watch your tone.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I also agree with what Ryulong said and If you saw the comment I made in my vote that you should used a cleanup or In-universe tag as a warning symbol before you nominated this for deletion. Two things you should know Pilotbob is a. I started putting in first episode appearances in the mecha formation summaries to state which episode it first appeared in to help make it understandable. and b. Back during the construction of the summaries long ago prior to me adding my own account name, I came up with and wrote this: Although there are numerous Power Animal combinations, what is listed here in this section are the combinations that appeared in the show, the movie, and a few other sources.. The reason why I did that was to keep the details within the parameters of the show and the official source books to avoid having it getting overflowed with two much information. Although GrnRngr.coms' list of possible combinations is a good source for explaining all the possible combinations, I wanted to avoid overdetailing as much as possible. -Adv193 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
KEEP Has source cited, so no solid reason for delete. In-universe context issue can be fix. L-Zwei 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a list of non-notable neogolisms.Without nofootnotes for primary sources, and no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, this game guide to Goa characters is just not enyclopedic by a long shot. --Gavin Collins 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a list of neologisms nor is it a game guide (it is a list of characters from a television show that uses terms that are found within the television show) and there are reliable sources that demonstrate the notability (there is the official website in Japanese and two separate English language sites that state the information in English). That shows that all of your deletion reasons are null and void.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per WP:OUTCOMES and as a maintainable and useful list. Bearian 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software that uses Subversion

This is essentially just a long list of external links. A linkfarm, nothing else. A prime example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Even if these were internal links, there would be very little rationale for this article's existence. This is essentially the list of external links which were deemed inapproprate for the main article per WP:LINKS, taken out and forked into a separate article; hardly the right way to proceed. The list itself is unmaintanable. Again, this is just a long list of external links; not very useful. Henrik Ebeltoft 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to be sure not all links are external, but the vast majority are. A self-standing linkfarm is just as bad as a linkfarm inside the main article (under "External Links" or similar). Henrik Ebeltoft 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete article exists only because I had better things to do with my time than edit war with the people at Subversion who kept reverting its removal from that article. Happy for it to go away entirely. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, that's why the discussion page exists. If you take the time to discuss major changes (in this case material that had been around for 2 years) rather than simply deleting them, you might find yourself in less "wars". Cshay 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Keep, but possibly shrink it down somewhat. If this was just external links I could see making it go, but quite a number of the links are for products which have articles. StuffOfInterest 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Just because some of the links are wikilinks is no reason to keep. That's what we have categories for. Fix that, and all you have left is a linkfarm. Delete. -Amatulic 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep List of portable software solution. Delete unless someone is willing/able to take on cleaning up all the non-notable external links, keeping just a managed list of notable blue-link content. It's a time sink for someone to do (I'm still cleaning up/down that list, but it's 100 times better now than it was at AfD time). But it can net us a good list if someone stridently takes it on. Otherwise, bye. So-- conditional keep. Who wants it? • Lawrence Cohen 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Since Chris started the page, the only substantial changes were for two external and two internal links to be added. This hardly seems to be unmaintainable spam bait. This is not merely a list of links, as it contains short summaries of software. Lists such as this are useful to start stubs. The external links should be removed (or commented out), but it seems possible to clean up this article instead of deleting it. --Karnesky 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This page existed for 2 years incorporated into the Subversion article until it was recently moved out by Chris. It was very useful to provide information and links to other pages on Wikipedia and external links.Cshay 01:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but... the current version contains 60 (yes, that's right, sixty) external links and 24 internal links (not counting redlinks). To me this looks just like a glorified linkfarm. To be sure, the list of external links is useful; but... Wikipedia is not DMOZ! I'm not sure about this being a spambait; I'm quite ready to admit that the links are useful, well-chosen, not spammy, etc. etc., but, still... it just looks like one of those things that Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Henrik Ebeltoft 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Further comments List of portable software may not be such a good example: it is a well-organized list of internal links, which is of course perfectly acceptable, and indeed very welcome. Further, it seems to me that a notion exists among some editors that when an article accumulates a non-encyclopedic or otherwise undesirable list, e.g. list of trivia items (discouraged per WP:TRIVIA), external links (discouraged per WP:LINKS) or something similar, then a solution is to remove the list from the main article and move it into a dedicated page. This hardly seems to me the proper way to proceed.
- However, if this article is pruned of the excessive external links and organized in a sensible way, I have no real objection to it, provided someone keeps an eye on it, to prevent accumulation of spam. Henrik Ebeltoft 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Please have a look at the history of the article; the reason it was split was because editors such as User:Cshay were opposed (on inclusionist/ WP:ILIKEIT grounds) to removing it entirely, and nobody was apparently at all interested in cleaning it up or maintaining it. On the other hand, there was less opposition to a split. I took the path of least resistance, because my goal was to turn Subversion into something other than a huge list of pointless bullets. There's no indication that the users most vocal about keeping the article are planning on giving it any more attention in future than they are now. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Japanese people

This page intends to list all notable Japanese people. To me this seems completely inpractical for a singe article. There must be a huge number of notable Japanese people past and present who are not included on the list - even if only the section of ficitonal Japanese people was truely complete it would still proably make it the longest article on Wikipedia. The page is also redundant as many of the listings are duplicated in the various pages from the catagory Lists of Japanese people. This is a catagory not an article. Guest9999 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete should be a category. I also wonder what the is the criteria for other notable people. And fictional people should not be included. Seems like a mess of an endless list.Ridernyc 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree, the purpose of a category is to provide groupings for articles, and this is a perfect application. And fictitious people should be removed; that's what the List of fictitious people article is for. -Amatulic 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is already covered by Category:Japanese people, Category:People of Japanese descent, Category:Japanese people by ethnic or national origin and there are multiple 'specialized' lists which can be found at the Category:Lists of Japanese people. SkierRMH 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete In this case, I agree with Guest9999's housecleaning effort. It's a category already, and the category is a better way to navigate than this. Mandsford 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think we have a category for this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
KEEP This article-list is being deleted for the same incorrect reasons as the since overturned List of German Americans was deleted. This list is for a notable ethnic group as evidenced by its having an article and having a category. There is no valid WP reason why this list should be deleted. There is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information for the reader that categories only provide by lots of work, reading one article after another, Lists provide names, dates of birth/death, and occupation/reason for notability--in other words why one might want to then read an article on a person. The list serves as an index to the category articles. Is the list perfect? No, but the job of WP editors is to improve articles (including lists) on notable subject matter, not delete them. Hmains 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

List of German Americans was not as far as I can tell covered by other more complete articles. There is an amazingly long list of actors, why have a shorter list here. This article needs to split.Ridernyc 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Splitting a list is normal improvement work. Do it!. That is far different from deletion which is what is proposed here. Hmains 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Our users are in need of sourced, annotated information about notable Japanese individuals as contained in this article. Improve, don't delete, if you have our users in mind. There is no reason in WP's guidelines that calls for us to hamper our users' research by entirely blanking this article. As seen by the many similar deletions over the past months, this delete proposal seems to have been made solely to prove a WP:POINT, and the case that our users should not be permitted to have a well sourced, annotated list of individuals of this notable group has not been convincingly made. Neither has the case been made that a category "does the same job," as a category is clearly not sourced and properly annotated, organized by occupation and date of birth and death, etc. If editors within the community of editors active in Japan-related article (who work together at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan decide that they wish to split this article into sub-articles, then we should let them make this decision, via consensus of editors knowledgeable in this subject. Badagnani 04:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

that's not what this list is though it's just a list with no information at all other than broad categories. Also several of the subsections are redundant of other more appropriate lists. Why is there a long list of actors and actresses and at the bottom a line see also list of Japanese actors, lists of Japanese actresses. This is list is way to broad a topic, and the topics have already been split and covered. Ridernyc 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Wikipedia is not a directory and it's definitely not a list of indiscriminate data. A long list is unencyclopedic, it doesn't do much of a difference if it is referenced or not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It has already been stated that if editors within the community of editors active in Japan-related article (who work together at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan decide that, because the number of notable Japanese is so large, they wish to split this article into sub-articles by occupation or historical period, then we should let them make this decision, via consensus of editors knowledgeable in this subject, as is typically done for other similar subjects. Badagnani 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

if they have something to say the place to do it would be here.Ridernyc 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a split-off list from a notable subject and a valuable navigation aid. Suggest making it into a List of lists (such as for example List of African Americans or Lists of people) instead though, since there are so many sub-lists already created (although List of Russians and List of French people use the same type of long list organization without being randomly targeted for deletion because of it). It is however important that the information is not deleted before being recreated as a "List of lists", in case the contributing editors happen to be off-line during this deletion debate, and any new editors willing to work on it to improve it will need enough time to make sure that the individuals appearing on this list are transfered into the correct sub-lists and that reliable sources from the individual articles are used to verify that sources exist to demonstrate notability. Pia 02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should not have a List of Russians or a List of African Americans either. These lists should not exist in the first place. Burntsauce 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is a good and sensible proposal. I support it. Badagnani 06:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, merge duplicate content into relevant lists, and convert to a List of lists per Pia. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for an explanation of why lists should not be deleted merely because of the existance of similar categories. DHowell 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is also a good and sensible proposal. I support it. Badagnani 03:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yet another pointless and indiscriminate list. Use categories. This goes for ALL LISTS OF PEOPLE including List of X-type of Jewish people and List of X-type of gay, lesbian and transgender people. There should be no free pass here. Burntsauce 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - No, it really doesn't, as has been pointed out numerous times. A category is not referenced, annotated, and maintainable, and it is not organized, in a single page, by birth date/time period or occupation. Lists and categories are quite different and our users use them to find the information they are looking for in different ways. Both complement our project. Badagnani 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Hmains, Badagnani, and Pia. As they've already stated, the list allows for more information to be displayed than would a catwegory (even though the catagory (or categories) already exist. The lists allows for much more flexibility in locating information, and provides much more information than a catagory. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, as above. This is not, and is not supposed to do the same thing at all as a category. Circeus 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Much as the idea would be interesting, I think you should do as previously suggested: split this up. After the question of accuracy, I think that there is no real reason to delete this. Koryu Obihiro 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.22 (talk)
Delete - Pointless list... I'd like to see a similar page that does exist. Qaanaaq 10:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- ??? What about... Oh, I dunno, List of English people, List of French people or List of Chinese people? Circeus 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Changed to keep. If the above pages exist. (Thanks Circeus :) ) Qaanaaq 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of musicians who died due to unknown or insufficiently explained causes

Violates W:NPOV, unsourced, all information is covered in other categories and articles. Pittising 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Pittising 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete 2pac is the first name on the list. How is that unknown or insufficiently explained? Unsourced original research with to broad of an inclusion criteria.Ridernyc 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. Unsourced original research with a WP:POV inclusion criteria. --Evb-wiki 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete...complete opinion piece...Aaliyah died in a plane crash, Kurt Cobain shot himself, Elliot Smith killed himself, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix OD'd...what is unknown about those? Smashville 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per article lists that should be removed due to unknwon or insufficiently explained sources. - eo 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:OR. JJL 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Half of the list is made up of people who have had their deaths explained. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per norm. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --- Magioladitis 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Notwithstanding the fact that the current list's contents are problematic per above, this title is inherently PoV. Insufficiently explained? To whom? Nor would tightening the inclusion criteria deserve a keep: "List of musicians who died due to unknown causes" is an intersection of unrelated topics. Serpent's Choice 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It wasn't his own vomit. He choked on somebody else's vomit. Oh, and who says it's unexplained and on what authority? This is the premise for a lazy magazine or college newspaper feature, not an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Original research, not needed. • Lawrence Cohen 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete no inclusion criteria, unsourced, and a goodly number listed don't belong on the list. Perhaps WP:SNOW? SkierRMH 00:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Someone found a way to make Hendrix, Elvis and Mozart boring Mandsford 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, no wait, the other thing: Delete. This page needs to choke on it's own vomit and quick. Lugnuts 07:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete on general principals as flagrant breach of WP:UNENC and also wikislap the creator for the specific reason that most of the people quoted did not die of unknown causes. A1octopus 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfredo Prior

Contested prod. Non-notable artist. Verification is lacking, no refs, few relevant Google hits. Appears to be a copy-and-paste, though we can't find the source (may be offline). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Needs serious almost-unfixable clean up, no claim to notability, poor referencing. Temperal^xy 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - clean-up is not a reason to delete. The article does appear to be sourceable, but through spanish language sources. A google news search reveals this and this. I don't know Spanish so I can't evaluate these references well, but they would appear to be sufficient to meet notability. -- Whpq 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I agreed with Whpq, the clean-up need is not a reason for removal . See, for example links given by Whpq. If you don't know spanish well, use http://babelfish.altavista.com. For instances, this link after B/F "Towards the 15 years, Alfredo Prior began to paint figures of bears, paintings that soon were related to a series of bears of peluche that was called the children who were born hairdos. These appropriations contaminated by the infantile memories were begun to interlace with fables, myths and traditions". Really interesting and it is a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinaz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'. -- RG² 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of D'ni

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Age of D'ni

Article written totally in-universe, written like a game guide, only source is a post on a message board. Ridernyc 09:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as article hasn't any primary sources; note that message boards are not primary sources. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. There are no sober agruments for keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'. -- RG² 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bahro (Myst)

Artile written totally in-universe, with no sources. Ridernyc 09:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So the conclusion is to add sources, not to delete it. 16:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.211.231 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article has no primary sources, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. There are no sober agruments for keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or at the very least, no consensus. -- RG² 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'ni

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'ni	Articles for deletion/D'ni Ages	Articles for deletion/D'ni Guilds
Articles for deletion/D'ni Patriots	Articles for deletion/D'ni Restoration Council	Articles for deletion/D'ni items
Articles for deletion/D'ni language	Articles for deletion/D'ni numerals	Articles for deletion/D'ni wildlife

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep huge following but needs secondary, verifiable sources that are easily available with a "D'ni" search in Google. Once sources are added, I'd keep the article due to the broad scope. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. They're a major part of the Myst universe. This article needs a lot of work, though, as much of it is too in-universe and lacking references. Pinball22 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete all, or delete all but D'ni and merge the others there if needed for defensive reaons (to keep the cruft from leaking back in to WP). JJL 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep with the other articles below merged into it & sourced correctly (and re-worded as out-of-universe where needed). As Eagle said, there appear to be quite a few out there. SkierRMH 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Since most of the other D'ni articles are too large to merge and are likely to be deleted, this one is likely to improve. Since Myst is a popular franchise, and D'ni is (are?) part of that franchise, this one can and should stay. Advice-- edit heavily, include lots of links. Mandsford 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki (if that is the right word) to a dedicated D'ni pedia. Allow, perhaps, 7 days for the dedicated fans to do this; then delete all, retaining only a redirect to Myst, where there can be a cross-link to the (presumptive) dedicated Wiki. Otherwise delete all as fictives. -- Simon Cursitor 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have SEVEN DAYS to get "D'ni pedia" up and running. Don't complain. God created the universe in less time than that. Mandsford 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

how long dose it take to cut an paste code into a new wiki. Also as per other deletions you can always ask an admin for the page contents. Ridernyc 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

in fact there is already a myst wiki that needs much of this information. http://dni.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Ridernyc 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the main article, just as we have Sindar; merge D'ni numerals, which would be difficult to condense, and contains an out-of-universe note; summarize the rest, and merge the summaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article has no primary sources, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Most of the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. There are no sober agruments for keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'ni. No sourced material, so nothing to merge, but history is still there for future reference. -- RG² 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'ni Restoration Council

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'ni Restoration Council

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep needs sources but is notable. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into D'ni. Notable only in context of Myst, not independently. Barno 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into D'ni to bolster that article; this needs work on rewording to out-of-universe. SkierRMH 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article has no primary sources, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Most of the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. There are no sober agruments for keeping or merging this fancruft, as without references, it is little better than original research. --Gavin Collins 14:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Riven. No sourced material, so nothing worth merging, but it's still there in the history if need be. -- RG² 02:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ages of Riven

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 16:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ looks like original research to me. Unless secondary, verifiable sources can be referenced, this one should be deleted. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Riven article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge the basics into the Riven article. Almost all of the content is in-universe. Sourcing is also a problem. SkierRMH 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article is written from an in-universe perspective so far from the real-world that there are neither primary sources, nor reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Riven and remove in-universe writing. Joe 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'ni. No sourced material, nothing worth merging. -- RG² 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'ni Ages

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'ni Ages

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~ this has many games referenced indirectly. Due to its broad scope, this may worth reviewing more. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into D'ni article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into D'ni to bolster that article, with appropriate sourcing and out-of-universe included. SkierRMH 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as has no primary or secondary sources.--Gavin Collins 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of D'ni kings

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of D'ni kings

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into D'ni article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete these D'ni pages are fancruft that should be on a web page linked from Myst. No notability. JJL 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete There isn't anything herein that could be merged into the D'ni article. Just an in-universe list. As a side-note, the two articles linked from there Great King (Myst) and Ri'neref are non-sourced in-universe as well. SkierRMH 00:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

there are dozens of them, tons of page all unsourced all in-universe.Ridernyc 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will be bold and redirect this article to D'ni, but feel free to revert. -- RG² 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'ni language

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'ni language

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep huge following, external links provide indirect references. Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to D'ni. Not separately notable enough for a standalone article. Barno 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to what the nomination says, most of the article seems to me to be written from a proper real-world perspective, and the few bits that aren't, mostly near the end, could mostly be fixed with simple wording changes. The lack of references is a bigger problem, but, as BlindEagle points out above, it seems clear that sources for most if not all the content do exist, they merely ought to be cited properly. Ideally, most of the content should be sourced to official Cyan Worlds sources, such as the "D'ni Language Guide included in the European Collector's Edition of Myst V" mentioned in the text. In any case, this appears to be a notable conlang, and so I'm going to say keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into D'ni while the introductory paragraphs are not in-world, the remainder fluctuates back-and-forth between perspectives, often requiring an in-world understanding. As Eagle points out referencing is a problem - would Cyan Worlds sources be considered as 3rd party?... and a quick look through the Ghits, it don't appear that they are language-specific. SkierRMH 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Cyan Worlds sources: For information about a constructed language, the creators of the language are a perfectly fine and authoritative source. For information about the notability of a constructed language, they may not be sufficiently neutral and unbiased, and so other sources should be used. It all depends on what is being cited in each case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If only because there's far too much info in this article to make a successful merger possible. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 06:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep / Transwiki to WikiBooks. This is one of the better articles on a conlangs. Myst is fairly significant. I don't know how significant this is, in teh context of that RPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo daoist (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources, and is written from such an in universe perspective that it seems to have been forgotten that this is a fictional, not a real language. For example, the statement the characters appear to be styled after Hebrew and Arabic provides no context, citations or analyis that could justify keeping this article. Clearly the contributors to this article did not read Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example of a claim that should be cited, your example seems fine, but I'm not sure how you see it as being written from an in-universe perspective. In fact, it seems clearly written from an out-universe perspective, given that, within the Myst universe, the D'ni language and writing system is apparently depicted as being older than human languages such as Hebrew or Arabic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment In my view, this is a classic example of in universe perspective. The Persian alphabet might be described as being styled after Arabic script; Modern Hebrew might be syled after Hebrew alphabet; but D'ni language was probably made up by the game creators, probably with the intention of giving it a mysterious or ominous look or feel. The creators probably got this idea from other games; I can't imagine that they studied classics, as this language has no real-world context - it comes from a game guide.--Gavin Collins 12:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This conlang is a well-developed and important part of a very notable computer game franchise, so it's notable. Wiwaxia 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Its not a a conlang, its a fictional language; perhaps the article, which is written in an in universe perspective, mislead you? --Gavin Collins 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fictional languages are a sobset of conlangs, aren't they? Wiwaxia 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is a conlang. jonathon 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a conlang, it's not the most developed one ever; but, it can be spoken aloud, it has gramatical rules, etc. Joe 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'ni. No sourced material, nothing to merge. -- RG² 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'ni wildlife

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'ni wildlife

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Broad scope across many games. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge (heavily trimmed) to D'ni. Not notable except within the game series. Barno 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge the basics into [D'ni]]. Notability out-of-universe doesn't seem to be supportable (a quick G-search of a couple of the 'species' looked like mostly discussion groups, not 3rd party coverage). SkierRMH 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as article hasn't any primary sources; note that message boards are not primary sources. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. This article needs to be released and returned to the fansite from which it originated. --Gavin Collins 14:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No notability outside the universe of Myst. Pilotbob 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeesha

