Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution FritzpollBot to help WikiProject editors make new geographical articles Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Proposed policy regarding threats against schools and students 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 delete. --Core desat 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henleaze Infant and Junior School

Non-notable primary school. No notability asserted, or found. Crazysuit 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 09:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Comment - Both schools combined do have at least some notability. The Infants school oversubscription got news coverage that could be put into the article [1]. Also, the Junior School got a good report and was marked as "best of the best" by Ofsted [2]. Camaron1 | Chris 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Schools are not notable because they've been in a local paper. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is regional, but BBC News is not a local paper. Camaron1 | Chris 11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable in the least, nor is there any assertion of notability. Per Jeeny's comment above, local (newspaper) notability isn't that special. - Rjd0060 04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages". --victor falk 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Bristol has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge with article on Henleaze. Dahliarose 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I considered suggesting that earlier, the amount of sources on this school might not be enough to justify a standalone page so it can simply merged like Liss Junior School. Though I do disagree (as suggested generally in this AFD) for any article that the current state of the article only applies when looking at notability, review the essay WP:POTENTIAL. Camaron1 | Chris 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete If it's really notable, there would be more than zero references. —Scouter Sig 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability.JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
delete - no assertion of notability, no reliabe sources as references. --Rocksanddirt 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Henleaze, Bristol. Is there any valid reason not to? Burntsauce 18:10, 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. --Core desat 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marsworth Church of England Infant School

Non-notable primary school. De-prodded by User:Kappa without explanation. Crazysuit 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources demonstrating notability are found for this school for 4 to 7 year olds. SolidPlaid 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and re-direct to Marsworth - Does not appear notable enough for own article, so a simple merge would be appropriate. Camaron1 | Chris 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete: Non-notable school. A redirect to the neighborhood article is definately not the way to go here. Just delete it. - Rjd0060 04:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not following this, even if it is within one sentence - what is wrong with including a mention of the existing educational institutions in town/village articles? This has been a common practise in the past, especially in the UK. Camaron1 | Chris 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with including it in the town article, this is just a discussion of the merits of the stand-alone page. SolidPlaid 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

People are unlikely to perfectly type the 41 characters needed to take advantage of the redirect. I say delete it. SolidPlaid 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles of this type are frequently merged into town village articles and left as re-directs, re-directs are not supposed to be a big deal, and it does help if somebody is looking for that school. Another advantage is - it makes an AFD unnecessary. Camaron1 | Chris 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the annihilation of these worthless pages. SolidPlaid 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages". --victor falk 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Marsworth.Dahliarose 11:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete If it was notable, it would have citations, not just a single PDF. —Scouter Sig 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It would be fine to merge into the town article, of course, but even then little more than a sentence would be sufficient. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} —Preceding comment was added at 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of notability, though this one does seem to have a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt 17:36, 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.--Alasdair 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingswood Infant and Junior School

Suspicious looking article about a primary school. Google shows no non-Wikipedia results for "Kingswood Infant and Junior School", and the entire article is cut-and-pasted from Kenilworth Primary School. Was de-prodded by User:Kappa without explanation. Crazysuit 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources demonstrating serious notability are found. SolidPlaid 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: The lack of assertion of notability is explained by the complete lack of notability of the school. - Rjd0060 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
delete-nn. Chris 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages". --victor falk 09:59, 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. --Core desat 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Izumicon