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Myst article. Main character of one game within the franchise. Easily merged. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (merge). JJL 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as no reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional character. --Gavin Collins 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sourced material, nothing to merge. -- RG² 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'ni numerals

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D'ni numerals

in-universe article that has no references. Ridernyc 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with D'ni language. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete the lot of D'ni * and merge any useful to Myst or possibly D'ni (itself highly questionable). JJL 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into D'Ni, with the codicil of sourcing & providing references.SkierRMH 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge brief description and possibly illustration into D'ni. SFT | Talk 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge with D'ni language, obviously. I guess there's nothing wrong with short grammatical descriptions of languages, but those shouldn't be spread out over multiple pages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 06:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge; I would choose D'ni for the target, but if D'ni language remains, I see no problem with merging it there. It should be noted that all these related articles are up for deletion; see the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'ni. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as this fictional counting system has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability per se. --Gavin Collins 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Heitner

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Darren Heitner

Articles for deletion/Darren Heitner (2nd nomination)

Article on a sports agent, with some additional childhood claims to notability, who is of debatable notability. Prior AFD became irrelevant because of a major rewrite and resourcing of the article, but was closed by the editor who did the rewrite. This admin, and the consensus at deletion review realized that the article should be reevaluated for notability. The DRV nominator said in part "Although the article is apparently sourced (try following the links!) this person has not achieved anything of note. The article is basically his CV (COI may apply; a notability tag was removed in April by User:Dheitner); the external links are advertising spam;". This is a technical nomination on my part, I offer no opinion. GRBerry 15:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete My comment from my DRV nom, quoted above by GRBerry, stands as the reason for this AfD too. WP is not for personal promotion, and the notability assertions (winning a couple of minor competitions as a child) do not clear the WP:BIO bar... or we'd all have articles. EyeSerene^TALK 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is an absurd article. Everyone has some sort of childhood awards that they have won. Collectively or alone, they are not notable in any way, shape or form. He was never recognized in any national newspaper or even in more than a local section of a local newspaper. Give me a break. People who have won much greater awards than a local nintendo contest, or a poster contest (I'm talking about grant winners, scholarship winners, etc real awards of distinction....) don't have wikipedia pages. What's next? Are we going to open up wikipedia to anyone who has a few childhood trophies for their 5th grade science fair project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.194.152 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article's subject is just not notable. All of the "sources" cited are local newspaper sources in his own area, and mostly just community & local news sections of the papers as well. The only thing in the article that even begins to approach notability is the nintendo contest, and I would doubt that too since, based on the media coverage of that, it was just a local nintendo contest and not a major national contest. To put this simply, wikipedia is not the place to post personal resumes and CVs. Dr. Cash 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume so one can get financial gain. By putting an entry up, Mr. Heitner is trying to gain a level of celebrity so to speak in order to make himself look more popular and accomplished than what is really true. If this article gets to stay, then a plethora of others will have the green light to have their own entries so they can use it as a form of "professional bragging". I nominate this entry for deletion from now until forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.196.142 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't believe that the article's subject fulfills any of the criteria in WP:BIO. The noted achievements aren't enough to establish notability. henrik•talk 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I have no idea how this got here in the first place and was shocked (but thankful) that people were made aware of this article via an accidental DYK placing. Defintely not notable, reads like a personal resume and ad, considering he wrote the article himself.. I would say this was done as an ego boost or to try and increase his profile. If a personal profile like this is allowed on a site like Wikipedia, anybody could claim to be notable because they won a contest when they were younger, or have contributed something in a large way. - Boochan 08:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the above statements. This article is clearly meant as a promotion for the subject and author, as well as for his business ventures. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. - Chachilongbow 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bo Gorman

Non-notable reality show contestant. Original author persists in removing warning tags after being told not to do so, and refuses to address the issues warned. Unverifiable personal information. Last edits done under anon IP address, likely sockpuppet. Only verification is an IMDB page. No other relevant Google hits. May be self-promotion/COI. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep I'm going to have to go with keep on this one. He's had enough roles to show sort sort of notability, but by the barest of margins. Article does read like a promo piece and needs to be re-written from a NPOV Wildthing61476 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Being a body double is not a role, even if it is for Matt Damon. And "Dorm mate" on a soap opera sounds like a really small part. --Evb-wiki 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A handful of very minor roles. "Baring a striking resemblance to Matt Damon..." - does this mean he did nude scenes only? Clarityfiend 22:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Sc straker 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for deleting previous warning tags. This is my first creation and I thought I was doing something wrong; not an intentional attempt at removing warnings. Verification is from an interview with the subject on October 22, 2007. Hope that explains and hopefully deletion will not be neccesary.--Jpfterps 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you conducted an interview with the subject for the purposes of this article, that is a violation against Wikipedia policies regarding original research. Articles here are supposed to be based on information from reliable, independent sources. Personal interviews between author and subject violate this principle, as their verification is nearly impossible. Frankly, it wouldn't matter here as Gorman simply isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete. I was really on the fence about this, but finally determined that he just doesn't have enough credits. Every big star, like Matt Damon, has a photo-double. So should they all be included on Wikipedia? Once he has a role of notability, I'll be happy to support his article.TGreenburgPR 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there are no reliable sources demonstrating notability. An imdb.com entry is not sufficient to make someone notable -- I'm in there too. -- But|seriously|folks 08:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live Free or Die Hard (video game)

"Nothing is known about the game" - therefore it can't be notable! Prod was contested so I am nominating it for deletion via AFD B1atv 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: It's coming out. It's been ESRB rated, has a developer (Sensory Sweep Studios), a publisher (Vivendi) and has been widely reported. You'll just end up having to write the entire article again when it does come out. Nothing was known about Poker Smash for months, too. Just because it's not coming out NOW!!!!!!!! doesn't mean it's not notable. JAF1970 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

- Well, that's fine. When it does come out and/or has a confirmed release date and can otherwise be substantiated for existence, then it can have an article. Saying that we're just going to get it back when it's notable is not so much a straw-man argument as a "duh!". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If it has been "widely reported", perhaps you could include some of those reports in the article as per WP:Sources. Having a developer and publisher doesn't make a piece of software notable - every single piece of software has a developer and publisher. Where are the sources for this? What makes this a notable software as opposed to any other piece of software? B1atv 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: It's not so much about the game as about a rumor that a game may come out with that name. If there is something notable with that title, the article would have to be rewritten completely. -Steve Sanbeg 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No, it's not coming out now (to note the currently sole keep !vote), but the problem is that it has no confirmed date other than this year - which is soon to come to a close. As such, I'm not !voting delete because it is not coming out now, but because 1) there is no release date (only a year), 2) only rumors exist to the existence/development of this tie-in game (see the two articles), and 3) because, to quote the article in its current state, "nothing is known about the game" beyond an ESRB rating and a year of release. Even if you deal with 2 and 3, you still have 1, and even then, that release date absolutely, positively must be substantiated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP isn't a gaming news service, if half of what can be said about a title is "we don't know anything" then there's obviously no need for an article. As soon as tangible details appear construction of an actual article can begin. Someone another 07:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - stripped of speculation, there isn't really an article. -- Whpq 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Information userfied at user talk page in case creator can source and reach consensus to incorporate into parent article.. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Weevil

Article on a robot from UK TV's Robot Wars. Suggest merging the information there, nothing uniquely notable about this particular robot. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killertron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable and no content required for merge. No redirect necessary either. violet/riga (t) 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - just not enough information to stand on it's own. Also lacking references to related articles and categorization. It should be enough to post the content of the article on the talk page for robot wars or something, let them handle it, and move on. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable reality show contestant ;-) There is nothing sourced to merge, but a redirect might be useful (or it might not). Eluchil404 02:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Ridley Road Market

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation. Text drawn from these URLs: http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/sightseeing-national/ridley-road-food-market/1025867/, http://www.talkingcities.co.uk/london_pages/shopping_markets.htm and http://www.londonphotos.org/archives/ridley_road_market_dalston_east_london.html. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks context, lacks reliable sources, and is written in a tone that's pure advertising. In addition to this, it is unclear that this is a notable place. Prod removed without improvements. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

weak keep Although the personal journal/photo album style is distracting, it doesn't look like advertising, although it doesn't look like an encyclopedia article either. It seems verifiable enough that it could be stubbed. -Steve Sanbeg 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. While I'm sure this is a nice place, the article's layout says "picture gallery" - which Wikipedia is not for. This is more suitable for a webhost, which we aren't. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've deleted an image. This is not advertising, its a verifiable, real world bustling market. Please don't delete it, am happy to hear words of advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfinn (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

- ...is it notable? Can that notability be corroborated with some reliable information? Can that information be verified? If yes to all of those, I will change my mind, and recommend a cleanup. Another consideration: we aren't National Geographic. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reshitting

No references, possible hoax but no evidence of notability even if it is genuine. Handful of GHits, but not obvious that these relate to the same concept. Warning: the content of the article is somewhat unpleasant to read. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN and unverifiable. --Evb-wiki 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. NN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holger Weins (Facedesigner)

Delete. No evidence of notability; 46 unique Google hits for the name. ... discospinster _talk 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The lack of reliable sources for this article is a major concern here. Does not seem to meet WP:BIO as well. The person has not been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO; no verifiable awards, just bragging from someone that seems a little too close to the subject. No apparent reliable sources whatsoever, at least on the web. Not even his alleged employer lists him on their web page. Since he "doesn't talk in public about his part in the life of the European upper crust and they appreciate his discretion" there won't be reliable independent sources anytime soon, right? --Closeapple 17:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources. It seems the entire article is based on someone's opinion. TGreenburgPR 01:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van Darkholme

Gay-Male porno actor. Article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO with regard to porno actors. There are no references per WP:RS. It reads like a vanity bio and as one of the editors was the subject himself there is an element of WP:COI present. The verifiability tag has been present since September but hasn't been addressed. -- WebHamster 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. WP:PORNBIO states "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" and, in terms of gay male porn, I suggest that he was the first muscular Asian top in Western gay porn and the first Asian performer in Western bondage porn (the article mentions this but not in detail) and thus is "iconic" and "groundbreaking". He single-handedly broke down a stereotype that Asian men in gay porn must be slender submissive bottoms. He's written a book (linked here) and illustrated it with his own photographs. He appeared in Playgirl and has both acted and directed in films as per IMDB. All things considered, I'd suggest that he is notable when compared to the average performer. Accounting4Taste 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've added a reference link to the book and deleted much of the stuff that would probably be WP:COI that would have required a verifiability tag; anything that's there can be verified from within the article, so I trust it will not be incorrect to remove that tag. Accounting4Taste 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep He's actually a minor celeb of sorts in the bondage community and his annual performances at Folsom and Dore allet fair ahve been going on for years (over a decade I believe). Benjiboi 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar hero 4 icons of rock

Appears to be an article about a forthcoming PlayStation 2 game. However it is written in a non-encyclopaedic style and may violate WP:CRYSTAL Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as Hoax/Nonsense. I can't find anything where Guitar Hero 4 is in development, yet alone in development for PS2. Wildthing61476 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and hoax •Malinaccier Public• ^T/C 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per above Will ^(talk) 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as crystal balling and possibly hoax. Is it too much to ask for Guitar Hero 3 to release before we start making stuff up on the next in the series? -- saberwyn 23:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Neither the US or UK official sites mention this - and #3 isn't on the board yet either! SkierRMH 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a bunch of wobbly bollocks. Someone another 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wizards of Waverly Place (disambiguation)

Not a proper disambig. Appears to be trying to duplicate the function of a category, in disambig form. There is only one target of the name "Wizards of Waverly Place", the show itself. The other targets are misc characters and other things associated with the show. Much better handled with a category. TexasAndroid 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Not a real disambiguation page. Also, no disambiguation page is needed. DCEdwards1966 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
comment - I have now created Category:Wizards of Waverly Place, the category that IMHO should be used instead of this thing. - TexasAndroid 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an improper disambig page... and thanks to TexasAndroid for creating the appropriate category! SkierRMH 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not a real Disambig. A disambig shows when there's more then 1 meaning to something, in which there isn't all of those links can be shown by simply viewing the actual article. Myzou 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is only one entry that belongs in this article so no disambiguation needed. I have added the show to the Waverly disambiguation page.--NrDg 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should not be deleted becuase look at the Hannah Montana onw it refers to episodes as well as the main characters and media relating to it, shouldn't that be a category , Hannah Montana should only lead to the show as for the character it cna be clicked on the show's page, the disambiguation for WOWP, is only foolwing same uses as other disambig functions on other pages. If it is deletd then a lot of other wikipedia pages should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.46.105 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that is not a valid argument. Hannah Montana IS a disambigulation. There is A. Hannah Montana, the TV show. B. Hannah Montana the musical artist, who came FROM the show, however, is not the show. Two different things. Myzou 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had understood what I said you wouldn't have said that, they are both so closely related becuase she is the main character in the show, they're not 2 adversely different things that someone bmight be looking for the character but they get the show page. The link for the character will be on the show's apge. If it was something like I don't know "Run." Which one is a show and one is a totally unrelated musical artist then it would be OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.46.175 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding. The TV Show is just that, a TV show that was made as a TV show. Hannah Montana is a REAL MUSICAL ARTIST. She doesn't go by Miley Cyrus on her record labels, she goes by Hannah Montana. Similar to how the Cheetah Girls are both a musical group, and a movie. Hannah Montana the musical artist was made in the TV show, but has since grown so far past that TV show it isn't funny. The TV show is Miley STEWART who is a secret pop star Hannah Montana, however, everyone knows Miley Cyrus is Hannah Montana. -.- Myzou 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Hannah Montana (disambiguation) page to remove stuff that is not ambiguous and make it a proper disambigous page. What is left are articles and topics with the phrase "Hannah Montana" in them. Using an example of another improper disambiguation pages does not justify this one. --NrDg 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Landry

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Close, apparently speedy deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I, the deleter, have been persuaded to give it another chance here at AFD. - TexasAndroid 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Local TV personality is not notable, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to WOFL Non-notable content, probably better to redirect to his station. Nate 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonopia

Previously, I have speedily deleted the article as promotional; after an e-mail request from the user (who claimed some amount of third-party coverage), I undeleted it to allow it to be cleaned up. Even though the page has been listed at Wikipedia:Cleanup for two weeks, it has only undergone cosmetic edits from the creator. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 14:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as lack of secondary sources and weasal words suggests this is promotional. --Gavin Collins 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by User:TexasAndroid at 16:01, October 23, 2007. This afd closed by B1atv 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure))

[edit] Jennifer Johnson (Broadcaster)

NN television news anchor, seems very promotional. Rackabello 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Close, apparently speedy deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suburban Tragedy

Barely notable band. Only 1 reference[22] can serve to establish the band's notability and it is only a short article from the newspaper about the release of one of their CDs. It does not cover the rest of the info in the article, so most of the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Mr.Z-man 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails band notability on most counts; no multiple non-trivial published works, no charted hits, no tours, no albums released non-independently, etc. SkierRMH 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Already Deleted by TexasAndroid at 16:03, October 23, 2007 (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. Also G11 - advert (spammy campaign)). Afd discussion closed by B1atv 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)

[edit] Ashwin Madia

The subject of this article does not meet the criteria for notability. In particular, as a politician, he is only a candidate for a nomination, and has never held office. Search for reliable sources turns up nothing to indicate notability. Original author removed speedy (bio). Whpq 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Close, apparently speedy deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vic and Marty

There is no verifiable information about this purported project either on Internet Movie Database or on Google. Even if this project is authentic, it does not meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guidelines for films. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Google throws up nothing useful; should it turn out to be true, verifiable information will appear for a film starring Will Smith and it can be recreated when it enters production as per WP:NF. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I threw up a manuscript once; I'm still looking for a publisher, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No IMDB or AMG listing, no relevant Ghits, and Universal site doesn't have it listed. SkierRMH 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Shabadoo

This article is postulating that the term "Joey Shabadoo" is somehow a pop culture term. The problem is that this term is not demonstrated to be notable by any reliable sources. Sources provided for this claim include anonymous comments in a news article and "Urban Dictionary" definitions. The simple fact that an individual or individuals use this term as a username in no way demonstrates any sort of notability. I can't find any verifiable proof that this term is used in any way that demonstrates notability. The article should be deleted. Isotope23 ^talk 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. "References" do not support the assertions contained in the article. Unverifiable. WP:NN in any case. --Evb-wiki 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete yet another attempt to use Wikipedia to support a new neologism. JuJube 15:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep- I am the creator of the article, and I did not get a notice this page was being nominated for deletion, so it is a bad faith nom/submarine nom firstly. Secondly, this term is widely used and recognised, producing an array of ghits. the page needs work, but is largely notable. This nomination is totally premature, rather time should be spent upgrading it.JJJ999 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, try and assume a little good faith there JJJ999. Informing the article creator is not a necessity when submitting an AFD. Normally I try to do so as a courtesy, this time I got sidetracked with something else before I sent you a message. Second, Google hits are meaningless from the standpoint of the notability criteria because they don't prove anything; that is why they are not part of the criteria. Finally, with all due respect, I'd rather spend my time enhancing and upgrading articles where I see potential for the core subject matter being notable and verifiable. At this point, the Joey Shabadoo article does not meet that criteria. If you can find evidence of notability from reliable sources please do, but I took some time to look around and I found no evidence this is a notable concept or even a prolific meme.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How is this a bad faith nom? Delete since Wikipedia is not the place to support your new neologism. We don't put articles on here in case they get notable. And it's only a courtesy to notify the editors of a page of the AfD...accusing an editor of a bad faith nomination just because you created the article is just ridiculous. Smashville 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that it's not policy to notify article authors of AfDs on their articles. JuJube 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Term is defined in a number of different ways, but the sheer magnitude of use, almost entirely for anonymous names, makes a prima facie case for the adoption of the term in popular culture, even if it is not in standard dictionaries. eg (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22joey+shabadoo%22+OR+%22joey+joe+joe%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=20&sa=N)JJJ999 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would respond that the usage of this as a "username" doesn't really make any strong case for the adoption of this term in popular culture... stating that would be original research as Deltopia (talk · contribs) has stated below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)

Delete and Merge any notable, sourceable knowledge which may ever appear into the The Last Temptation of Homer. I use the subjunctive in this case, because no notable, sourceable knowledge has yet appeared. It may be that wikipedia is ahead of media watching pop culture at this point -- in a few weeks, Newsweek or People or someone might run a blurb about this new pop-culture phenomenon, Joey Shabadoo, and we can source that and use it. But to write an article about what the phenomenon is based solely on our own observations about it violates the No Original Research policy; we just can't do it. Deltopia 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope23's and JuJube's comments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

After review of the arguments, it was noted that consensus was to delete per WP:BLP. This is a change. Bearian 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) The result was keep due to the many improvements up to the Heymann standard, including addition of over 20 in-line cites and dozens of links since nominated for deletion. Passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, although some unsourced statements about living persons must be removed ASAP Users are cautioned to assume good faith and not to respond angrily to comments of other users. Bearian 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killercop.com

In its current state, this article is a massive slab of one-sided advocacy, rather than an NPOV encyclopedia article. The current state of the article is so bad that I think it's worth considering deletion as an NPOV violation unless the article can be rewritten into an non-advocacy NPOV article before this AfD expires. The Anome 09:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the article seems to have been substantially revised since nomination: however, it's still a terrible mess. -- The Anome 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give it some time. We have two individuals (myself and Wheresleaelat) who are committed to the article and are actively working on it. Yes, it is a mess, but on the other hand it is an interesting case and is historically interesting. —Noah 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Anome, saying "it's still a terrible mess" says little, might I suggest you submit some specific corrections of things that you dispute to clean up the article. Then maybe a list of sections first you believe need editing, then which paragraphs, sentences or words. That sounds fair, right? I agree with Noah, it is an unusual and interesting case, and is also historically interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.164.78 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Articles need to be based on secondary coverage; what little news reporting I can find of this case focuses on Sutcliffe being convicted of identity theft and use of the internet to threaten people. There's no press coverage suggesting that the website itself was particularly notable, and no reliable coverage suggesting any controversy over its shutdown. The article is being used to make attacks on the prosecutor and judge, again claims which are not reflected in secondary coverage of the case. The article is overwhelmingly original research based on primary sources (the court documents), and gives undue weight to interpretations which are not present in the secondary coverage. A neutral article based on secondary sources would be on Sutcliffe, not his website, and would be rather short, noting the crimes he has been convicted of. This article covers various twists in his court case and is essentially advocacy for him — I can't see how anything less than a complete rewrite from scratch would fix it, and even then it's doubtful whether the coverage would warrant a bio article. Thomjakobsen 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I made a hasty initial "keep", but I thought that the NY Times, Salon references were covering the controversy and thus it was a resolvable content dispute. I reverted after realising they didn't mention this case, only recent coverage of the prosecutor involved, then went looking for actual sources. Thomjakobsen 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The page lists multiple secondary sources, yet that fact is ignored. What defines the site as "particularly notable?" Press coverage only? Must it be particularly? I think personally that the removal of any Internet site, by the government, makes it highly notable, and more so when it is done without charges or explainations. If you believe the articles are "attacks" on the parties, feel free to balance the article out and add something to balance it out. You say, "The article is overwhelmingly original research based on primary sources (the court documents), and gives undue weight to interpretations which are not present in the secondary coverage." Huh? What does that mean, care to break it down for us non-lawyers?

You also say, "This article covers various twists in his court case and is essentially advocacy for him." I disagree, I think the article shows all sides of the case since one can read the entire case and all of the mentions about killercop.com, and make their own conclusions. Just like a jury.

When you say you, "reverted after realising they didn't mention this case," in your last paragraph, which case would that be? Both articles reference killercop.com, so what is the the issue?

I vote to not delete but continue allowing it to be modified. Deleting wold just add to the belief that the government does censor speech and press. Plus that is kind of drastic, unless one has a non NPOV agenda. Just my thoughts. Bill 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant article 16, the New York Times one: it's about the prosecutor who was involved in this case, but the article doesn't mention the case at all. What I meant by original research is that we have to base articles like this on secondary coverage — e.g. newspaper articles covering the case. We can't just go straight to the primary sources (e.g. court documents) and let the readers "make their own conclusions", because the way in which those primary sources are presented is subject to bias and is essentially "original research". Examples: "The Sentence" compares it to another case and implies that the sentence in this case was unfairly harsh, but that kind of comparison isn't made in any of the secondary press coverage. "The Judge" presents allegations against the trial judge but they have nothing to do with this particular case, and haven't been linked to it in the press coverage. There simply isn't enough neutral press coverage of the case to cover it in this kind of depth, so we can't tell which points are important and which are being brought up because it makes the accused look good. For example, the controversy surrounding the prosecutor — it could be included if the press coverage marked it as significant in relation to this trial, but they didn't. Mentioning it here implies there's a link between that controversy and her actions in this trial. Even if these are all solid facts, the bias is in which facts are being presented — which ones are marked as being somehow significant. We avoid that by giving details roughly equal weight to what they were given in secondary coverage, and in this case there simply isn't enough detailed secondary coverage to be able to do that. If the case really is "historically significant", then it'll get covered as that somewhere, either in newspapers or books or in a law journal, and then we can write a balanced article based on that coverage. Until then, it's just the interpretation of whoever's working on the article, and that's against the no original research policy. Thomjakobsen 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I can't speak for Noah but I would have no problem with your removing Article 16 then. As for the sentence section, please rewrite it an make it NPOV. I am going to the court to get more articles/public documents later this week. Thanks for your help, guidance and feedback. 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresleaelat (talk • contribs)

Delete Hopeless POV problems. someone else should start over. Though I dont think that usually justifies deleting an article, this is incoherent enough to be an exception. I also wonder about BLP. the article is not titled Stephen Sutcliffe, but that's what it is really about. DGG (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Your opinion that the entire article has "hopeless" problems lends nothing to the discussion other then to reflect a non NPOV. Be specific if you want to contribute. Since "Steven" Sutcliffe is the author of killercop.com they are naturally one in the same and they must be intertwined. Bill 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you connected to this Sutcliffe guy in any way? Thomjakobsen 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
No. But since you are going way off the discussion and adding nothing, are you connected to the government in any way? Bill 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So your User:Wheresleaelat account has nothing to do with User talk:Wheresericat, ~~who was blocked last year for vandalizing~~ (edit: who created the previous) Killercop article and is the same username used by what appears to be Sutcliffe when posting his story to this forum? Thomjakobsen 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Correct, and it appears you are telling half of the story about the "vandalism." Read the bottom of the page, where it says that account was unblocked because the user was not "vandalizing" the page but deleting it. And I noticed you never answered my question, after I was polite enough to answer yours. I will take you non response as a yes. I sense anger and hostility in your attitude, and I resent it. Bill 01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nice find to add to the wiki page by the way, I must have missed that one. I'll add it to the article.

OK, I've struck through the part about vandalism. And no, I'm not connected in any way with your government; if you look in the history for this page you'll see I started with a "keep", since this was the first I'd heard of it. So SS posts as "Wheresericat", you work on the same article as "Wheresleaelat" and expect us to believe you're not the same person? Thomjakobsen 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you want. I thought this was a discussion page about the wiki entry. Who I am and who you are are irrelevant to the page. Now, if you wish to discuss editing it, I am all ears. And I am black. A black man who is all ears. Bill 07:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am all for making the page a NPOV, but one can not be expected to work under such extreme conditions listed above. My sources are my sources. Further false accusations, insinuations, or wild theories will be ignored. Any intelligent discussions on how to make the page keepable is open for further discussion. Sovereign797, Noah and others have spent a lot of time and research on this article. Contribute please to the editing to make it NPOV, your thoughts and points on topic are welcome. False accusations, insinuations, and COINTEL are not helpful. Bill 07:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned in that last breath I'll say: I'm interested in the article because I'm interested in the case. However, I am diametrically opposed to the reasoning and arguments that Bill has put forth in this discussion. If anything I see my purpose in editing the article as an effort to help Wheresleaelat move towards a Wikipedia style of writing and away from "the man is out to get me" style of writing. <insert smiley face here> Peace and Love. —Noah 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And you are doing a great job, please keep it up. I am new at this but trying to learn and appreciate all the input. I to am interested in the case, not because I am connected to Sutcliffe, but for the issues it represents. And as I have said before and will say again, feel free to edit it to bring it to the style of Wiki. I don't think anyone is out to get me. I was just waiting for the next person to ask me if I am Dumbledore and am I really gay. <insert smiley face here> Bill 08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: there's next to no media coverage of "killercop.com". There is coverage of the Global Crossing incident, and that's what would be covered in an article complying with the neutrality policies. The name of the article would have to be changed — probably to "Steven Sutcliffe" since the case itself wasn't given any name in the press — and the introductory paragraph would state that he was convicted for threatening GC executives and posted employees' personal details online, including their social security numbers. That's what got all the media coverage, although you'd hardly guess given how the current article is presenting it as an issue of censorship regarding the killercop site: see [23], [24], [25]. Killercop hardly gets a look-in, and a neutral article would reflect the coverage given in those kind of articles, not the selectively-chosen parts of the court documents you've got there at the minute. Do you really want that kind of article about yourself for everyone to see? I've called for deletion because it's basically a defence of your side of the story. If someone really had it in for you, they'd be saying "keep" and would edit it to show what the media coverage focused on, in line with our policies, and the result would not be very flattering. That wouldn't be in anyone's interests, certainly not yours, and I don't think the case was big enough to justify an article, so having such an article would probably violate our policies on biographies of living people notable only for one event. And please, let's drop the pretence that you're not Sutcliffe. A few searches provided links that explain why you chose "Wheresleaelat" as a username, but I'm not posting them here for privacy reasons and out of courtesy. I've asked politely a few times in a way that avoids the use of these links (apart from the forum post I linked to), so it's best if you just admit it without these accusations that I'm being hostile or paranoid. I've got nothing against you, and I'd be making the same arguments as above if a disgruntled former GC exec or LA cop tried to write an article like I've described above attacking you. Thomjakobsen 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete then after you are done (are you?) attacking me. Using your skewed logic, "A few searches provide links that explain you're a government agent." Therefor no matter what I say you have already made up your mind. I might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I do know a mind only works when it is open, which by your words you have shown yours is closed. I am done justifying why I am interested in this case. I have asked you to help Wiki it and I am met with more accusations. *Delete and be done with it then government agent Jakobsen. Personally I could care less what you do or think about who I am, or how I chose the moniker and the logic behind it. On that note you have shown anything but courtesy by starting off your first accusation with a half-truth. Now you continue this same pattern of half-truths by saying that I said you are, and I quote, “being hostile or paranoid.” I never used those words, ever. Those are your words not mine. Another half-truth. Congratulations on turning a civil discussion on how to WIKI the page into a personal attack on Sutcliffe and myself. Good distraction technique, government agent Jakobsen. At lot of half-truths hopefully add up to a truth. If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

You “threaten” to “show what the media coverage focused on, in line with the WIKI policies,” and you really do you think I care??? Post the stories from the rooftops all across America. Let the truth ring. No, instead you will cave in and say *Delete this side reported in WIKI because it is easier that way to sweep this whole dirty mess under the carpet of “well, it didn’t meet our WIKI standards, so we had to censor it in its entirety.” Sure thing, government agent Jakobsen, what ever you and your agent friends say. Begin the WIKI censorship. I now vote with you and the others. I will waste no more time justifying your accusations, theories of who I and others who worked on the page are, and your hollow threats to “show what the media coverage focused on, in line with the WIKI policies,” instead of discussing how to WIKI the page to meet the WIKI style.*Delete Burn the page for all I care. I changed my vote to Delete. It is now 3 to 1. Now the majority win. Begin the process of deletion. Bill 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep the song reached # 33 on the charts making it clearly notable, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuttering (Don't Say)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stuttering (Don't Say)

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs because it was never released — *H ippi ippi 09:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep A single may not have been released for this song, but I do remember hearing this multiple times on the radio. --Alessandro 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep according to the main Wild Orchid article, this got to #33 in the US. If that can be sourced, it's an easy keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delete It does not appear from the Billboard site that this did reach the US charts as a single. If a chart listing can be sourced, would be a keep... otherwise... SkierRMH 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep as it's charting was sourced.SkierRMH

Keep per my similarly colored friend, this passes WP:MUSIC due to charting. Burntsauce 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. The song did peak at #33 according to my Billboard search. I've sourced that at the parent article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire (Wild Orchid album)

Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, never released — *H ippi ippi 09:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Policy clearly shows that this should be merged to Wild Orchid. An AfD debate is not the way to handle merges. Bondegezou 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sourcing can be included. If the article were sourced, I would agree with Bondegezou that the information should be merged. The unreleased album fails stand-alone status per WP:MUSIC, but the information might still be pertinent to the band article. I spent a little time looking for sourcing myself, but failed to locate anything reliable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hollywood agencies and management companies

it's basically a mess, a directory, and a magnet for promotional editing. Serves no encyclopedic purpose. Disputed prod. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as blatant advertising (could be speedy) and per WP:NOT#DIR. —gorgan_almighty 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory Bjewiki 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, WP is not a directory. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per not a directory. Also, almost all content is non-notable and the footnotes are original research. -- SiobhanHansa 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wiki t'aint the Yellow Pages SkierRMH 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above; red links as far as the eye can see, also fails rules on lists. Bearian'sBooties 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Greatest Women Of The Video Era

Listcruft. I believe most, if not all, of these VH1/MTV/Rolling Stone/etc. "greatest" lists have been deleted already. - eo 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Oh, there was a 2 hour show on VH1. If this was a real VH1 list, it would have 10 advertisements after every five names. Mandsford 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability is not inherrited. A one off-show on digital only channel like VH1 is not notable in and of itself and therefore the list that it creates is similarly not notable. A1octopus 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, random list from tv. Doctorfluffy 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Eluchil404 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Kender

Appears to be a hoax Vgranucci 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just reverted a vandal edit. Original version of article looks less like a hoax, but I'm not sure and it definitely is unsourced. Edward321 05:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, does not appear to exist, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, looks to be garbage. Doctorfluffy 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was

[edit] Anna Kamatchi Amman temple at Omandur

No evidence of third-party notability; no Google hits outside of Wikipedia mirrors; no other contributions from its creator. Unless every Hindu temple is notable, this one should go. (And, as an aside, the List of Hindu temples should be one of notable Hindu temples, for obvious reasons.) Biruitorul 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A link has been provided as an evidence for the presence of the temple. There was no website developed for the temple so far, enquiring the local villagers, they say this temple is aged more the 2 centuries. One important function celebrated here is the maha sivarathri, people from many parts of the country assemble here on the particular day which falls in the month of April. This temple will be in news during that month (The Hindu, Times of India ) etc. [ User: Chen[Chendu yg]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.211.11 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The fact that this exists does not indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Era

Highly ambiguous article. Not truthfully necessary. Hasn't been touched or edited in months. The discussion page showed the necessecity for adding to the article, but that hasn't seen a post in over a year. This article fails to provide a complete picture of the term described and truthfully, in its current form, without a complete rewrite and inclusion of ALL applicable topics, serves no true purpose. Proposed For Deletion. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, may cause confusion with the company of the same name that manufactures baseball caps, among other things. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not only not notable, not factual. The claim that the phrase was coined in the last 5 years is debunked by the New Era Cap Company...which I thought this article was about and was prepared to debate its notability...I say redirect this back into the disambiguation page. Smashville 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is that's what's been going on for the last six years. Hmmm. I think it stopped being a new era about the same time that displaying the American flag was no longer a fad. Mandsford 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't Delete The article is short and a bit rough, but confusion between it and the company can be fixed with a link at the top that directs to the baseball cap company and the same on that page. That's no reason to delete it. Also, this article refers to a term used to describe a "post 9/11 America". This certainly did not stop after "the American flag was no longer a fad". You have to be joking. This "new era" I believe means to explain the era of new laws, attitudes, and accomodations that are now prevelent because of 9/11. It's pretty important and definitely relevant still. It's kind of a crappy article now, but I've seen worse. If anything it should be merged with post 9/11, but I don't believe it should be deleted. If however, the quotes mentioned are false and so are the sources, and the term has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to not have been ever used in such ways or at all, then I'd reconsider. But, for the record, this article was pretty close to what I expected it to be when I found it. I hadn't even heard of the baseball cap company.--Zombiema7 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nomination. Burntsauce 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" anyone? Mr.Z-man 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theo Obrastoff

Non-notable musician. 101 gHits using ""Theo Obrastoff" -wikipedia -blog". No entry on Allmusic. Supplied references somewhat dodgy with regard to WP:RS and independence. List of albums that seem to be privately published (being sold on CDBaby etc). -- WebHamster 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't see the point in deleting. He's played major music festivals, been interviewed and reviewed in the music media, published books and appeared on CDs released by major indie labels. Certainly as much credibility as half of the other musicians on Wikipedia. Audiori 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what the sources, Allmusic or Google reports. Perhaps if you add those details it would make a difference? ---- WebHamster 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

AllMusic gets a lot of stuff wrong, believe it or not. They also leave a lot of things out. With most things, I assume they'll get to it eventually. There are things like Mark Heard's Mystery Mind collection which came out back in 98 or something.. it still isn't listed on AllMusic guide in spite of the fact that it was released by the same label that released Heard's last three albums (which are all on AllMusic.) They're also extremely slow about updating pages... I could submit these CDs to them today and not see them added for three years. I've submitted several CDs to AllMusic guide over the years that have not yet shown up.. some of the ones that have, are listed incorrectly. A band like Daniel Amos is actually listed as two different bands... Daniel Amos and Daniel Amos (DA) in spite of being the same band. This also splits their discography in half for no apparent reason. On one CD, the lead singer is listed as Terry Earl Taylor instead of Terry Scott Taylor. Steve Taylor is listed as the composer of the Swirling Eddies song "I've Got An Idea" when in fact it was Terry Taylor. Just a few examples of fairly big errors... I've submitted corrections to them on quite a few different occasions over the last few years and have only seen a couple of those corrections eventually show up (to date). Again, I assume they'll get to them eventually. They're probably really understaffed.

Why do I know this? Because I work on the edges of the music business and have seen it over and over again. Interestingly enough, my connection to the music business is also why I know who Theo Obrastoff is. I've seen him peform at Cornerstone and other venues and have the two main CDs sitting on my CD shelf. I even sat through a press conference that he gave at Cstone. Audiori 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems silly to me. Vote no for deletion. Solkaige 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As author that's hardly surprising. What is surprising is that you haven't declared as such? ---- WebHamster 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep a simple google search show more then enough notability. Really you don't even need to look the first page is all good results. Ridernyc 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - a simple Google search turned up 194 hits on his name, and none in what I'd refer to as notable, non-trivial reliable sources; two hits in Google News Archive were passing mentions, as were many of the regular hits. He runs the record label, apparently, so any records are self-published. Without coverage in reliable sources, verifiable proof that he's toured extensively, etc., he doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Some of those CDs are sitting on my CD shelf. Most of the artists that participated in the various artists collections are big names. Audiori 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Simply appearing on, or releasing albums doesn't create notability. Googling his name gives less than 70 hits, and none of them are enough to show notability. Just saying "keep - notable" isn't enough. Add sources to the article, if they exist. Crazysuit 04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I get 200 and guess what it doesn't matter how many he gets because unlike most artists, 4 on the front page alone are notable enough to keep him here. It's not like othere artists where you get 8 my space hits 1000 hits on lyrics sites. If someone only has 10 hits all of them from the cover of the NYT are you going to discount those. Ridernyc 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know what these articles are you're finding that meet WP:RS; I didn't see any. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I declare myself the articles author if that matters. It seems like some are using stricter guidelines of what is considered "notable" for this article than they do with a hundred other musical artists on Wikipedia. Why not keep it? Are we running out of server space? Do we have to seriously cut back on how much information we're putting up? Aren't a couple of CDs released and sold worldwide worthy of a page? Solkaige 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original nominator. These days anyone with a computer can release a CD and sell it worldwide, therefore it's not an automatic decree of notability. As for "other stuff exists" well yes it does and it is totally immaterial to this discussion. You have had ages to produce sources that meet WP:RS yet you still haven't done so. Do they exist? As for the diskspace argument, how about a response of "precedence"? If we don't stick to the rules any teenager with a guitar and a copy of iGarage will be wanting an article too. This is an encyclopaedia, it's not a musician's promotion agency, therefore some semblance of notability should be established hence WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. As I noted in my original nomination this guy has minimal net presence, and what there is isn't independent, non-trivial or substantial. All of which are required regardless of how much free space is available on the server's drives. ---- WebHamster 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Precedence is exactly what I'm talking about. The precedence is that artists with much less notability are still here. My comment about disk space was just sarcasm, but my point is simply this - is it the goal to add more information to Wikipedia? Or limit it in some way? Of course I agree that it shouldn't be just any kid with a guitar, but are you suggesting that that is what this person is? How many kids with guitars release CDs that are sold worldwide on semi-major indie labels? How many kids with guitars get interviewed in magazines and perform at major music festivals like Cornerstone? Solkaige 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The precedence of foregoing the accepted standards is one to avoid rather than encourage I would have thought. Yes there are bands on WP that shouldn't be there. Sooner or later they will be noticed and deleted, but that is not a reason to allow one more. Quite simply this article does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC, it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and for that it should not exist on WP. It's a simple notion. For it to stay all you have to do is meet those requirements. What I don't understand is that you prefer to spend time arguing/discussing rather than make the article conform to accepted guidelines. I can only assume that you can't otherwise you, or someone else, would have by now. Incidentally, what is a "semi-major indie label"? It's either major or it isn't. If it's "Andy's Angels' Records" then that isn't close to being a major indie label. It's a label he created to sell his own catalogue. Let's face it any label that has to sell its material on CDBaby is hardly in the "major" category, "semi" or otherwise. I work for several indie labels, I know exactly how it works. One of the labels I work for is miniscule yet you can still buy their recordings on Amazon. Try putting "Theo Obrastoff" into an Amazon.com search and see what comes up... nada. ---- WebHamster 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally something to avoid in these discussions. What we need are reliable sources that verify what you're claiming. Thus far, we haven't really seen any that fit the requirements. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing my point entirely. When you say "we haven't really seen any that fit the requirements" - what you mean is that YOU haven't seen any that fir YOUR requirements. There does seem to be quite a bit of varying opinion about that. So far, its 50/50 how many people think that the sources are reliable and how many don't. The Phantom Tollbooth, to mention one of the used sources, is a music magazine that is well respected and has been around for years. Pretty much everyone I know reads it. Solkaige 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And you seem to be missing the point that "YOU" and "YOUR" doesn't come into it, but WP:RS certainly does. Just because you and your mates read it doesn't mean anything. YouTube and MySpace are read by an awful lot of people too and they most certainly aren't reliable sources. The fact is that Phantom Tollbooth is not necessarily totally independent, and like a lot of mags of it's ilk use press releases and/or submitted CDs to create reviews, i.e. we don't know how the CD review came about (and note, the review is about the CD, not about Obrastoff himself). For this reason there aren't many of them that are deemed to be reliable and/or independent.