An advertisement for an anime convention that has yet to hold its first event. The article does not assert the convention's notability nor can any reliable third-party sources can be found for it to pass WP:N. Was speedy tagged for deletion, but an admin removed the tags with the comment that we should "wait a month to see if the article improves once the convention is held." However, we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL notability. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand this article may be deleted, but please don't call it an ad. This is not an ad, it is only info regarding to an convention. I am going to the convention so I will have actual info regarding this event. All I'm asking for is time. Please allow me to keep my article up, till i get back from the convention and put the info up.--SMOKEMNHALO2001 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Adding information about the convention will not solve the problem with notability. What this article needs is multiple independent sources. These do not exist.Obina 10:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this is 24-carat spam.--Gavin Collins 08:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even though i cleaned this article up from its original state, i don't think it meets the notability requirements. I cannot find any reliable, third party sources and i doubt we will be able to find these until the convention is over. I think it was created with the best of intentions, but the sourcing does not meet wikipedias standards. Woodym555 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Obina has it exactly right. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 16:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Spam. —Scouter Sig 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not assert notability or have reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt 17:31, 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. --Core desat 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Leggio

Non-notable collegiate ice hockey player. Has yet to advance to a professional league (see hockeydb entry) and has not been drafted by a National Hockey League team Skudrafan1 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO guidelines for notability in this sport. Andrwsc 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Skudrafan1 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Canuck85 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination -- JD554 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOCKEY guidelines for notability Pparazorback 08:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No notability yet. Can be readded later if he finds some. --Djsasso 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. WP:BIO allows for a player who has played at the highest level of amateur sports. This person played in Division 1 NCAA hockey. It doesn't get much higher than that in an amateur sport. WP:HOCKEY is a project and not a guideline or policy for the entire Wikipedia project. Opinions of participants are important but we shouldn't start deleting based on a single project. The real problem is a lack of sources to underpin a claim of notability. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Except that amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of a professional level. Not to mention the highest amateur level would be the World Championships or the Olympics. There is also debate in the hockey community over whether Division 1 is even as good as the other levels of junior hockey. In many circles its considered a step down, and that players only go there that can't go elsewhere. Now obviously this is POV but it goes to show highest level is questionable. --Djsasso 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment We really agree that this particular article should be canned, our reasons are different but the outcome the same. But I do wonder about your statement that "amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of professional level. Could you point me to that policy/guideline? And what sport is there that has no professional level of some sort? JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll}
    - Comment "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." The equivalent standing being the highest level of amateur competition, swimming being the perfect example as there is no professional swimming circuit. Atleast that I am aware of. Could be some renegades somewhere I suppose. ;) Heck the majority of olympic sports have no professional version. --Djsasso 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment WP:BIO contains two comments, and again, this is a guideline, not a policy. Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). My concern is that a sweeping interpretation that only non-league sports are concerned has serious implications for some athletes who play football, baseball and basketball (to name a few) in the college ranks. You are correct about the Olympic Sports that are not played professionally - I should have thought longer. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment But how notable are players who could not make it past the amateur level? I mean honestly there are very low level professional leagues in most sports that they could compete in which would then be ok. But if they weren't even good enough for those leagues then really, how notable are they? Personally I prefer the Notability Standards for hockey players because they are more spelled out. But from what I understand WP:BIO is vague on purpose so exceptions can be made. --Djsasso 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it is un-sourced. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 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. --Core desat 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

Articles for deletion/Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy (2nd nomination)

This article was already nominated for deletion once before but was opposed by the article's creator User:Reddi. This particular editor is a well-known POV-pusher for Tesla-involved and related pseudoscience and has basically written this article as a coatrack to avoid the scrutiny of other editors who have opposed his insertion of unverifiable prose in the past. The book is not notable per the book notability guideline, primarily because the reviews it received were neither serving a general audience nor independent of the book itself. The one review it received in the Midwest Book Review posts was for cataloging purposes only and not for general consumption. Such reviews can be found on literally hundreds of thousands of books so this review definitely does not confer notability per WP:BK. The other review was written up in a self-promoting and vanity publication by Marcus Allen (publisher) who is famous for his moonbat theories and is a close associate of the author. They are both members of the paradigm research group which strives to bring fringe ideas out into the open. Therefore, the review in Nexus magazine can hardly be considered to be independent of the source. Let's also consider the publisher: Adventures Unlimited Press. This publisher is basically a vanity press for conspiracy theories based out of Illinois with affiliates in various out-of-the-way places were the owner, Jerry E. Smith, has friends. (I'll also note that Jerry E. Smith is a cosponsor of the paradigm research group and an associate of both Marcus Allen and the book's author.) This outfit does not supply books through normal channels but instead pushes out media for various conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience enthusiasts. Yeah, the book has an ISBN, but those in the publishing world know that it doesn't take much to get one of those. Simply having an ISBN doesn't make one's book notable. It is clear that by the criteria listed at Wikipedia, this book is not notable. We have is a basic violation of WP:FRINGE with a book that represents the original research of the author without any critical review written by an editor who notoriously pushes his POV all across this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like an ad. Fails WP:BK. Unless there is a considerable change to the article, WP:NPOV I say delete.MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - one reliable source with a trivial mention is not notability.

Deftly compiled and edited by Thomas Valone, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature: Tesla's Science Of Energy is a straightforward look at Nikola Tesla's iconoclastic dream and scientific ambition for the development and utilization of a wireless transmission of power itself. Investigating Tesla's alternative to transmission lines and how his ideas could have changed (and may yet change) the shape of human civilization itself, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature is a simply fascinating read offering a unique perspective on an idea that may well have found its time at last. Composed of a series of articles contributed by an impressive spectrum of informed and informative writers, the essays are grouped into three sections: History of Tesla's Early Electrical Life; Principles of Wireless Power Transmission; and Miscellaneous Articles and Tesla Reference Material. Simply put, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature is mandatory reading for all students of Tesla's remarkable life and contributions to science.

The preceeding is the entire review that would be from a mainstream source. Nexus magazine is not a mainstream source. --Rocksanddirt 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The 150-word review posted above fails to meet WP:BK, section 1. — BillC ^talk 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. I worked on fixing up the citations to reviews in this article from its former worse state. But in general I think the requirement of having multiple published reviews sets a very low bar for articles; it should be possible to find such reviews for a very large proportion of academic monographs, for instance, and I don't think most of those deserve articles (the subject of the monograph, quite likely, but the book itself, no). I'd rather see either a combination of WP:BK #1 and one of #2–#5, or a strong pass of #1 rather than a just-under-the-wire pass. This book may have #1, under a liberal interpretation of nontriviality and independence, but not strongly and it doesn't have any of the others. —David Eppstein 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. *cough* solar panels are not connected by wires to the sun. Wireless transmission of power is an obvious reality. You guys aren't worried about the big scary machine in The Prestige (film) are you? Good grief. Delete all these books and all the screenwriters will be out of a job. Jok2000 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the strangest keep !vote I have ever read. What does this even mean? Keep the article so that screenwriters remain employed? I didn't realize that Wikipedia articles were so important in the funding of the entertainment business. ScienceApologist 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well most of the users may be in grade school, but I follow categories and links and references and buy thousands of dollars worth of movies and books based on them. Many users are interested in entertainment, not hard-science. This Tesla stuff goes both ways. Hm, and actually, I cheaped-out recently and mostly rented movies in one category I found. Has this book been banned at any public libraries yet? My collection from the list of banned books has been neglected of late. Jok2000 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF? ScienceApologist 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well enough fun and games. The main problem with the article we are discussing is that the introduction to this book, edited by a Ph.D, and with articles by P.Eng and IEEE members with illustrations that can be found at www.pbs.org/tesla is not as described in the article. Tesla was whining about being thwarted yes, but because you cannot *BILL* the end-user when transmitting power wirelessly. The goal of the author (overstated as it was) was to capitalize on the *efficiency* of not using wires. You still need a nuke plant on the other end generating the power. If the article stays, the description of the introduction must go, however. Jok2000 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete In addition to what SA said, which is sufficient, the first review is is a short one-paragraph blurb and is trivial. Cardamon 08:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What SA said would be sufficient if the contents of the book itself were WP:Fringe, and although with 10,000 books in my collection I can't always go cover to cover on many of my books, this one appears to talk about existing Wikipedia topics such as Wireless transmission of power, Wardenclyffe Tower as well as the previously mentioned [PBS Tesla page] giving references and such. The book is also on sale here in Toronto at remarkably conventional bookstores (ones with blacklists yet). The book's introduction mentions ZPE and the book ends with 12 ads for WP:Fringe books, however it appears to be part of the marketing IMHO. Jok2000 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the book is just not notable. It doesn't seem to be even close to meeting any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books). However, if someone were to dig up multiple nontrivial independent published book reviews, with some of them written for general audiences, I would have to change my mind. Cardamon 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Googling leads to many reviews but seems to fall a bit short of providing notability for it. Someone with more time on their hands needs to do that work. Jok2000 20:56, 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 Keep. --Tikiwont 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Kilner