Of the 4 references you cited 2 are from Obrastoff's own blog, 1 is from Daniel Amos' website and one is from an interview with and about Terry Scott Taylor. The first 2 are from a blog so that's a no-no, more than that they're from the subject's own blog so that's a double no-no. and the others aren't about Obrastoff, he just comes up in passing, and in any case they aren't independent as the person who brought up Obrastoff is the person involved in the project.

Anyway, if you don't believe us you could always try asking at WP:RSN for their opinion of the sources you feel are adequate. In any case, if this guy is as notable as you say there should be no end of sources that exceed WP:RS requirements, so how come you haven't been able to come up with any? Like I say, it's rather telling when he doesn't show up in Amazon, or AllMusic and very little by way of Google hits.---- WebHamster 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My "mates?" Are you joking? I don't know these people. As one of them pointed out above, AllMusic would only add it if it was submitted. And even if they add it, it might be years before its added. What is added is full of errors in a lot of cases. Amazon only lists what it sells and when it comes to independent music it doesn't seel everything. One of the other "keep" voters said there were a bunch of search hits just looking at the first page alone. Assuming that I know everyone that voted to keep it along with everything else - it seems like you have an axe to grind and I'm not sure anything will ever be good enough for you. Solkaige 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I might also ask... whats wrong with using Daniel Amos' website and an interview with Taylor as a source? Thats a band with a buttload of google hits, AllMusic pages and CDs on Amazon. Certainly enough notability for you.. Solkaige 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic has it's own sources and not all, not even most, are user submitted. For example, one of the bands I work for has an entry on there and none of us submitted it. Like any large database it will, of course have some errors, they all do, but the total omission of someone you are trying to say is notable is a factor whether you like it or not. Fo course Amazon only lists what it sells, that's the point, it isn't selling any of Obrastoff's music. Amazon lists an awful lot of indie music. Again the point being that if Theo (I'm getting sick of typing Obrastoff, why can't his name be Smith!) runs a "semi-major independent label" then one would have thought that Amazon would be listing it, e.g. all of the music of the small indie labels I work for is available on Amazon, and one of the labels only consists of one band, i.e. not even a hemi-demi-semi-major indie label. So basically what you are saying that Theo is notable it's just that he's inept at running a record label?

Daniel Amos' website is not an independent source per WP:RS, and the interview with Taylor is just that, it's about Taylor, it's not about TO, he's mentioned in passing by Taylor with regard to a project he's involved with, again, it's not independent. No-one is saying that TO doesn't exist, or that he doesn't run his own label or that his son wasn't the reason he does a lot of things. The references you've given tell us that, what they don't tell us is how notable TO is because the sources themselves don't meet the the requirements of WP:RS. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat or explain the same thing as you don't appear to be getting the logic behind it.

As regards me having an axe to grind. No I don't, why should I? What I am though, is the nominator, and it's incumbent upon me to prove my case. This is what I'm trying to do. ---- WebHamster 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I get the logic behind your opinion. Do you get the logic behind the equal number of voters that disagree with you? Its condescending to assume that someone that has a different view "doesn't get it." So far, its still 50/50.

First, I wasn't the one that used the phrase "semi-major indei label." At least pay attention to who you are responding to. I wouldn't say that Obrastoff's label is a semi-major indie label. Its actually pretty small. The comment you're referring to however said that he's had albums released on a semi-major indie label. And that is true. It wasn't his label, it was someone elses. Solkaige 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Condescension has nothing to do with it. I'm afraid you need to read up on AFD procedures. This isn't a vote. It never was. It's a debate whereby opinions are put forward to aid the deciding Administrator in how to deal with the nominator's request for deletion. It's not necessarily about numbers, it's about having a strong argument. My opinion of you not getting it is with regard to WP procedures and guidelines, not on how many people say yay or nay. A couple of us have tried to explain to you about how WP:RS works but because it doesn't work in your favour you refuse to accept that, preferring to think that we/I "have an axe to grind".

And yes you did use the expression "semi-major indie label"... "How many kids with guitars release CDs that are sold worldwide on semi-major indie labels?", it appears that it isn't I who's not paying attention, and I'm not the one who wrote it. So your statement saying you wouldn't use it is specious, you did use it. So the still unanswered question remains, where are the references/citations that meet WP:RS? ---- WebHamster 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't say that Obrastoff's label is a semi-major indie label. What your quoting is not saying that either. That quote is saying that he has been on CDs released worldwide on semi-major indie labels. That is true.

I understand that you don't think I'm getting the WP procedures and guidelines. My point is that so far, its 50/50... half of which seem to think YOU'RE not getting it. 50% seem to think you are the one with the weak argument. 50% of us have tried to explain it to you and since it doesn't work in your favor you refuse to accept that - even suggesting that they're all my buddies when I don't know them from Adam. Solkaige 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you insisted that you didn't use the expression when it's quite clear you did. I haven't commented on how you used it, just on the fact that you did.

Has it occurred to you that 'your 50%' is wrong? Like it or not for matters relating to musicians Allmusic is generally considered to be a reliable source regardless of its limitations. Like it or not gHits (at the extremes) are used as an indicator of possible notability. Like it or not musicians making comments about projects they are involved in are not considered to be reliable sources as they are not independent. Like it or not trivial or passing references are not considered to be reliable sources. CDs on someone's shelf is not considered to be a reliable source. An artist's own blog (or 99.9% of blogs for that matter) is not considered to be a reliable source. So if 'my' 50% is wrong would you be so good as to point out where? The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether TO is notable or not the article doesn't demonstrate that he is. You, and others, have had plenty of time to come up with WP:RS references but yet you haven't, instead you choose to argue about interpretation of policy. To me that says you don't have the required references/sources and are merely playing for time. Though I have no idea why, unless it's an attempt to increase the aforementioned gHits? ---- WebHamster 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable preacher group. Mbisanz 05:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Very very weak keep. There is some evidence, from note 2, that he's toured Nationally, but only to open for another band. Even Christian Contemporary musicians have some press, and he appears to have none. Could use better sourcing per WP:BLP, fewer quotes. Stubify? Bearian 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project On Government Oversight

After filtering out all the hype, I really don't see how this meets our notability policies. It seems to be mainly a large collection of self-promotional weblinks. There are no outside sources, and a quick google source brings up what initially looks like a number of hits, but which, when examined closer, are mainly blogs, op-ed sites and reprints of the organizations numerous press releases. In debating whether to trim or nominate for deletion, I realized that if all the self promotional material were trimmed out, there would be very little of value left, so here's the nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Try googling through "Google books", which is usually a good indicator of notability beyond websites. This one appears to be oftquoted. Mandsford 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep POGO has a long record of successfully causing chaos in US government agencies when POGO publicizes results of investigations in which they say they found (for example) serious security breaches at top-secret installations. Their press releases are taken seriously on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon, etc. Article could be sourced primarily from news media, instead of POGO's press releases. --Orlady 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Info:

Security Upgrades at Several Nuclear Sites Are Lagging, Auditors Find by Matthew Wald, The New York Times, October 29, 2007. - this organization obtained a Government Accountability Office investigation report (probably secret) and supplied it to the press, forming the basis for the NY Times story.
In Washington, Contractors Take On Biggest Role Ever, New York Times, February 4, 2007. This organization was a principal source for the story on US gov't use of contractors in secret work.
Administrator Is Dismissed From Nuclear Security Post, NYTimes, January 5, 2007. Identifies POGO as the entity that first made public the story that during a drug raid local police had discovered a computer device containing thousands of classified documents in the home of a former Los Alamos National Laboratory worker.

--67.96.128.158 04:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Collins

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brian Collins

Articles for deletion/Brian Collins (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Brian Collins 2

Non-notable person. Being a "distinguished alumni" and speaking in conferences is no reason to be included in an encyclopedia. He isn't even published. As far as I can tell, thousands of university professors across the globe are much more notable. The page seems more like a resume than anything informative. - mc machete 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is the third AFD for this subject. It did not pass the first two nominations. I don't believe there is any new content in the article now that would make it worth saving. Does not pass WP:BIO, maybe this should be salted to prevent recreation. --Cyrus Andiron 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? This is about a completely different Brian Collins. This is about a Professor and Business leader, and not an internet phenomena. I suggest you actually read the article please. Woodym555 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Woodym555, this is a different person altogether. The Ogilvy and Mather position makes him notable enough (barely). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, (as an editor of the article. I was drafted in after a request on the help desk) Notability is shown by the third party sources included in the article. The fact that it reads like a resume is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason for an "advert" tag which it already has. I think the fact that he has been on several award juries, that he is the head of "BIG" and is the subject of numerous articles written about him. I don't think his role as professorship would automatically make him notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) although i would argue that "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" Within the advertising world he is very well-known. His body of work is known as his involvement with his education schemes. Collectively i would argue that this means his article should be kept. Woodym555 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On award juries? He runs a company? By such standards, more than half my family and a good handful of friends are wiki-worthy. I see you have since added some industry-specific references. I'm still not satisfied he's worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Maybe if there were an advertising industry wiki... --mc machete 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia is not limited to the extent of a paper encyclopedia. The status and size of the company need to be taken into account and his actions within that company. Owning a small corner shop is different to running one of the largest advertising agencies in the world that is responsible for some of the most recognised brands and campaigns in the world. Also Award juries relates to the status of the juries as well. To be part of a High School jury committee and being on the jury committee of an industry wide recognised award are two completely different things.

This person is covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Admitteddly i have been adding to it throughout the day. Yet all it would have taken was some google searching to get them. I think his work for Ogilvy and Mather, BIG and his status backed up by reliable sources means that the article should remain. Woodym555 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing that you immediately assumed "small shop" and "high school jury committee." Not that it matters, but I was referring to heads of multi-million dollar global corporations, authors, script writers of multi-million dollar blockbusters, etc. They don't seem notable enough for inclusion, and I feel neither is Brian Collins. The key here is exactly what you said: "industry wide recognised." He only seems notable within his own industry. My initial points remain. I think this does not belong. --mc machete 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course people are notable within their own industry. that;'s the very point of notability . the leading figures in advertising are notable. DGG (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep although the article is woefully self-aggrandizing. Collins is pretty clearly notable within advertising/branding circles. Cleanup for the advert tone, attribute claims about him properly (e.g. "Ad Age says that...") and so forth. We just need to list how he's viewed, not run down everything he or somebody working for him ever touched. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO. --Sc straker 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep It seems like this is a debate less about Collins' accomplishments than about what Wikipedia should be about. I look to Wikipedia to give me more than Encyclopedia Britannica and provide information about folks who would never make it into a paper version. Collins is without a doubt one of the most influential voices today in shaping how we see and perceive goods and ideas in a market based economy. I am the original author of this article, and as one of my first entries, maybe my tone was off and not appropriate for Wiki. The tone can be edited. Also, self-aggrandizing assumes that the individual posted his own listing, which is not the case. I think that this article is certainly worthy of inclusion in a virtual encyclopedia. Jimmysmith100 —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure:Jimmysmith100 (talk · contribs) was the original author of the article. Woodym555 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep I dont think he's notable as an academic primarily, but as an advertising figure, based on his accomplishments, which seem to be documented.DGG (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When the Dust Settles

Desn't seem notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry by itself. The minimal information it contains could easily be contained in the entry for the actual band. Also, the entry actually appears to have the wrong name - based on the picture of the album the album's title is "epinonimous". Meowy 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

BTW, I had never heard of the band before - and only came across these entries because I had expected the entry "Eponimous" to be a definition of the word "eponimous". Meowy 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you haven't heard of the group does not mean that the band or their albums are not notable. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (music), in particular:

==Albums==
If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting.

After careful checking it appears that whilst the group's website refers to the album as Eponimous the album's name is actually Epinonimous so I would suggest that the article be re-titled rather than deleted.
It should also be noted that the articles contain more than just the track listing.Dan arndt 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - article now moved to Epinonimous SkierRMH 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Dan arndt, stop assuming bad faith. Did I say the album's article should be deleted because I have not heard of it? Of course I didn't. Your own quote explains why the article should be deleted and merged with the article on the band: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Meowy 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The first album, Epinonimous, has dubious notability, but the other two are on notable labels with separate coverage. The band is notable. Since the group is listed jointly, keep all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
'Retain' as outlined above whilst details on their debut alum Epinonimous are relatively scarce their subsequent albums are notable & I have provided as much detail as possible at this stage. Dan arndt 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Seem to meet the WP:MUSIC#Albums criteria with independent coverage. —Moondyne 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, presumedly intended as a category. - Mike Rosoft 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish sopranos

This article was obviously created by mistake. The intention, according to notes in the revision history, was to create a category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarRan (talk • contribs) 2007/10/23 13:07:33

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. A3 (no content) primarily, but could also be G2 (test pages) or G6 (housekeeping). Powers ^T 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with some improvements possibly expansion needed.--JForget 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religiosity and intelligence

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination)

original research or synthesis.

There is very little verifiable, reliable research to justify the existence of this article. It's existence can only be justified to highlight the lack of such evidence, but such a use is most probably WP:SYN. It was recently reduced to an empty shell, due to removal of material considered against policies of WP:SYN, WP:NOR and WP:POV. These edits were undone by an unregistered user, but without resolved debate. It is pointless to continue to edit it, without confirming it's need to exist.WotherspoonSmith 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename (and split up) or delete. Fundimental problem: no reliable sources show there is or is not a relationship between religiosity and "intelligence" because any (strictly) reliable source will dodge the issue of defining "intelligence" and instead discuss IQ, educational achievment, or some other stand in. Sources discussing the subject directly are more casual (and opinionated) in using the term. We could have articles on "Religiousity and..." a whole bunch of things, with the downside that they would repeatedly spawn "Yes, but..." WP:OR additions on a regular basis. - Mdbrownmsw 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

keep, the sources cited are sufficient to establish this as a valid topic, but possibly merge pending more comprehensive and responsible treatment. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 13:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia terms, the article has one meta analysis, as the scattered pieces of original research cannot legitimately be synthesised into a new wikipedia article. Ansell 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The article is seriously POV: it has a United States perspective, and it contains only a narrow definition of intelligence. The results are markedly different for other countries such as Australia, as I understand. It appears to implicitly define "intelligence" as IQ (and related concepts), however the term is not necessarily defined thus, and often includes EQ etc. Major rewrite, or delete. Colin MacLaurin 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- you need to distinguish between "pov" and "reporting a pov". I fail to see the article takes any sort of pov, it merely states such and such people have done such and such research with such and such results. expand on it, or merge it, but I really fail to see the problem. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete With no barrier to future creation of an acceptable article on the topic. The present article has languished too long as an exemplar of OR and synthesis, and has nothing valuable in it to preserve. It dwells on research by an undergrad which only made it to the students's college's online site, hardly the "peer-reviewed scientific journal" we demand for the vetting of research about whether psychological traits are correlated positevely or negatively. In an academic world where scholars have long needed to publish or perish, I expect that actual peer reviewed journals must have published many studies noting correlations between IQ scores or other measures of "intelligence" such as achieving advanced degrees, and measures on various scales of religiosity. Edison 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Intelligence_test redirects to a page about IQ. IQ is the only widely recognized measure of intelligence that we have. Notable studies correlating IQ with religiosity have existed for decades -- see the original sources of the meta-study that was published in Free Inquiry. Not all correlations are transitive, but all sufficiently strong correlations are transitive, and there is a very strong link between IQ and SAT scores, so it is also valid to use SAT scores as a proxy for IQ scores, and all the reasoning behind that is explained in the original sources that use SAT scores. It isn't WP:OR to conflate intelligence with SAT scores, because the reliable sources are doing it. See the list of citations at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm and try digging up some of the original studies on Google scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.168.152 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dbach and 76.213. Nominator was one of the editors and has the right to nominate article for deletion. Apologies to nominator for implying that the nomination was made for personal reasons, since it does appear that he or she had been working on trying to correct problems with the article. I feel that it can still be improved, although I'm not volunteering to do undertake that mission. ~~Suggestions that this Editing and discussion history suggests that nominator is in an "editing war" with other contributors. No longer having fun, perhaps? Time to take the ball and go home, I guess.~~ Mandsford 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
delete Almost no sourcing--based on two or three minor articles and a mention in Dawkins. A strong liklihood of WP:POINT--no indication of any attempt at NPOV. As Edison says, no bar to the re-creation of a proper article. DGG (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
keep While more work needs to be done on the article, it looks like a topic with a significant amount of scholarship and interest behind it. Maximusveritas 11:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- comment It is the lack of scholarship that has lead this nomination for deletion. The cited "meta analysis" may appear, at first glance, scholarly, but lacks scholarly integrity. Few of the studies referred to are about religiosity and intelligence. The Bell study is elusive- despite an extensive search, I have not been able to find a copy or reference outside of Dawkins, nor have people on Dawkins' own forums (see http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9106&p=325651 ).WotherspoonSmith 12:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep As above. Improve the article, its essential premise is perfectly reasonable and popular enough / cause of enough debate to justify an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.28 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or complete rewrite, Merge and redirect to religion and science. In its current form, it implies that only scientists are intelligent... It is currently a Religion versus Science debate in disguise. And it has a bias towards measuring of intelligence using IQ as opposed to other accepted methods. On the whole this is a very shallow article in terms of references to represent an entire area. Ansell 06:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. One undergrad 'study' and one meta analysis (Bell), which is not unambiguous and thus prone to POV, and SYN problems, is not enough to have a notable entry. Northfox 07:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve. The subject of the article is an area of ongoing scientific research and, as such, is surely notable.

Some of the criticism above mentions that the article is not currently based upon sufficient peer reviewed scientific research. This is not a good reason to delete the article. Improve the article. Find suitable scientific research which is applicable here. The first hit on Google when I search for Intelligence and Religion is this:

Intelligence & Religion

This link contains a listing of scientific research in this area which could be used to improve the article, including work published in Nature and Scientific American.

So, the article is about a notable subject with some good work but with significant room for improvement. We should keep it & improve it. Thebrid 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There have been a few calls to expand the definition/ measurement of intelligence.

Can we at least agree that studies of how many (few) top scientists are religious, belongs in an article about [| religion and science] not religiosity and intelligence? Thebrid's "scientific research published in Nature and Scientific American" is one such example.

The rest of the linked article is yet another cut and paste from Beckwith's 1986 article, as mentioned by 76.213.168.152. WotherspoonSmith 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A debate on which content belongs/doesn't belong in the article should probably take place on the article's talk page. This is an Articles for Deletion discussion. The link I mentioned looks at the issue of Intelligence & Religion from a number of viewpoints:

Prevalence of religious belief among eminent scientists
Prevalence of religious belief among scientists in general
Religious belief and intelligence, as measured by:
- IQ
- Academic achievement
- GPA
- SAT scores
- College students' beliefs & college ranking
- “Research competence” — whatever that may mean

Clearly, an area of such scientific research ought to have a Wikipedia article. --Thebrid 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing that worries me about the references on [26] is that they range over such a large timeframe. Does it really qualify as an area of research if it only has sporadic articles written about it, which are hard to correlate, and even harder to verify. The conclusion at the bottom of that page, which is not likely a reliable source as it seems to be self-published, states both the immediate naive conclusion, and the large degree of variation that exists in the general area. I like the idea of keeping the topic on the relationship of religion and science page, and redirecting this article to it. When the area is mature enough to have a complete article written about it then come back to it. Ansell 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We now have a few calls to look at the individual citations in the meta- analysis. The difficulty with this is that many of the articles are not about intelligence, but may mention intelligence as a side issue. Similarly, many equate religiosity with liberalism. For anyone wanting to sift through the chaff, I have done some initial legwork at [27]. I had avoided doing this earlier, due to the quote by Beckwith himself, stating that "all were imperfect," but you may find some usable articles. I find little evidence amongst them that this is an area of good, ongoing scientific research about the topic, but your opinion may vary. WotherspoonSmith 11:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Many of the objections here seem to focus on the potential inaccuracy of equating IQ with intelligence. While inclusion of more peer-reviewed documentation would be worthwhile, a simple way to diminish the opposition to keeping this article would be simply changing the title to "Religiosity and IQ" since the article argues that this is the specific link. There seems to be no need to make grander claims and an attempt to do so draws needless complaints of bias. If the evidence supports a link between religiousness and lower IQ, say THAT. Nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.6 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabacc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/HoloNet

Articles for deletion/Sabacc (2nd nomination)

Nominated for speedy deletion as repost of deleted content; previously deleted in multi-AFD alongside Holonet. However, though the topic is the same, the author is different and content is not a direct repost but different. Therefore, giving the benefit of the doubt in the service of assuming good faith by bringing here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Star Wars-related Articles for Deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This article appears to use Wookieepedia's manual of style; I suspect it's a direct copy. I don't know if that has any GFDL ramifications, but it does mean that it doesn't match our manual of style. Primarily, Wookieepedia limits real-world information to the "Behind the Scenes" section, whereas a Wikipedia article must be primarily about the real-world information. There may be an existing Star Wars article into which this could be merged, but I haven't found one yet. Powers ^T 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Response - Wookieepedia is a wikia site that also operates on GFDL; copy-and-paste of content like is fine insofar as licensing/copyright is concerned. --EEMeltonIV 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

- - It's not that simple. There are specific rules on copying the contents, because there still has to be proper citation of where it came from and who wrote it. This isn't included, so if this is a copy & paste job, it's a GDFL/Copyright violation. -- Kesh 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - One of the more interesting textures in Star Wars, but by itself has no real-world notability. Real-world information in (e.g. "Behind the Scenes") is entirely WP:OR. --EEMeltonIV 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Regardless of its copyright status, this is a non-notable, in-universe bit of information. Used quite a bit in that universe and fandom, but no real notability outside it. The only sources are primary ones from the movies and books. If this is a copyvio/GDFL violation, it should be Speedily deleted. -- Kesh 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as lack of secondary sources suggests this article is too in universe to make a useful article. --Gavin Collins 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, with particular weight given to the argument of lack of sourcing, as no sources have been added since the prior no-consensus AfD where verifiability played a major part in the argument. krimpet ⟲ 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms

Previous nominations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms 2

The first AfD, two years ago, had a result of keep, and the second, ten months ago, resulted in no consensus. I think the phrase "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" applies here. Some of the glossaries we have in Wikipedia are encyclopedic, having detailed discussions of terms and their relationships to each other, but this is nothing more than a list of definitions. Powers ^T 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete no sources, original research. Also not sure how this would be informative to anyone.Ridernyc 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Third AfD, and I don't see any points here that weren't thoroughly discussed previously. Ever since most of the contents of the Jargon File were added to Wikipedia at the beginning of the project, we have had a place for this sort of material. Moreover, it isn't that a list like this is inherently unreferenceable, and indeed this has references already; rather, it's that at least some gaming sites and net resources are reliable sources for this sort of material; interpretations of WP:OR and WP:RS that don't adjust for context are the problems. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that this is the third AfD is not particularly relevant since the most recent one ended with no consensus. It's perfectly reasonable to attempt to achieve consensus again. Also, the policy in question is not WP:NOR or WP:RS but WP:DICDEF. Powers ^T 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is a list of words and their meanings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Seems clear cut to me. --Varlak 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article serves no purpose beyond being a list of definitions. -Chunky Rice 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. If, like me, you agree with the official policy WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then delete. However, I will point out that the relevant bit of that policy, concerning lists of definitions, is currently in dispute, so WP:NOT doesn't really apply here. Furthermore, I note that mysterious acronyms abound in the world of RPGs, and it's reasonable that people might go to Wikipedia expecting to find out what they mean. -Amatulic 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the bit on WP:NOT is in dispute, but that section is just a summary of the actual policy page at WP:DICDEF, which clearly states "Wikipedia is not a ... slang [or] jargon ... guide." Powers ^T 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't see many reliable sources being able to be put in this article. Its mostly Cruft anyway. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Regardless of if WP:NOT#DICTIONARY is in dispute, WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE applies here. None of these terms are notable outside of gaming. The main source is the World of Warcraft site, which is basically a primary source, and does nothing to demonstrate the terms are used in other games. Yes, I know they are, but you wouldn't be able to tell from the sourcing. -- Kesh 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Most of this doesn't appear to be a "dictionary" insofar as the acronyms are concerned, such that nobody is consulting it for a precise definition of "WTF" or "LOL". The problem here appears to be that it also includes a glossary of game terms, which aren't used as part of the quickly moving game. I suppose the answer would be to censor that part in order to make it Wikceptable to the purists, but since it's not primarily a dictionary, deletion is unwarranted. Mandsford 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep yet another cleanup request masquerading as an AfD. Yes, there are certain corners of Wikipedia which attract unsourced silliness. No, you cannot delete them just because of that. <eleland/talkedits> 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

who said anything about cleanup, this actually one the few lists I've ever seen on here that needs almost no cleanup. IN fact if the content was encyclopedic I would say it should be a featured list. Ridernyc 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete it is clearly lacking in sources - one of the viatl standards of inclusion in WP; the sources that are included seem only to refer to WoW, so the title 'terms in MMORPGs' is inaccurate if the article is kept; I completely disagree with the rationale that "doesn't appear to be a "dictionary" insofar as the acronyms are concerned, such that nobody is consulting it for a precise definition" - the articles ONLY purpose is to function as a 'dictionary' - as a source of meaning for the terms listed. (although I do agree with Amatulic's comment that games abound with mysterious terms and people might expect to find some answers here.) 207.69.137.38 03:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a properly referenced discussion and analysis of those terms and their cultural relevance might be encyclopedic. Powers ^T 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, indiscriminate sandbox list, WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#GUIDE - ∅ (∅), 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep WP has some elements that overlap with a dictionary, and this is appropriately one of them. DGG (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR. Not very well sourced either. Captain panda 04:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki contents to Wiktionary. Wiktionary, unlike Wikipedia, has been founded with the stated aims of maintaining word definitions, including slang and would be an appropriate home for this information. Asperal 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as collection of mostly-unreferenced dictionary definitions, and for the various other reasons stated above. Terraxos 04:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced and nonnotable cruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pilotbob 22:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Dillon-Robinson

I A7 speedied this once already. This version is a little better, so I'll let it have it's chance at AFD instead of another Speedy. But even this version does not appear to me to rise to the level of notability. Long on hype, short on substance. TexasAndroid 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No reliable sources. Also no real assertion of notability. Powers ^T 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article does not establish notability, not properly sourced Neozoon 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above; the cite to IMDB is nonsensical, as it is not even about her. Bearian'sBooties 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. None of the other external links have anything to do with her either. Clarityfiend 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - reliable sources provided or found in searching. As noted by others, the external links don't actually lead to any content that is about the subject. The acting career consists of unredited roles. Absolutely nothing to verify any of the information presented. -- Whpq 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 02:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian All-Round Fighting

Non-notable for the following reasons: Virtually all of the references are to the art's website, no published references, short history (founded in 1998 by three guys in their 20s), no assertions as to quantity of schools or students, or to the existence of any notable students. Bradford44 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - As non notable both Bradford's comments and the fact that"Russian All Round Fighting" (with quotes) gets 8 hits on a Google test are not good signs. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - more hits with "russian all-round fighting" --Mista-X 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppse My bad did the search as uk only gets 1,320, which is still not good and -wikipedia gives only 366. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - an interesting hybrid martial art; and even more interesting because of their strange and racist politics. --Mista-X 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Being interesting doesn't make it notable, what is notable about it? Bradford44 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete As the article says, invented by three guy in 1998. DGG (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Why do we have an article on three all around russian guys fighting in 1998? Not notable or informative. Delete as per nom. Turtlescrubber 20:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy's on Second

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Amy's on Second

This restaurant claims a number of listing in travel guides. But that would usually not suffice to pass WP:CORP (most restaurants are listed in guides of some sort). It's unclear whether there is really any in-depth coverage. I think this entry would rather belong on WikiTravel. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There's virtually no encyclopedic information here -- Who owns the place? When was it founded? Why was it founded? What makes it notable? It makes a good stub for Wikitravel, though. (Note: it cannot be simply transwikied, as Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project and does not use the GFDL.) Powers ^T 12:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think merely being listed in travel guides is sufficient to make a restaurant notable unless the restaurant is a tourist attraction in its own right (think something like Café du Monde) instead of just a convenient place to get something to eat. Dr.frog 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete It appears to be a vanity/advertisement type of piece without any level of notability. --Stormbay 02:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Peters Orchestra

A non-notable high school band. No independent sources asserting notability are provided. PROD contested by author, reason given - this page's in progress, hence the little information. Otherwise, there are many other musical groups on wiki with similar subject matter; this page uses "symphonic winds" article as exemplary Mattinbgn\^talk 12:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC as the article stands. If multiple reliable sources for the performance of music by leading Australian contemporary composers can be found, I will re-consider. Those composers should themselves be reliable too, I think. David Underdown 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sourced. Unlike David above, I think one reliable source for the commissions would be sufficient, but all of the claims in the article need to be sourced. Powers ^T 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed. Now at WP:RFD. --- RockMFR 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flux (VRML and X3D)

Please delete this unneeded redirect. Wikinger 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed. Now at WP:RFD. --- RockMFR 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Flux (VRML and X3D)

Please delete this unneeded redirect. Wikinger 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Hoffman (businessman)

I created this article after splitting it from the other Steve Hoffman article. I had mean to instantly prod it, but apparently I forgot. This biographical article has remained unreferenced for about a year, and I believe the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO for individuals. Mikeblas 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Apparently CEO of several major Hollywood companies, and the article claims founding member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Interactive Media Group, Board of Governors for the Producers Guild New Media Council. co-founder of the San Francisco Chapter of the Producers Guild of America. I don;'t know that industry, but I think he's notable. Needs references. DGG (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep based on LavaMind, which is a possible WP:CORP article. Some of his other roles are not as notable or simply behind the scenes, though he's clearly well-regarded by his peers. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Remember that WP:BIO says "The person has been the subject of one of the following sources (which must be referenced in the article):", and that's not true for this article. As far as I'm concerned, any unreferenced biographic content should be deleted speedily, since it's too risky to publish otherwise. -- Mikeblas 13:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete because THIS ARTICLE IS A WALKING WP:BLP VIOLATION. If there are reliable non-trivial third party publications about this person, please cite them. The community has been asking for them since October 2006, (THAT'S LAST YEAR). Burntsauce 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Burtntsauce. Sorry, DGG, but there's a blatant BLP violation here, with lots of claims and zero sources for any of them. Not my field, so I can't rescue this one. Bearian 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly notable. Serial founder of multiple notable companies. Plenty of press. If sources are missing, add them rather than deleting encyclopedic content. There's no BLP violation - that's a misunderstanding of BLP. Incidentally, Burntsauce seems to have been hounded off Wikipedia over his persistent deltionism[28]; a rant like the above should not be counted.Wikidemo 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that Bearian was a rampant deletionist, and he too sees some problems. RfCs go elsewhere, lets discuss the article. DGG (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. In any case, I've noticed better cites have been added. Can anyone else find some more reliable sources? I'll agree to keep if this can be improved further. Bearian 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, and especially Bearian, for any misdirected comments. I meant Burntsauce's rant. His cap lock key must have gotten stuck. Well, what's the real scoop? Did Steve Hoffman start a bunch of notable companies or not? If so we simply need to source it as we've been doing and stubbify anything that seems outrageous or improper. I know the article should have sources and that we should not have to hunt for them. But if things were as they should be we wouldn't be here. Just saying, sometimes it's more productive to fix than delete. If it's a person of marginal or questionable notability, deletion isn't a big deal. But if it's an obviously notable person with obviously real but unsourced claims, the balance tips in favor of making that effort in my opinion. Cheers, Wikidemo 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep He is a CEO of numerous "Hollywood Companies"--English836 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PowerTerm WebConnect

This is little more than a duplicate of Ericom Software. Tedickey 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a spammy advertorial. --Gavin Collins 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Insufficiently notable. • Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Acalamari 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheadle Hulme High School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cheadle Hulme High School

Articles for deletion/Cheadle Hulme High School (2nd nomination)

I tried getting it deleted per CSD A7 it, but it seems that A7 doesn't apply to schools, so I'm going to try and get it deleted here, or spur on some claim to notability. Unfortunately, the article's creator simply reverted my CSD nomination with no explanation being given. Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Plenty of sources in the article, certainly not an A7. If you do a quick g search, you'll see plenty of other sources that could be added. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Ryan and per no valid rationale to delete given. Clearly not an CSD A7 case. M0RD00R 11:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Clearly not a CSD A7 candidate, actually a reasonable article with a few sources. A search indicates more could be added in the future. Camaron1 | Chris 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The only sources given are the school's own website, the village website and website of the school library: I count that as no independent sources. Google turns up very little: the Wikipedia entry comes in fourth. I can't see any way that this school can currently make any claim to notability.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  - But would you agree there are some independant sources in the google search? I believe government results for the school can verify most of the contents for the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It's all very well having plenty of sources - which there aren't, incidentally (the Govt. results are the only things Google turns up that are remotely relevant) - but it would still fail WP:N horribly. There isn't even the slightest claim to notability! It's got marginally above-average academic results. It's got a representative number of pupils. It hasn't got a single notable alumnus. It hasn't got ANY architectural notability. I see no reason for it to be here on Wikipedia.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      - [29] gives a lot more than results, it actually states a lot of helpful information on the school. [30] Ofsted reports are frequently used as independent school article resources, and this one gives plenty of information for the article.[31] This independent league table can also be used in the article, there is also this one I found [32]. A detailed search does actually reveal quite a few sources. In September 2000 the school became one of the first in the country to become a training school for Initial Teacher Training and Continuing Professional Development. - This statement, if it can be sourced, will also indicate notability. On Alumni, I doubt a school that size would not have any at all - and lack of results from Google should not mean a conclusion that there are none, a search of offline sources would probably give more info. Camaron1 | Chris 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - no valid reason for deletion given in original AFD and Ofsted report is a valid independant source that can be used. Keith D 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep for an invalid nomination reason. Inability to speedy delete is not a valid deletion reason. Per the result of the previous AfD and WP:OUTCOMES, this should be an automatic keep. Nom has shown no reason as to why this high school would be less notable since the previous AfD. Also, articles which survive an AfD should never be Speedy Deleted. Smashville 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as no valid deletion grounds have been specified. This has been kept at AfD and a good reason needs to be adduced to question the Community's judgement; and none has. It is prominently mentioned that this is a Training School. Training schools are highly notable in the UK; they have been selected for their high standards and exceptional ethos. They are officially described as "centres of excellence for training" and "as experts in adult learning and the transfer of skills, and provide a venue for high quality professional development". TerriersFan 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep The article makes strong claims of notability, and provides reliable sources to support it. The article met all relevant standards at the previous AfD, and still does so now. Alansohn 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are many high schools on wikipedia, move along, children. Mindraker 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackwood Primary School

Non notable primary school. Google throws up nothing major, the only real claim to fame is that Connie Talbot goes there, and some think she is non-notable anyway. Delete. J Milburn 10:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - fails WP:INHERITED horribly. Its only claim to notability is, as JM says, that it has one pupil with borderline notability.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Assuming that Connie Talbot is indeed notable, that doesn't make the school notable. Barring some horrible event, it's rare that an elementary-level school achieves sufficient notability to satisfy WP:NOTE. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Information provided on the school and its alumni, with reliable sources included, establishes a claim of notability. Additional resources seem to be able, and may upgrade my opinion of this article as additional content and sources are added. Alansohn 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Even Connie Talbot shouldn't have her own article since she was only a reality show contestant (who didn't even win), but that's another afd. Crazysuit 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, that has been through an AfD (no consensus) and there has been plenty of talk on the talk page. She is actually on her second record deal since the show- further input on the subject of her notability would be very welcome, if you have a few minutes to read through the current arguments and offer your own opinions. However, that's enough about Connie here, sorry for going into detail. J Milburn 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Crazysuit. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This appears to be another non notable school. --Stormbay 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No real assertion of notability. Whats new? - Rjd0060 04:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Corto Maltese

Non-established group without record release, article fails to assert that the subject passes WP:BAND. Previous prods simply deleted without adressing attribution issues, but spread out mockup footnote cites. Ødipus ^sic 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless further sourcing is produced to verify notability. It's a little difficult to research this band, given the common uses of the name, but I've been trying. The various websites listed for reviews at WP:ALBUM#Review_sites haven't been helpful, except that AMG produced a list of other bands I might like (no bio, no discography). Finding the mocked footnote citations confusing, I worked on locating the originals of each of those quotes. There are several that come close to or may actually cross the line into reliable (I'm not familiar with "Losing Today") and several others that probably don't ("peoplewithanimalheads.blogspot.com"), but coverage doesn't seem, in my opinion, sufficient to meet criterion #1: "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". (When I tried to research the first "quote", I got 2 hits—Wikipedia and maltese-910.blogspot.com, which tried to haul me off to another website.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tribble. Since content has been merged the article should not be deleted to preserve the history. Eluchil404 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrano Jones

No reliable sources for plot-summary article about a character with no real-world notability. EEMeltonIV 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to The Trouble With Tribbles. While I disagree with the nominator that this is a plot-summary article (there's only one sentence of plot in the article, which is appropriate for an article about a fictional character), this character is a very minor one in the Star Trek canon. Looking in the history, an editor reverted a previous attempt to redirect this article to The Trouble With Tribbles article, with the explanation that the character has appeared in "four of the six Star Trek series". This is, first of all, false, as it's only three of the six; it's also misleading because the appearance in DS9 was archive footage from the original episode. Nonetheless, the character is associated only with tribbles and the two episodes in which they feature prominently. Powers ^T 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Doesn't merit his own article, probably doesn't even merit a redirect. How many people ask the question, "What WERE those fuzzy pink things that Cyrano Jones was selling?" It's more like, "What was the name of the chubby guy in "The Trouble With Tribbles"? Mandsford 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete- Article lacks reliable sources and out of universe information. Judgesurreal777 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete — It's just a redirect anyway. — Val42 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr . . . you undid the previous redirect, hence this AfD. --EEMeltonIV 03:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice the difference between what you did and what I did? You simply replaced the article with a redirect to The Trouble with Tribbles. I merged what useful information was available in the article into another article (Tribble) then changed the redirect to that article, an article that covers all three appearances of Cyrano Jones rather than just his first. — Val42 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgethan

non-notable group, WP:HOAXy claims to notability. no Ghits for albums, Ghits for band name mostly irrelevant. creator removed prod. tomasz. 09:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete vanity article with no reliable sources about totally non-notable band. M0RD00R 09:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, first of all, i am georgethan and this is completley accurate, and is not to be deleted. read the bio on the myspace for proof. it may not be a notable band because there are not multiple members and is not to be considered a band. if you dont have proof of the albums i would be glad to send them to u because for people who dont know, if something is not absolutley famous, it is not irrelevant. take something from the person who invented georgethan which is me to not delete the article because i wrote it and i am him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgethan (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but you've summed it up why this article will be deleted. I hope that it will not discourage you from contributing to Wiki. If you decide to stay here, you will have to understand certain Wiki rules and policies on reliable sources WP:RS, notability WP:N, and what WP is not about WP:NOT. Anyway good luck to you and your band. Cheers. M0RD00R 20:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No sources offered to substantiate notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back into the parent article. See notes below. --bainer (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and intelligence (history)

Closer's notes
There were very few people here who supported keeping these various articles as-is; essentially the debate was divided fairly evenly between deleting these child articles and starting again, or merging them back into the parent article from whence they were split.