~~The article provides no reliable secondary sources to establish this person's notability. Alksub 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. --Alksub 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment A quick Google search did turn up a large number of results that seemed related to this particular Walter Kilner. Have you tried fixing the article yourself? Darkcraft 11:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep well known New Age/New Paradigm figure, and has been since the beginning. I remember reading about him almost 30 years ago, when I first developed an interest in these subjects. Definitely notable. I agree the page needs some work M Alan Kazlev 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Paranormal has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep He wrote a book which was published by an independent press, which should be enough to meet WP:BIO. Karanacs 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. We should add more sources - but the subject appears to be notable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 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--JForget 00:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freddy and Jason universe timeline

The article is almost pure original research. The only thing verifiable on the events that take place in each film, but connecting the two franchises--which, until Freddy vs. Jason had never mentioned the other before (minus that half-hearted joke by New Line when they acquired the rights to Friday the 13th--is an original thought of the editors involved with this project. Not to mention it's kind of indiscriminate information, since the only true connect they share is a cross-over film in 2003. This would be like having a timeline for The O.C. and Smallville, just because a character was used in a film. Also, Wikipedia doesn't write fictional biographies and that's basically what this is. At best, it may be better if the information was transwikied to Friday the 13th Wiki. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nothing here which isn't original research. Uncontroversial. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete because this is a synthesized in-universe timeline which violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:WAF. If it was a timeline of when products of the franchise came out, that would be another argument, but here it is from a fictional perspective -- not at all in line with Wikipedia's stance of providing real-world context for a fictional topic. I would say it also fails notability to boot as there is no significant coverage (especially real-world context) by secondary sources about a franchise's fictional timeline. I support a tranwiki to the aforementioned Wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This is a nice idea, but it's completely original research. I've seen a few Friday the 13th timelines, and they're all different, there's obviously no official timeline. And when you include the Nightmare on Elm Street films as well... Transwiki-ing to the F13 wiki is a fair proposal, the information here is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Paul730 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I could swear I've seen this before. JuJube 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- You mean in an AfD? It could have had a different name and just been recreated with this one. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It was killed and then mysteriously resurrected? Uh oh. Clarityfiend 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as OR and redundant with individual articles on the two characters; maybe userfy. JJL 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. RobJ1981 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - All Original Research. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because reliable secondary sources do exist for this timeline and because it involves two of the most significant horror movie/comic/video game villains in modern culture. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- A single secondary source does not establish notability, nor does it change the fact that this particular article is riddled with original research. You cannot integrate two separate franchises on the shear note that they share a single movie that does not actually establish itself in continuity with any prior movie. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  - At the end of Jason Goes to Hell, Freddy's gloved hand pulls Jason's mask into Hell. Thus, they appear in more than a single film. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Um, the makers of the film have stated that the glove was not meant to suggest anything other than a joke that New Line had acquired the rights to Jason for the first time with that film. Again, you cannot tie Freddy's history with Jason's history. Until FvJ, they didn't even suggest that the other existed in either's universe. Regardless, It's all plot, and Wiki isn't a plot summary. Watch the movies, or read the articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:52, 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 per failure of reliable sources that would make this article pass WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jujitsu Deer