In the end, since both positions contemplated continuing with an article on this topic in the future, these child articles will be merged back into the parent. Should the consensus from there be to start from a blank slate, as it were, then that content can be abandoned and work begun anew. Should the consensus be to work with what we've got, then that will be possible also.

As usual, comments of anonymous users were disregarded in determining the final consensus. --bainer (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While the concept of racial differences in IQ test scores has stirred up more than enough controversy, and attracted enough notable proponents to justify a fairly substantial treatment here on wikipedia, this series of articles is a disgrace.

Including the top level article, there are twelve pages on this, and every one of them is a haven for WP:OR, racist POV pushing and undue weight. Most of them have merge proposals, NPOV templates, cleanup templates, weasel templates and requests for citations, that have been sitting unattended for months. Many dedicated and well meaning editors have tried to clean them up, and have made some inroads on the main article. It's not enough though, because with an unmanageable series like this, there's always somewhere for the racist POV pushers to slink to when they meet resistance.

My proposal is to aggressively delete all of these forks, and merge anything worthwhile, notable and NPOV, into the main article. In anticipation of protests that the final article would be prohibitively long, I put it to you that the bulk of the material is either extremely dubious, redundant, gratuitous and excessive quotes or references and links duplicated multiple times. I believe with judicious editing, the entire series of articles can be reduced to a single article under a hundred kilobytes in length.

It's my belief that trying to take on this travesty piecemeal is doomed to failure, and the only way to knock this topic into shape it to take a bulldozer to most of it and start afresh. – ornis ⚙ 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete/Merge per nom. While Wikipedia is not paper, we are supposed to be writing articles about each topic, not books! The current set of articles is only one step away from having Race and intelligence (chapter 42) and such. :) --Itub 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have not been active on this group of articles, but as far as I know, all splits has been discussed in Talk:Race and intelligence or resp. talk pages. The group of articles is reasonably well written and very well referenced - and considering the topic, it seems that there has been every attempt to stay away from racism. The topic is understandably very delicate, as can be seen how few careless remarks destroyed James D. Watson. I will not cast a vote on this one, but I think that creating a special WikiProject might be a better way to deal with this group of articles then deletion. Several of nominated articles could be deleted, though, but not all. -- Sander Säde 10:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. While there has been a lot of work done on these articles, the task, if one were to want to do a proper overhaul, is herculean. Better to start over if need be. While the subject is indeed a potential haven for racists, several editors indeed are watching the different pages and reverting introduction of racist POVs. However, do we need the entire dozen articles? Probably not. Is there a fair amount of duplication between the articles? Certainly, there is. Is it a good idea to take a bulldozer to it and delete the whole thing? I think not; there has been a tremendous amount of work going into this over the years, and the articles have stood for at least two years (about four or five AFAIK for the main one). Is a major overhaul sorely needed? Yes. But should we rush into things and delete the whole thing because some racists might get a foothold in this? Aboslutely not, there is no such rush. However, there is the need to have some action plan to avoid making this into an eternal work-in-progress. For all these considerations, I say Keep for now, but create a Wikiproject to deal with it --Ramdrake 10:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I have watched this mess for many years. I grant the topic is important but I do not think a specific article on race and intelligenceis a good idea, especially when the article on "intelligence" itself is so weak. personally, I think we need much better articles that are far more specific: In-depth articles on the major topics of Race and Intelligence and then very specific articles on controversial books by Murray/hernstein and Rushton, and then articles that are appropriately specific eg. "Race and I.Q. testing" and "Race and Educational Policy" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Race and IQ testing. I very much agree. Amongst other problems the very titles take for granted the notion that IQ testing can really measure intelligence in any meaningful way, or that "race" is an accepted or clearly defined notion. The focus issue I think is key here. – ornis ⚙ 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per Slrubenstein. I can't agree that there has been every attempt to stay away from racism, the whole set of articles reek of bias. Alun 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per Slrubenstein. I gave up on the articles as unworkable years ago, and they have gotten much worse in the interim. Almost all of them are not about "race and intelligence", but rather, about race and IQ. Since the articles equate the two, they are necessarily misleading. Additionally, too much information is segregated into subarticles, which makes individual articles misleading. I really don't think this is salvageable. Guettarda 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the titles are misleading. futurebird 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Comment - I'm watching and withholding judgment. I agree that something needs to be done. People who are not familiar with this project will object when they see how many references all of these articles have. Sorting through the sources is confusing as each of these articles contradicts itself every other sentence-- and all of the contradictions are "sourced." I'll be interested to see how people not involved with this project respond to this idea. I don't yet have a strong stance either way. But, I encourage the "outside editors" who speak up on this deletion debate to look at each of these articles and perhaps look at the size of the archives on some of the talk pages. I have put in many hours trying to improve all of these articles, and they are still in an abysmal condition, I think it should count for something, that an editor who has worked hard on these articles is willing to even consider chucking them out and starting over. I have not made up my mind yet. I'm a little concerned we'd lose information in the process. futurebird 13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand you and others have put in a lot of work, and I don't wish to belittle that in the slightest. There's no need to worry either about loosing material, I've taken off-line copies of all the articles, I'd be happy to mail to you should they be deleted, or of course you could make your own. – ornis ⚙ 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per Slrubenstein and Guettarda -- these "articles" are just conduits for stupidity, and are very poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- What about Ashkenazi intelligence ? Is this part of the group too? futurebird 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly hadn't even noticed that one. Give me a few minutes. – ornis⚙ 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Alright, I'm not sure this is exactly kosher, but I'm adding that article to this debate. I'll put it at the bottom, so as not make it appear that those who've already commented were commenting on it as well. – ornis ⚙ 13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd just like to say I think the comments by Slrubenstein and Guettarda, (re: having given up) are exactly why such drastic measures needed here; the articles have become completely unmanageable. – ornis ⚙ 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Slrubenstein and Guettarda. If anything perhaps renaming to Race and IQ tests. The articles are a mess, full of bias and dubious claims. IQ tests are flawed and do not measure intelligence. If they did, I would have found the meaning of life by now. Jeeny ^(talk) 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Essays shouldn't exist on wikipedia. Describe the phenomena through the articles on publications and people. Bulldog123 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge - The articles are getting more unmanageable but not grounds for deletion. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Most of the info on these pages is totally redundant. I'm going to rewrite the entire Race and intelligence article top to bottom and most of these pages will have been deleted in the process anyway. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Slrubenstein. The whole of Race and intelligence is not in a great state at the moment, with evident POV pushing by some unscrupulous editors. I also agree that the main article needs to be completely rewritten, very much in the same way that User:Dbachmann cleaned up European People to create European ethnic groups. --Mathsci 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all of the reasons stated for deletion plus ruthless obsession by racial POV-pushers. These articles routinely slander large numbers of people and that those slanders are unacceptable within the community of mainstream scientists was made clear by the bi-continental condemnation of Nobel laureate James D. Watson, prompting his apology for making unscientific claims about race and intelligence. Interestingly, the promoters of this racist POV on Wikipedia made three obsessive edits to the citation in race and intelligence to the NYT article that summarized the Watson affair, then censored all mention of it, making Wikipedia appear in this article as both racist and ignorant . Skywriter 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think the pages should be kept for the references and the work done so that a more appropriate central article could be made based on it if necessary, and I don't think deletion is needed. The material should reflect references and research done on the subject, but not personal opinions of users. JonatasM 18:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge what little is salvagable to the main article. The mere existence of no less than 12 articles on this subject gives it severe undue weight compared to many other scientific topics (that are much more firmly established than this controversial topic). Also, the existence of a page solely for references (many of which are not even used in the actual articles, according to the reference page itself) is an indication that something is very wrong here. Cut it down to one page by cutting severely and try to keep that single page a decent representation of the topic. That will be much more informative than the mishmash of articles and contradictory statements that are presented here now. In its current state, casual readers might think that this actually is a big research topic in modern day science, rather than the highly disputed field of research it is in reality. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points you're making about undue weight from sheer bulk. futurebird 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge Along with a major rewrite of the main article. It needs a lot of work to be seriously objective. CJ 17:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, my vote was for the original nom. I agree with the below that Ashkenazi intelligence should be relisted separately. CJ 12:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge per above. Jeeny ^(talk) 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge Essays should not exist on wikipedia. Report the matters through the publications. Bulldog123 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge useful content into main article, per nom. After reading the nomination, I agree with the nominators's "proposal... to aggressively delete all of these forks, and merge anything worthwhile, notable and NPOV, into the main article." That educated persons debate about the relationship of one to the other can't be denied, but I think it will be difficult to keep the neutrality on the main atricle, let alone the forks. Many of us question the concept of describing a person as being a member of one particular race anyway. Mandsford 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and revert This was a promising stand-alone article last year with some fine tuning to be done. Sadly many people who are now advocating deletion were the proponents for breaking this into the unmanageable mess we see today. I predicted that the dispersion to multiple articles would make this unmanageable and prone to special interest POV. --Kevin Murray 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all for now and deal with editorially in a project. there is good content in some of these articles, such as Race and intelligence (test data) -- though I think its a poor choice of title. I think some people new to the debate here are needed to sort it out -- and I dont mean to nominate myself. I do not see the advantage of starting over, when we have a fairly good start of various sections here--it will just get the same conflicts. DGG (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

a single combined article will be no more manageable--this is a valid use of WP:Summary style. Considering the topic, and considering that one of the sides in the debate on this topic is that the subject is inherently biased and prejudicial, I wonder at the possible intention of deleting this groups of articles--does it perhaps represent the POV of one side of the debate only, trying to down-pedal this topic?DGG (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I too suspect an ulterior motive of POV censorship. These articles seem to have plenty of notability and sourcing. If fewer articles can do the job of all these then create them first in a process of merge/redirect. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 08:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment, although I am not the nominator, I still want to say that I think it is not very fair that both last commenters have questioned the good intentions of the nomination. As is apparent from the start post, his/her main goal is to merge suitable information into a single, proper, article. That might, or might not, involve deletion of articles, depending on what turns out to be merged. There is no censorship here, just a lot of redundancy, bias and undue weight in these articles. And no, AfD is not cleanup, but (unfortunately) it is the only forum on Wikipedia that gets reasonable attention from a wide variety of editors, so I fully support this listing, even it just was to get a different set of editors to have a look at the articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the proposer said, inter alia, "there's always somewhere for the racist POV pushers to slink to when they meet resistance". The proposer seems intent on expunging another POV with this mass deletion. Colonel Warden 11:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge - The articles are getting more unmanageable but not grounds for deletion. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
keep and merge only if editors who work on the articles think it is necessary. This should be talked about on the talk pages not in AFD. There is no reason to impose structure by an AFD. Merging can be done by anyone who thinks it will improve the series of articles (and can be reverted by anyone who disagrees, that is why there is a talk page). Jon513 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: though the pages in this AfD look quite lousy the concept of splitting complex and controversial articles into smaller parts works more often than not. Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete All - As they stand, the articles are useless. When I first ran into them, I thought the title was "Race and IQ" and that is why I really did no care much about it. Sometime later I ran across them while reading entries in RFCU and realized that the title was "Race and intelligence." Yet, most of the articles give undue weight to IQ testing. The articles are constructed in such a poor way that it is better to start from scratch. Its like writing code, if its messy, its faster to begin from zero. All the articles above serve as POV forks for Race and intelligence. The only articles we should keep and work on are Race, Intelligence, and Race and Intelligence. Brusegadi 01:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I moved the later listed article to a seperate AfD, as requested by several people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge There is far too much information here to simply eliminate everything--if only because when someone tries to start the article all over again it will just as easily follow the same path that it has this time. Still, some of the above sections do not deserve to remain at all and others must be cut down to the barest of bones just to reach an inkling of truth. Oh and note: Ashkenazi intelligence is, by definition, just another article describing "racial" differences in intelligence (On the whole I believe that the only valid title would be "human intelligence"; but, I suspect this title already exists in a much cleaner article :P)

Frank0570618 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Comment. Normally a WP:MERGE tag, not WP:AfD, is the place to request article mergers. Controversial topics are inherent troll magnets and our commitment to an open encyclopedia that is WP:NOT#censored means that we cannot delete verifiable articles on notable topics simply because the topics are controversial and have attracted vandals. If we started deleting articles just because they were vandalized too often, vandals would start hacking into articles they didn't like in droves in hopes if they were persisitent enough we'd give up and delete the ones they didn't like as well. We don't want to encourage them]. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That said, if we make a decision here, I agree Delete and Merge into Race and intelligence is appropriate, and agree that splitting the article sections into separate articles as has been done has creates an unfortunate redundancy. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep not that some may not need to be merged but nominate individually weak articles for Afd on their own individual merits, this mass nomination serves no purpose. Although some may find this topic objectionable, it is a topic which is notable even if only for controversy and the succor it provides for would be racists. The best way to deal with such racists is to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves with by accurately reflecting their views in the articles without endorsing those views and to provide the scientific rebuttals and contexts to those views. Notable topics however difficult shouldn't be avoided by simply by deletion. KTo288 03:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with most of what you say in the general sense but I feel that it does not apply here. If we were speaking about deleting the article Race and intelligence I would be totally on your side. Yet, we are talking about a bunch of sub-articles that say the same thing and were probably created by frustrated editors because they were not able to get their 'point' across in the main article. Hence, POV forks. While some people will nominate (for deletion) articles simply because they are politically incorrect, others will fear to nominate politically incorrect articles that are perfect candidates simply because they fear to be promoting censorship. There are policy-obedient politically incorrect articles that should not be deleted, and then there are politically incorrect articles that should be deleted because they do not follow our guidelines. I feel that the articles in question fall in the second category. Brusegadi 06:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and/or merge but don't delete if merging content. "Delete and merge" is prohibited by the GFDL; this would remove the history of the merged content. DHowell 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and merge if necessary. There is a lot of good, sourced information in these pages and deleting them is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As far as I can tell, these are more WP:SS subarticles than POV forks. While perhaps this all could be cut down a bit, there is much information that would be lost by deleting these articles, and if we want to use the content at all delete/merge is forbidden by the GFDL, as has been noted above. Calliopejen1 15:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep! This is a great resource, with many useful citations. Yes it is messy and unruly, but very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. Do not censor information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.167.148 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. How would starting from scratch help anything? Some degree of imperfection with these kinds of articles is inevitable, especially when they become the subjects of controversial, separative AfDs. AfD isn't cleanup; deleting these would erase a lot of valuable and appropriate information. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a very poorly-organized set of articles with a huge amount of redundancy, but the best solution is some large-scale merging and restructuring. If the underlying problem is that the involved editors can't obtain consensus, then deletion will not make that problem go away. – Smyth\^talk 09:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is clearly a valid topic. This is clearly difficult. Don't shy away from the challenge and take the easy way out.Meniscus 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This can all be merged, and doesn't need to be seperated. There is no need for several Race and intelligence articles. Yahel Guhan 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all but one of the articles linked at the top of this page. They are clearly POV forks that can be merged into one article.Skywriter 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
'Weak Keep as the articles are extensively made, sourced, and written. As long as someone thinks they can keep a lid on vandals (no way am I trying; I couldn't keep it separated), we can keep. Otherwise, merge to main article. —Scouter Sig 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep — All notable topics and with WP:RS references. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:13 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Keep. First of all I think if the deletion were done to silence a discussion that without any doubt stirs enough emotion and demand for clarification to deserve a debate and encyclopedia coverage it would be unworthy of the ideals behind Wikipedia. Second - to provide such a structure with several articles is worthwhile regarding the amount of information. 217.236.252.61 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination fails to state a valid ground for deletion. The one commenter who mentions WP:NOT the news would be well-served (if he feels strongly enough) to write a new nomination on that ground, for one on this ground is far too flawed to succeed -- indeed, it might be considered barred by policy from succeeding. WP:NOT CENSORED, and criminals are covered under NPOV, without any hint of condoning them. (q.v. Adolf Hitler.) Xoloz 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tv-links.co.uk

With sites like these existing on Wikipedia does that basically mean Wikiepdia condones the use of these kind of sites? I understand sites like Demonoid and other BitTorrent being listed on here because to an extent, these aren't illegal but sites that freely redistribute TV shows and movies to users is highly illegal hence it's shut down and the arrest of the owner. Had the site not been deleted, it would surely have been in violation of WP:SPAM? RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 07:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is there a rationale for deletion here? Legal or not, having an article is by no means condoning anything. Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't mean that we condone cannibalism, and Wikipedia is not censored. The only question is notability. This seems to meet that standard (though more sources would help). --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, had the site still have been up and running, it would have been classed as SPAM? Now that the site has been taken down and the owner arrested, all that exists is a dead link. Obviously there's WP:N aswell. And I already know about censorship on wikipedia :) RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability does not expire. The article has significant NPOV/balance problems, but it is clearly not advertising even if the site was up. Reliable sources called it a major pirate operation. Subject may be notable if claims of historic significance can be verified. • Gene93k 10:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, It's not SPAM now there's no website to link to. If anything it's a current affairs story that raises serious issues about copyright law. I think it should stay, but if you want a reason to delete it, presumably having a link to TV-Links makes Wikipedia guilty of whatever they are guilty of too, since they themselves are only providing links to copyrighted material. Kangarupert 09:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, sources in the article demonstrate that the site is notable. This is, in many ways, a landmark ruling in the UK, not to mention the fact it was one of the biggest sites of its kind. No way that this is spam, and there is no way that reporting it in any wat condones it. J Milburn 10:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, as soon as I saw coverage of this, I knew this was notable as it has gotten media attention. ViperSnake151 11:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Possible Keep, By no means is this advertising a site that doesn't exist anymore. All it does is allow for sensible debate about an issue that is clearly contentious. The theme of 'copyright facilitation' opens up several interesting arguments, and I would suggest, if it is decided that the page should be removed, that this case is cited in a wider copyright argument page.
Keep Quite a notable case of the unfolding battle between websites who infringe copyright and the authorities. David 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Both a notable website and legal case, referenced enough to be considered verifiable, IMO. •97198 talk 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I would say the website was notable enough in the first place given the high volume of traffic it generated. Shinigami27 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Speedy Keep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep) implies that the user thinks the nomination was based on an obvious misunderstanding and that the deletion discussion can be closed early. I'm not sure why this is being considered for deletion.... sites that freely redistribute TV shows and movies to users is highly illegal hence it's shut down and the arrest of the owner is incorrect: the site did not distribute or store any media material, but did provide links to sites which require their users to only post material not in breach of the law in the country of that site. As such it is entirely possible that no law was broken. 1 It is a notable case of the ongoing actions of F.A.C.T. and how such orgs interact with the internet and the tactics they use to control copywrited information and media 2 It is referenced by reliable sources and is notable enough to be in a national newspaper 3 If the arrested individual is convicted it has deep and wide implications for the entire internet in the UK as 'copyright facilitation' could potentially mean any search engine, directory or site that links to another is illegal (and therefore wikipedia and the internet as it currently exits is itself possibly illegal). --ASH1977LAW 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Wikipedia has an article on Murder and rape. Does that mean that Wikipedia condones that? No, of course not.dposse 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Links Will ^(talk) 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep Kenjoshii ^[chat] 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep It got plenty of media coverage. Jason Garrick 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong KeepI don't see any reason to delete this, as it is chronicling an important event in web rights. Also, as it was widely used, it's less of a candidate for deletion than some of the myriad of crazy articles on this site. Just my 2 cents.71.114.76.226 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep This decision will most likely prove to be as landmark of a copyright infringement decsion for the UK as was the Napster ordeal in America. The article raises strong points relevant to current debates concerning copyrights. By looking at the number of unique contributers today alone, this website is clearly notable and should be kept. Jason Smith 02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep This has to say, even if the site itself was illegal, this page explains the concept and why it shut down. Controlled substances have their own pages on wikipedia, why not infringements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.212.197 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, the presence of an article on a subject does not constitute an endorsement of the subject provided the article is neutrally written. Otherwise we'd have to delete The Holocaust. Hut 8.5 12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toronto-Montreal rivalry, the merge was made --JForget 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadiens-Leafs Playoff Series

List of results of playoff series between the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs. While these are the two oldest teams in the NHL, there's really isn't much here than isn't already explained over in the section about the teams' rivalry in National Hockey League rivalries. Simply being a list of playoff results also means it's a indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I see no assertion that the set of playoff series played between these two teams are more notable than the set of playoff series between any other two professional sports teams. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. You also should add List of Boston Bruins-Montreal Canadiens playoff series, List of Detroit Red Wings-Toronto Maple Leafs playoff series, and List of Chicago Blackhawks-Montreal Canadiens playoff series to this AfD. Skudrafan1 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've been bold and merged/redirected this article to Toronto-Montreal rivalry, as it really was just a chart. Unsure of what to do with the additional articles Skudrafan mentions, as there is no articles on the specific rivalries. Perhaps a merge into National Hockey League rivalries? Or perhaps just delete. Reso lute 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the chart -could- go along with the section of the Toronto-Montreal rivalry in National Hockey League rivalries, which, let's face it, is not a great article. Adding tables like this to that article, or splits of the rivalries article with charts makes the rivalries article more encyclopedic, no? Alaney2k 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think what Resolute did was fine for this article. Delete the rest as they aren't as notable. --Djsasso 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Non-admin closure. Deor 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Defence of Poetry

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Defence of Poetry

Articles for deletion/A Defence of Poetry (2nd nomination)

Unsourced, original research, would need a total rewrite to become encyclopedic. Dethme0w 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The current article is a mess, but the subject is a major work listed at WP:MEA. This is well-worth cleaning up. Anyone interested? There's an entry at the Literary Encyclopedia that would be a good source. Zagalejo^^^ 07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, this is an important work. Needs some cleanup, and the original text coudl be uploaded to Wikisource if it hasn't already found its way. Then we could quote more relevant passages and link to the whole thing. But it isn't original research by any stretch, and I wish people would stop using that as a synonym for "unreferenced". It isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Important subject. A viable article could be written on this. --Folantin 10:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article I read may be markedly different from the nominated article; did not check the history. But the subject — an essay by Percy Bysshe Shelley — is worthy, and the text I read has no major problems; it is largely self-referencing and consists mostly of quotes from the essay itself or Shelley's public domain letters. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've fixed this to stub status. Obviously more can be done, but this is certainly no longer a case for deletion. --Folantin 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - you can consider this a withdrawal of my nomination. As the article appeared at the time, it was pretty much a cut and paste job (and had been deleted once already), but Folantin has done a great job so far of cleaning it up, and I would not nominate the article for deletion in the state it is in at this time. -- Dethme0w 17:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Park parodies

Jurassic Park (like many other popular films) have parodies. Jurassic Park is important, but all the parodies aren't. No importance is shown here. This is just a dumping ground for anything that might (or might not) parody the film. This is original research, unsourced and just trivial. RobJ1981 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom Collectonian 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:TRIVIA + WP:OR. Parodies very briefly mentioned at Jurassic Park#Reaction, but that's enough IMO - no need to go into excessive unreferenced detail. •97198 talk 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per 97198. Doctorfluffy 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture

This is a trivial unsourced list of mentions. In other words: a dumping ground for anything to be listed with no end in sight. This is yet another splitted off section that should've been made into a prose on the main article, instead of moved. RobJ1981 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article starts off with a single, unsourced, POV statement and from there contains a list of trivia. The nominator hints at a merge into Soviet war in Afghanistan, but I don't think that this list (even after being converted to prose) has a place in the main article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, of course. Unless you delete all of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:In_popular_culture. --HanzoHattori 18:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent use of WP:ALLORNOTHING. Crazysuit 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. List the few notable books and films in the main article, delete the rest. Crazysuit 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I do not know whether we should keep them all, but we should keep this one. I'd change the title to "books and movies about the soviet war in Afghanistan". The theme is notable, the items are relevant, of the first 6 in the second section, 5 are clearly important (as a sample). that they are based on the war is first of all evident mostly, and they can all be sourced from reviews. I'm not sure what citing the review actually adds, but it can be done. DGG (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree that this topic is notable and with the suggestion for a title change, although I might add that it should probably be "Soviet War." Enough significant works seem to cover this topic to justify its inclusion on our project in some capacity and with the ongoing war in Afghanistan it is a topic that readers will be interested in. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I originally split the "pop culture" section from Soviet war in Afghanistan into a separate article, and my sole intent was to separate fact from fiction. But now, thanks to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I see that this could be turned into a serious article. I also agree with DGG that some entries are notable, and worthy of serious study. Many of them, however, are nothing more than trivia and fancruft, and should be removed. Raoulduke47 11:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I think it's worthwhile to have a place to read about the cultural "glasses" worn by the west (in this case, popular culture via books and movies) in viewing the Soviet war in Afghanistan. milnews.ca 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wambago

Patent hoax. Google search for "wambago" returns 4 matches [33], none of which have anything to do medicine. Also, various searches for the supposed discoverer of the disease show nothing indicating that a person with the name "Sander Vesterveld" was ever a Dutch explorer. A^RendedWinter 04:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obvious rubbish. Stebbins 04:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - utter nonsense Collectonian 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete obvious garbage. Sander Westerveld is a footballer.... ChrisTheDude 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why it was not Speedy deleted? M0RD00R 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion doesn't apply for hoaxes (unfortunately) A^RendedWinter 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete The creator of the page is vandalizing this page, that should give you an idea of the value of this page. Mindraker 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete total nonsense artical Struds 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Exterminate !" A Dalek —Preceding comment was added at 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (I'll redirect to Spades.) — Scientizzle 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online Spades

Overcategorization, mostly spam RemoWilliams 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need an article about Online Spades? It's not notable at best, spam at worst, and the article itself is poorly written and likely unsalvageable.

Is there an article about online card playing in general? There's one about online poker, but thats definiately a separate and notable subject. It was the only one I could find when searching for online cards, so I don't think there's a broad article. If there was, we would merge it. But since there isn't, this is not a notable topic, so delete. i ^said 04:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All that this article says about the game of spades could be in Spades. Nothing that this article says about online card games is unique to spades and ought to be, as I said, in an article about online card games in general (if anywhere at all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stebbins (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maori 5 elements

Although the lead of the article claims this as 'native Maori tradition', it does not have the hallmarks of a genuine tradition, but seems rather to be a new age-derived philosophy. The article is also unsourced; if it really is 'native Maori tradition', then it should derive from a traditional source recorded in the 19th century. If, on the other hand, it represents new age beliefs, it would not merit the epithet 'native' or 'Maori' which imply that this is tradition shared by, and known to, all Māori. Without sources, this article appears to be original research rather than genuine tradition Kahuroa 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless suitable sources are provided.-gadfium 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 04:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have notability requirements for articles on specific aspects of religion or belief systems? I don't think we do. But that's slightly irrelevant, as this is original research as it stands now. A cursory google search reveals nothing to show that this is, in fact, a genuine belief. So delete. i ^said 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. Kahuroa 03:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete , no sources - SimonLyall 06:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I'm intrigued by "Earth was said to cause Earthquakes". The earth causes itself to quake? Moriori 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As previously stated, not even the almighty Google can come up with anything on this... Magus05 ^(talk) 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bukhara magazine

Unreferenced, POV, no independent evidence of notability. Could be a legitimate subject, but we can't tell from this article. See also arguments made here. Biruitorul 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak ~~delete~~ keep. (see comment immediately below) I commented on the associated AfD at this entry; there's one paragraph of material that equates to six typed pages and is duplicated here that is really daunting to examine. The article on the magazine seems to think that it gains notability from the editor, whereas it might be the other way around... the magazine may be notable, but I'm fairly sure the editor isn't. I can't find independent evidence to confer notability, which is not surprising given my English-only language barrier. I would welcome both these articles getting attention from someone with the background and language skills to truly inform a decision. Accounting4Taste 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Great big vote of thanks to DGG for notifying the Iran WikiProject and for taking the pruning shears to this -- it's now possible to see that there's sufficient notability asserted here for me to change what's left of my mind ;-) Accounting4Taste 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Current article seems basically unsalvageable. If the journal turns out to be notable after all, it's probably easier to start a new article from scratch. --Crusio 07:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Particularly Crusio's "unsalvageable" comment. Pig^man 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep The major collection in the subject in the US and UK receive this magazine, according to OCLC, so it may possibly be notable. As for the article, I removed the extraordinary amount of duplication. Expert attention is obviously needed, so I notified the Iran WikiProject. I haver seen very few articles too disorganized to salvage, it mainly takes being BOLD enough to do the necessary cutting. DGG (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per DGG. No cogent reason has been raised to delete this periodical. Espresso Addict 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I do not understand why this article is considered unsalvageable. It looks like a proper stub to me. In general, we should be more patient with article stubs that can only be verified by foreign language sources or paper sources. There is a lot of knowledge outside the internet.--Yannick 04:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note: the current version is much different from the one I nominated; DGG has helpfully pruned it down to stub size. Biruitorul 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider it perfectly reasonable to have nominated this in its original state.DGG (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, the nominator could have edited the article or applied relevant edit tags. Not only are these options, they are required by Wikipedia:deletion policy. Alansohn 06:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - note that prior to DGG's pruning, the article was a copyvio of this. -- Whpq 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article seems to have been salvaged and addresses notability. Great work! Alansohn 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have just worked a bit on this article following DGG's BOLD lead (corrected some English, added internal links, adding/removing misplaced blanks, etc), but I feel that the notability of Bukhara is still not established. The second paragraph seems out of place, too. If this other magazine KELK is notable, it should have its own article. If not, this paragraph should be deleted. If anybody knows of verifiable independent sources establishing notability for either one of these journals, that would be great. Till then I think that I maintain my delete vote given above. --Crusio 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Yannick. M0RD00R 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Douglas Mauldin

No assertion of notability, no references, just a CD list. Few (<10) Google hits for "Michael Douglas Mauldin" or "Michael D. Mauldin". Biruitorul 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no assertion of notability, CDs are sold through www.cdbaby.com, i.e. self-published. --Stormie 03:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. JJL 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless the creator can show evidence of notability. Muntuwandi 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to The Lone Gunmen (TV series). --Tikiwont 10:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yves Adele Harlow

Merge into The Lone Gunmen (TV series). This character lacks independent notability and has too little information to justify a separate article. Doczilla 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom.--Bedivere 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into The Lone Gunmen (TV series). Pinball22 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge, no independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xim the Despot

Non-notable character -- is alluded to but doesn't even appear in a single EU novella. Entirely WP:PLOT; although a secondary source is cited, the story does not provide any critical commentary or other information as required by WP:WAF -- and I doubt such information actually exists, considering the character's minor role. EEMeltonIV 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bearian 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Star Wars-related Articles for Deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, leave this detail to Wookiepedia not Wikipedia. --Stormie 03:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:Fiction. --Gavin Collins 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gears of War 2

The game has yet to be officially confirmed by Microsoft or Epic. Furthermore the source that allegedly confirmed it does not meet WP:RS. Cliffy B, the lead designer of the previous game, has only stated he merely 'intends to make a sequel. [34] ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Although it has been confirmed (to an extent) there is no where near enough information to warrant an article. A note in the main article would be the best bet. J Milburn 12:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Varlak 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A section in the Gears of War article would be best, until more information is available. Chaz ^Beckett 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete NO where near enough information for an article, should be merged into Gears of War. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete "All that is known..." about a game that doesn't exist yet. Mindraker 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete " you need more than "it may come out" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.190.2 (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The game doesn't exist in any meaningful way, a note on the GOW article is all that's needed. Someone another 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article consists of speculation. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not yet confirmed. --SkyWalker 15:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Freda

Contested PROD. This article lacks discernible notability. I attempted to help the creator improve article (see User_talk:Collectonian and User_talk:Bhaktivinode). However, there are no real verifiable sources available regarding this building. The creator added a bunch of "references" however they do not meet WP:VERIFY guidelines at all and many only mention Temple Freda in passing (if at all). If one were to remove the false references, there would be very little left. Almost no information can actually be provided about this place. The creator also seemed to agree that there is little else to say about it. Collectonian 03:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This article's notablility has been proven by the content of the numerous references cited. Bhaktivinode 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nominator. A simple Yahoo search for Temple Freda Bryan Texas brings up a whopping 45 results, most of which are directories listing houses of worship or simple lists of places in the historical registry. There are no 3rd party sources that do more than list the Temple's name and sometimes address. The article asserts it was important to Texas history, but no sources support this other than it being on the historical registry. Allowing this listing in would seem to set a precedence, to me, that any and every local house of worship should be listed on Wikipedia irregardless of the availability of real sources or notability. Collectonian 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

no sources support this other than it being on the historical registry - If the HRHP was the only source, it would be notable. See below. --Oakshade 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is listed at Registered_Historic_Places_in_Texas,_Counties_A-C; should articles be created for every site listed there, even if the only information about them is "was named after a woman, its located here, and its on the list")? This particular place is not even notible enough to be in the The Handbook of Texas Online, which is done by the Texas State Historical Association and lists a lot of places of minor importance to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only does everything listed there worthy of an article (see my vote below as to why), there's a Wikipedia project dedicated to that purpose; Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I don't know what school of encyclopedic writing you subscribe to ("was named after a woman, its located here, and its on the list"), but the history, architectural design and uniqueness in themselves are aspects that can provide plenty of content written about these places. I created the article San Bernardino (Amtrak station) because I was inspired to do so by its NRHP listing. Sure, I could've written "It has trains and it's on a list," but most editors write beyond 3rd grade English and obviously some research as to why it was considered historic needed to be done and it was eventually written with that information (feel free to attempt an AfD there for the same reasons that inspired this one). I'm sure there are locations in that handbook you mention which aren't on the NRHP registry. --Oakshade 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to attempt to insult my encyclopedic writing ability. That was my basic summation of this particular article, which is abut all it has to say on Temple Freda. By all means, those places on the registry that actually have extensive info available should be articles, but I think that if we just make a bunch of 3-5 sentence articles about every last one, it is kinda pointless, particularly when there are almost no verifiable resources about it. It doesn't really tell anyone anything more than the historical registry itself does, which makes it little more than another directory listing.

Anyway, if the consesus remains to is keep, I hope someone will at least clean up the writing and sourcing. I fixed some references, but that's about all the attention I intend to give it. Maybe someone actually has copies of the two documents that appear to have some info about the place and could at least add more than five sentences to the article (new info box not withstanding; and counting the last two which should really just be a list of resources). Collectonian 07:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure there are "no verifiable resources about it"? Have you checked the Bryan, Texas library? How about the nearby Texas A&M Library? I'd bet my house that the NHRP researchers did. (By the way, how do you come to the conclusion that the Brazos Heritage Society, the non-fiction history book Before Temple Freda: Jewish residents of Brazos County, Texas, 1865-1913, the International Survey of Jewish Monuments or the University of Texas Center for American History are unreliable sources?). If an article on a notable topic starts with only a few verified sentences, that's what stub notices are for. Wikipedia is a never ending process with only so many editors and it takes time, sometime a lot of it, for articles to grow. It's historic topics like this that make Wikipeida stronger, not weaker. --Oakshade 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, I checked both. I live here. Did you actually look at the pages of those references? They mention Temple Freda mostly in passing, and most just confirm that it is on the historic registry. The NRHP listing was enough for that. The Before Freda book is carried by the A&M Library, but I'm not going to go hunt it down the only copy to read to see how it mentions Temple Freda beyond the title (and, presumably at the end since it is a history of Jewish residents in the Brazos Valley BEFORE the temple was built, not about the temple itself). The ISJM listing notes that the building is not in use and in poor condition. The UTC listing is only to note the other book (which even A&M's extensive library has no copies of).

You mean since this article was created yesterday, you've actually gone to both libraries, checked out every book about the history of Bryan, the Brazos Valley, Jewish history in the South and Texas, not to mention every book on Texas architectural history, read every chapter of every book and confirmed there isn't anything more than a paragraph on this registered historic building? Heck, even when I was a researcher for a local news station, we wouldn't go that all out (I am envious of the apparent free time you have). And when you write the sources "aren't reliable", you still haven't demonstrated why they don't have credibility to confirm the content of each sentence that's referenced to them. I guess what you mean is you feel they don't have "in depth" coverage for WP:N inclusion standards. I would simply refer to my keep vote in response to that. And the Before Freda book, which you admit you haven't read, apparently covers Jewish history in Bryan up to 1913 and this building was built in 1912. Are you sure there's no in depth coverage about the building in there or is that just guessing? --Oakshade 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're gonna be snarky and sarcastic, there is no point in having a discussion. I saw the article, I reviewed the WP:N guidelines, I searched myself for more info and felt the topic was not notable. The article's creator even questioned its notability. So I nominated it for deletion. I still feel the article doesn't have that many good sources that actually provide useful information for the article (and some seem to bored on OR since they draw conclusions based on a one line statement. But others disagree, so *shrug* I have other things to worry about. Though since when a Geocities site is considered a reliable, credible source, I don't know. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. The consensus so far is keep, so keep it and stick a clean up, copyedit, and maybe an expert needed tag. Hope someone fixes it up way better than it is now. Collectonian 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion criteria standards than Wikipedia does and everything they consider is heavily researched and analyzed; no simple g-news searches, linking an AP article and calling it a day for them. If it's listed there, it's very notable here.--Oakshade 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (vote changed to "Speedy Keep" as the nom so far is the only delete voter.)--Oakshade 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade. Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per Oakshade. Also this source[35] Lone Stars of David: The Jews of Texas By Hollace Ava Weiner, Kenneth Roseman might be useful M0RD00R 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade. Isn't one of the reasons FOR Wikipedia, to share and preserve knowledge and help people learn? In addition, food for thought: members of a minority race, religion or culture are often overlooked by society as a whole. It is even more evident when taking into account the location of person/thing in question. Judaism and Jewish Temples in the US have generally taken a quiet behind the scenes approach to many things and issues in their respective community - this was especially true in the past in areas where they might not be as openly accepted. They were by no means an inactive force in the community, but rather they did not openly promote the actions and deeds they were performing. Sometimes this was done for the protection of themselves, but often times it was for the protection of others. Secondary sources such as the Bryan/College Station media or Texas A&M newspaper should be searched as well as the state's major dailys (Houston Chronicle, Austin-American Statesman etc) I know the chronicle offer free search of its archives back to 1985. While the naming of the temple after a non-biblical woman is indeed noteworthy, its connection with the community (even other jewish communities) needs to be strengthened. Is there documented information on the Temple serving the jewish students at Texas A&M University or Blinn College? There are almost 50,000 students at TAMU, someone or some temple must be serving the religous needs of the Jewish students. Nsaum75 11:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment about that in the talk page of the article, and believe it or not I actually did do some searching while attempting to help the creator and before recommending it for deletion (though I would think the burden of notability would be on the article's creator). B/CS media has never mentioned this particular place. Our newspaper is the Bryan-College Station Eagle. No mention. TAMU's approximate 2k Jewish students are served by Chabad of Brazos Valley, Texas A&M Hillel, and the Congregation Beth Shalom, the only active synagogue not affiliated with A&M here. None of those have articles, despite being arguably more notable, while Temple Freda is closed, not in used, and seemingly ignored even by the local Jewish community.

I did not recommend this article for deletion because I want to suppress a minority (heck, I am one, several times over). I stumbled on it after the creator attempted to See Also it on four different pages it had no business being. I tried to help him clean it up, offered suggestions for improvement. I evaluated its notability using the WP:N guidelines, particularly with regard to local places.

Keep per Oakshade. And - per the above comment - the fact that other articles don't exist and you think they are more notable, then, by all means, create them. However, the fact that it is not in use is absolutely, one-hundred percent not a deletion reason. Smashville 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per Oakshade. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade. --MPerel 06:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
comment there are no grounds for a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Jon513 15:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SNOW; If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. Note that the nominator provided the only delete vote thus far. --Oakshade 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep because this article is part of a group of articles relating to Jews and Judaism in Texas (the others being James Simon (Businessman), Henry Cohen Community House, Jimmy Kessler, Rosa Levin Toubin, Simon Theatre Simon family, Joe Levin (Businessman), Alex Simon, Sam H. Toubin) that have been nominated for deletion by User Karanacs (talk · contribs) and this one, about Temple Freda nominated by User Collectonian (talk · contribs) yet taken as a whole these articles are a valuable set of records about a topic in a state with relatively few Jews and with an even scantier record of notable Jews, Judaism and Jewish history in it. There is indeed a great need for an article about History of the Jews in Texas and these articles would all be good starting points and resources for it. This article, like the others in this group, cite adequate sources and meet the minimal requirements to be kept. The nominators are requested to reconsider their nominations of these articles. Thank you, IZAK 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
REQUEST: In order to reach a greater consensus about the related "Texas Jews articles" that have been nominated for deletion, please see and add your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thank you, IZAK 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade. As :Oakshade notes, there are substantial independent sources supporting the claim of notability. --Shirahadasha 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of intersex people

Unnecessary list based on a far too narrow and rare defining characteristic to make an encyclopedic list possible, which is why only one person has been included since the list was created six months ago. Intersexuality#Notable intersex people already lists the few notble intersex people. Just because there is an article on state/condition X doesn't mean we need to have a List of people with state/condition X. Masaruemoto 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete- hahaha... hahahah. Yeh, gone. Ridiculous, endless list per usual. Ugh.JJJ999 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bjewiki 14:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - duplication of material in main article. B1atv 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - per B1atv. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. --Stormie 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael salter

Nonsense creation. Has already been speedy deleted onc before and deleted through a PROD once. The article requires deletion and salting. The continued recreation of this article (in this case by Commonwealthbank (talk · contribs)) is disruptive Mattinbgn\^talk 02:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. E. Andrew Boyd

Not much more than a resume. Biruitorul 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Crusio 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep may meet WP:PROF. JJL 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
uncertain He just might do so. It is difficult evaluating academics with careers partly in industry--the distinguishing achievements are not quite as public. His most cited paper is"Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry - A case study" JAMA 284 (17): 2209-2214 NOV 1 2000, Times Cited: 65 according to Web of Science, but only two others are listed there (18, and 7 citations). This would not be enough by itself. DGG (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Marginal claims to notability, very little in the way of reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - lack of reliable third party sources about the subject. Burntsauce 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central New Brighton School

Non-notable school. It doesn't even assert its importance, however every school I've tagged for Speedy Deletion gets declined. Rjd0060 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I've tagged many schools for speedy deletion, and admin always says that schools are not included in A7. - Rjd0060 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be (that the admin said it), but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet the qualifications to be speedy deleted since schools are not exempt. TJ Spyke 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I feel it is pointless to tag it for speedy, as there hasn't been one time where admin has accepted it when I have. I probably should have tried it first, but I didn't. So here we are. - Rjd0060 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's worth taking school articles to AfD, since they're often considerably improved during the process and end up being kept. Delete this one, unless the article is improved and notability established.-gadfium 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging school articles for speedy deletion under A7 is controversial, and there is a large group of editors that consider them exempt. If you want a school article deleted, I would generally suggest using WP:PROD if not AFD. Camaron1 | Chris 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and re-direct to New Brighton, New Zealand - School does not seem notable enough for its own article, so a simple merge would be appropriate. Camaron1 | Chris 10:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 10:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per TJ Spyke. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of operas performed by the Santa Fe Opera

Needless level of detail; for no other opera does a similar list exist. Placing the link at the bottom into the main Santa Fe Opera page should be sufficient. Biruitorul 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete; WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Being performed by the Santa Fe Opera isn't a defining characteristic of any of these operas, so it's a very loose connection to group operas by. Masaruemoto 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that it violates WP:NOT#DIR, and I'll add WP:NOT#LINK since it's a collection of internal links that does not fall under either of the exceptions "for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous [clearly not relevant here], and for lists to assist with the organisation of articles [since it in no way helps to organize the opera or composer articles linked to]." Deor 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as violating every precept of WP:LIST. Useless. Notable opera company/stage, certainly, but that is not inherited. Bearian'sBooties 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Pavel Vozenilek 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G11 and rapidly growing consensus here. --Core desat 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland Home Improvement Contractors

Contested PROD. This "article" is completely made of original research (which isn't even following NPOV) and it contains no encyclopedic value. Rjd0060 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think I would call it "blatant advertising". - Rjd0060 01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete- It's Crap. I would almost consider it spam my self!! Yourname 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
delete it - badly written, no sources, no notability. seems to be self promotion. --Neon white 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As I originally prodded the article, I believe that the article has no place on the wiki. Unfortunately, no speedy deletion criteria applies here.--Michael Greiner 01:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Reads like a brochure. Jermor 01:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Riddiculous, not even entertaining. I think that spam is the pertect word for it. Jfv93 10:00, 22 October 2007 (EST)
Delete: per nom, non notable, reads like an advertisement and is badly written, full of original research. Kevin 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Disagree that no speedy delete applies: "Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted". The guy has added the Banner Home Solutions link to several other pages (all removed) so it is obviously his company. SilentC 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umar Alisha Sahithi Samithi

Contested speedy deletion: twice deleted, twice restored. Article concerns a 15-year-old non-profit organization which conducts literary seminars in an Indian city. See Talk:Umar Alisha Sahithi Samithi for e-mail contesting deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 12:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Addhoc, sources don't appear to exist. Doctorfluffy 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Havrelo Clempuş

I'm being overly cautious bringing this to AfD but I can't see much of notability here. One published book of poems. Perhaps that was a very important book of poems. But G-hits = 7, three of which are Wikipedia. Admittedly, one is in WP Romania but all of them, he is mentioned in passing as being from a particular village which has an article. So no online WP:RS. I bring it here because I'm afraid of speedying an important cultural icon of Romania Pig^man 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Somehow I find it hard to imagine he's a cultural icon with only one published book, especially a book of poetry. No Google Books hits (including books on Romanian poetry) further cements this conclusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nomination due to lack of reliable third party sources about the subject. Burntsauce 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foralogical Federalism

This appears to be a completely new concept. Zero GHITS for "Foralogical Federalism". As such it violates WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Delete Exxolon 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Snigbrook 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 05:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 new article list of Motorola V series phones. Time to bring out the table skillz :) --bainer (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola V60i

At first, I realise that mass nominations can scare some editors. In this case, however, it is to be noted that these phones are clearly non-notable. (See WP:N and WP:PRODUCT). In fact the V and the W series themselves are not notable. (Those missing in the list are already nominated for deletion here and here)

Tomj 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep, It's certainly a product users might search for. I did, which is why I created the page in the first place. If nothing else, merge it into a larger article about this series of phones. – Mipadi 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I understand your point. However,please see WP:USEFUL Tomj 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is, however, useful information that is also encyclopedic. It's not merely a repository of a list information that can easily be found elsewhere. – Mipadi 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge - There's got to be a way to present this information more efficiently in a single article, maybe using tables. The individual numbers can all redirect if needed. Torc2 01:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into a series article as first choice, Keep as second choice. Seems notable and verifiable, but series articles make more sense to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge all info into List of Motorola phones, or a similar page. These are not notable on their own, but as products of a notable company I can see people searching for them. -- Kesh 02:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all Generally unreferenced or poorly referenced articles. Fail WP:N. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Edison 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete the lot or perhaps redirect. This reminds me of an encounter I had with a similar bunch of "articles". MER-C 08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)}}
Merge into one article about the series per User:Kesh or User:Torc2 Bjewiki 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. For a suggestion on a merge target, every single one of these phones pretty much has firmware that is remarkably similar to a Motorola V3 (aka the RAZR). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect all. Motorolacruft. Burntsauce 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge all. Runs afoul of WP:PRODUCT, but the best resolution for that is merge not delete. Mdmkolbe 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I own this phone and WP was the first place I looked for helpful information. The article is useful & notable, but merging it is not the way to go because despite Dennisthe2's comments that the firmware is similar to the RAZR, it's not! Most phone models produced in the last 5 years have custom firmware and model-specific customizable features, and therefore require separate listings to cover the intricacies of each model. HyeProfile 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all Too many seperate, poorly written entries. Just because there are minor differences between models, doesn't validate the idea that there should be seperate entries. This topic could be better covered in a larger article that was broader in scope rather than lists of technical characteristics.--Evilbred (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, merge into one, and redirect all ... Some of the information is useful and interesting to read. I don't think we should throw it away all together. It's helpful. 68.3.214.66 (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. Stormie 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Foop

Non-notable article about, and probably by, a 13-year-old DJ. I recall this going through a deletion process a couple of months ago under the name "DJ F00P" but I can't find a record of that process, so I thought I'd bring this to AfD and let someone with better skills and/or memory than I take over; I suspect this may require SALTing. Accounting4Taste 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The creator's talk page at User talk:Dermato1 reveals that this has been speedied twice under the name of "DJ F00p", so I'll ask for SALT. Accounting4Taste 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete and salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ F00P (note zeroes instead of the letter 'O'). Hellosandimas 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's what I dimly recalled. Accounting4Taste 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghetto bench

Contested prod. Original research with no reliable sources on not notable slang term yielding just 218 Google hits [36], part of which are on totally different subject - system of segregated seating for Jews in Poland's universities before WWII (See Ghetto ławkowe). Adds nothing of encyclopedic value to already existing bench press article. M0RD00R 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nominator. M0RD00R 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The name of the article (in plural) is being promoted by the above nominator somewhere else for strictly political purposes which is totally unacceptable as possible reason for deletion. The content of the article, similarities notwithstanding, relates to a notable subject in North American popular culture. Article creator. --Poeticbent talk 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The term ghetto bench is used in electronics as well, which has been mentioned in the article already. Such usage seems established enough to warrant its presence in Wikipedia, even if only in a form of a stub at present. Providing that this is a neologism as suggested by User:Bfigura, our article on neologism informs us also that: "Neologisms are by definition "new" (...) The term "neologism" was itself coined around 1800; so for some time in the early 19th century, the word "neologism" was itself a neologism." I'm sure that additional sources of information can eventually be found. --Poeticbent talk 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:NEO. Also notability must be established by reliable sources. In this case slang term with just hundred or so Google hits and no reliable sources is totally non-notable and certainly not a part of POPULAR culture. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for every slang term. M0RD00R 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Notability is not asserted by the article and, as nom mentioned, adds nothing of encyclopedic value to bench press. One can create a slang term for anything homemade by prefixing "ghetto" to it (See Jury rig). JFlav 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable neologism. I'm not turning up anything I'd consider a reliable souce for this via google. If we can't verify it, it needs to go. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, vague "merge" if it can be fit into the description of the main article - but it really sounds more like a Urban Dictionary fit. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per JFlav and Bfigura. I can't see why this article should stay. GlassCobra 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Very vague and hardly notable. See Do it yourself for DIY in general.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 08:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non notable. Not enough reliable resources, also seems to be neologism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gina Maria Adenauer

A non-notable F3 also-ran. No notable achievements and no sources (other than an official website link). Adrian M. H. 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep(?) Admittedly not my area of expertise, but it seems she'd be considered a sportsperson at a professional level. Google News appears to provide what look like reliable sources (mostly in German). I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but looks notable enough to me based on available data. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Did not rock the world yet, but 1570 Google hits [37], mostly German of course. Very few females are active in racing anyway.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment There are at least a couple of dozen just in junior European formulae at any one time. I think we should be beyond bestowing notability according to gender in this day and age. Adrian M. H. 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. I think the one F3 Euroseries appearance, which is a professional racing category, is enough (barely) to establish notability. I think this is a borderline case though. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: None of the F3 series are considered professional, even at the highest level of the formula. The requirement to bring some kind of budget is universal even if it comes from a development program or car company. Adrian M. H. 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Professional race car driver. Esteffect 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep due to the downpour of WP:SNOW. Burntsauce 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Food Industries

Orphaned stub, the only external links are to the company's own websites, notability not claimed Snigbrook 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable company. As the nom said, there isn't an assertion of notability. Further, a google search [38] would seem to reinforce the view that there aren't multiple, reliable sources discussing the company in a non-trivial way. (Everything I see in google seems to be a directory, or a passing reference). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Switching !vote --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I found what looks like a solid reference, a Chicago Sun-Times article all about the company (here). I'm inclined to think the potential for a decent article exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If notability were "claimed" this may as well be a spam advertisement. It can however be verified to be notable through third party sources. Burntsauce 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per source found by Starblind. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caelestia.net

Previously PRODded article contested at DRV and sent here. The original PROD concern was that the article had been tagged as unsourced for a couple months and lacked an assertion of notability. The only independent external link in the external links section does not mention this IRC server, and I can't seem to find anything reliable that mentions this server. Even though this is technically a procedural nomination, my argument is to delete. Core desat 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No hits on a full Google news archive search, and nothing notable on a Google search that excludes unreliable sources. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Merge into other articles, the only details anywhere near notable to stand on it's own is its history. The AE game parts could easily be merged into the AE game articles; at worst, maybe the AE article. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:SPAM. Comments like "The network's central and most distinguishing feature's are in some way related to gaming in its various forms" suggests that they need to get a new PR agency as well. --Gavin Collins 15:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: the consensus is obviously towards keep. Computerjoe 's talk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OiNK

Wikipedia is not a newsservice. Website notable only once for being raided. Will ^(talk) 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Keep - "OiNK was the largest source of leaked albums in the world" sounds notable to me GideonF 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or move to "Oink (Bittorrent site)". "OiNK" obviously violates our style guidelines regarding the use of superfluous/meaningless internal capitalization. 170.140.210.108 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — if we are to move the article it should be to "Oink (BitTorrent site)". jareha ^(comments) 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep this, the site is notable, just because it's not important to YOU doesn't mean the same to the rest of us. I don't think style guideline should apply, since that is how they presented their name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.178.109.23 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) — 207.178.109.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The style guideline applies regardless of how the site styles its own name. This is a settled matter at WP:MOSTM and moving the page is indisputable. 170.140.210.108 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  - The style guideline states that in the case of CamelCase it is a judgment call. See other example BitTorrent articles such as isoHunt and TorrentSpy. Nonforma 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    - And this is obviously not camel case: it's one word spelled with idiosyncratic capitalization. This is a routine matter in MOSTM debates and rarely turns out any other way. 170.140.210.108 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Now we're getting into semantics. OiNK can easily be CamelCase, break it up into O i NK. All you need is justification. It's going to be an editorial call. Do you have any precedence for other such common deletions? Nonforma 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What is 170.140.210.108's rationale for deletion, except that the article title perhaps should be changed? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- My rationale was merely that of the nominator. As the day progresses I would expect the volume of news to increase; notability, of course, is not temporary so we'll need a few weeks to find out whether the site became notable in a lasting way as a result of this incitend. 170.140.210.108 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - "OiNK was an amazing and notable site. If we're deleting this article for the way they used capitalization in their name, that's ridiculous seeing as that's the way they actually did say their name." sounds notable to me DerfBWH 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as per GideonF. As an aside, it would be an interesting challenge to find a online community with almost 200,000 members that doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. --Ori.livneh 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I read three news articles about Oink today. None of them mentioned that Oink was a Bittorrent tracker. I had to come here to find that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.53 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Possibly the most important private tracker and was one of the most important trackers, full-stop. Also, with regard to the gentleman who was calling for a move because of the capitalisation, I would draw his attention to the page on NeXT which takes account of that name's unusual use of the upper case. --John Lunney 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! A dose of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should cure you of that notion. 170.140.210.108 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - all over the news its definetly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew22k (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See the reason for nomination though. — Northgrove 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The article was apparently created as a post mortem article, which just comes off as weird to me. If it was notable, why wasn't it here when it was, like, alive and active? Is this a reactionary article creation from the news coverage (this could violate WP:NOTNEWS), or because it did bear notability on its own before? All sorts of things pop up on Wikipedia, but this one didn't until it was dead, which strikes me as strange. I definitely see where the nominator is coming from here. -- — Northgrove 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Northgrove, I think it should have been on Wikipedia before this latest episode. Just because it wasn't isn't necessarily a ground for deletion. Talk:Oink suggested to me that people's qualms were mostly about OiNK not being mentioned in sufficiently noteworthy, independent websites. I think that when the curtain falls on the BitTorrent era of illegal P2P, OiNK will have been one of the major players, notable for its size and the ability of its members to consistently obtain unreleased material. --Ori.livneh 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per GideonF. jareha ^(comments) 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This was an incredibly popular website in the bittorrent community, and deserves at least a mention, as stated above. In fact, at one point, it did have an entry in Wikipedia that was fairly extensive. I have no idea why it was ever taken down to begin with.
Keep - This may be a 'post mortem' article, but most likely due to it's private status when it was running. Most other major BitTorrent sites have articles; I see no reason why OiNK should be excluded. Nonforma 20:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- There was a certain amount of secrecy about Oink, which menat that a Wikipedia article wouldn't necessarily have been desired. --John Lunney 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  - 'Was' being the keyword there. What little actual secrecy it used to have is obviously gone now. Besides, how many Wikipedia articles are undesired? Nonforma 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - A very well known site for music torrent, and all that happened with the raid deserves a mention. Tabor 20:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to OiNK (bittorrent) or something. --CCFreak2K 20:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Multiple References, The IFPI claim makes it notable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
keep notable, many news sources etc. SECProto 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Since Oink was one of the biggest torrent trackers and the closing of it, by arresting the person behind the site, is completely unprecedented. Thus it is notable enough to merit an article of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.201.214 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Now that there are major references, BBC, etc. It's verifiable enough to be listed, before that wasn't the case even though it was notable. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Was a very important private tracker. Important to p2p music sharing in general, e.g. being one of the first private trackers to have minimum bitrate an quality requirements for shared music, before there were scene standards for shared music. Also, notable as the first bittorrent tracker to be shut down in the UK - the decision in the legal case against OiNK will set an important legal precedent that can be included in the article. - 99.231.66.238 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)— 99.231.66.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, very large, popular and well known tracker – the recent events makes it doubtlessly notable. 81.225.133.69 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)— 81.225.133.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - big and known for the perfect quality rips throughout the site 87.174.163.155 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)— 87.174.163.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - very well known in the P2P community. Qualifies as "Notable" Mtwstudios 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Riki Lindhome

[edit] Jenny Rocket

[edit] SAF Records

[edit] Superman II: The Fan Cut

[edit] Canonfire!

[edit] Jimmy Kessler

[edit] The Not So Jolly Rogers

[edit] Rosa Levin Toubin

[edit] MediResource

[edit] Shax (Charmed)

[edit] Born for This (Paramore song)

[edit] Darrin

[edit] Judd Vinet

[edit] List of fictitious films

[edit] Live with Mitch and Paige

[edit] 2007 Jimbo Wales video

[edit] Presidency of Andrew Jackson

[edit] Anthony Chidiac

[edit] Sophomore

[edit] Whiz-giggle

[edit] Todays television

[edit] Keith Jorgensen

[edit] Uncle Chom

[edit] Power Animal (Gaoranger)

[edit] Software that uses Subversion

[edit] List of Japanese people

[edit] List of musicians who died due to unknown or insufficiently explained causes

[edit] Alfredo Prior

[edit] Age of D'ni

[edit] Bahro (Myst)

[edit] D'ni

[edit] D'ni Restoration Council

[edit] Ages of Riven

[edit] D'ni Ages

[edit] List of D'ni kings

[edit] D'ni language

[edit] D'ni wildlife

[edit] Yeesha

[edit] D'ni numerals

[edit] Sesslebridger

[edit] Darren Heitner

[edit] Bo Gorman

[edit] Live Free or Die Hard (video game)

[edit] Evil Weevil

[edit] Ridley Road Market

[edit] Reshitting

[edit] Holger Weins (Facedesigner)

[edit] Van Darkholme

[edit] Guitar hero 4 icons of rock

[edit] Wizards of Waverly Place (disambiguation)

[edit] Keith Landry

[edit] Sonopia

[edit] Jennifer Johnson (Broadcaster)

[edit] Suburban Tragedy

[edit] Ashwin Madia

[edit] Vic and Marty

[edit] Joey Shabadoo

[edit] Killercop.com

[edit] Stuttering (Don't Say)

[edit] Fire (Wild Orchid album)

[edit] List of Hollywood agencies and management companies

[edit] 50 Greatest Women Of The Video Era

[edit] Francis Kender

[edit] Anna Kamatchi Amman temple at Omandur

[edit] New Era

[edit] Theo Obrastoff

[edit] Project On Government Oversight

[edit] Brian Collins

[edit] When the Dust Settles

[edit] Swedish sopranos

[edit] Religiosity and intelligence

[edit] Sabacc

[edit] Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms

[edit] Rebecca Dillon-Robinson

[edit] Russian All-Round Fighting

[edit] Amy's on Second

[edit] St Peters Orchestra