No verifiable content to reflect that this project is real. Likely a hoax, since user moved Hunted! to Vic and Marty, which do not have any verifiable content, either. The trades have nothing, and Google throws up nothing other than a forum posting discussing this Wikipedia article. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete because there are no reliable sources that indicate the existence of this project. As a result, there is no verifiable content or notability established for this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoax (see IMDb). JJL 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:CBALL, possible hoax. Dreadstar † 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoaxalicious. Kung Fu Panda repackaged, from the sounds of things. Delete as having zero reliable sources to indicate it exists. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 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.--Alasdair 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Zero

Non-notable. Alksub 22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable clone of a popular video game. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Guitar Hero. --Pinkkeith 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
dont delete frets on fire has one why cant guitar zero
Delete baleete pn Q ^{T C} 10:54, 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. --Core desat 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robinson Vil

With a single 25 minute short to his credit and absolutely no references to verify anything else in this article, this appears to be a non-notable film director. IrishGuy ^talk 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - his career is a series of short films, with the most significant achievement being a nomination for an award at one film festival. A google search turns up no reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability tests such as WP:NOTE WP:BIO.Obina 10:22, 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 per consensus of established users. --Core desat 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gonac

There are no secondary sources to indicate notability of this business. Alksub 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

'Delete. This article does not provide any sources, as per the nominator, and everything not self-created I find via Google is for other brands, including some "cheese puffs", and most in non-English languages; doesn't meet WP:Notable. Claiming that you're in all the Canadian "states" didn't impress me either. Accounting4Taste 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable source found in googling. Name crops up in many places, but unable to find any actual articles about the comany from a reliable source. For example, Google news turns up nothing. -- Whpq 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - there are other resources than google too. not having indexed all references by google does not mean that references do not exist at all. I do not see any problem with it. As for other languages showing up in google, keep in mind that there are over 1000 languages worldwide. I think this article should be left as it may be helpful for people selling their property. -- 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtom73 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Certainly Google is not the be all and end all of referencing. However, it turns up nothing, and the article provides none. As per wiki policy on verifiability, this isn't acceptable. -- Whpq 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I remember dmoz.org as a good source in the early years. Now, dmoz.org is practically useless because of editors who thinks their are gods and add articles and links which they like only and block others. Be tolerant, an article which is not good for you can be good for others. -- Mtom73 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Sorry but being useful is not a reason to keep. A phone book is useful. This company is not notable per WP:CORP etc. Obina 10:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

~~*Keep~~ Is a phone book is useful for people selling homes? No, it is not. Can that article and company help people sell their home? Yes, it may. Look how notable Google was in 1996 and where is now. That company can become notable too. Mtom73 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: You have already stated you keep opinion above. If you want to add addiitonal commentary, please prefix is with something such as "comment" rather than another statement of "keep". -- Whpq 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And notability in wikipedia is established through reliable sources. You've offered no reliable sources. And all your statements indicate that you are using wikipedia as a business directory which is somthing wikipedia is not. -- Whpq 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In business directory every company has phone contact, address contact, marketing slogans, etc. There are no phone contact information, marketing phrases in that article. Description about that company is neutral, non-advertising. Is it necessary to list all, in my point o view, low-importance news who mentioned that company? I do not want to make this article looks like a skyscraper with listing of dozens links to every low-important news, who published something about that company.-- Mtom73 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fail notability for companies. Doctorfluffy 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - They are listed at Dun and Bradstreet. Duns is notable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.20.212 (talk • contribs)
Comment - D & B list everybody since they provide information about businesses including very small ones. That's their business and in no way indicates notability. -- Whpq 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment And a listing is 'trivial', what is needed is a non trivial article about this company. Dun is notable but many of the things on their list are not.Obina 16:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:CORP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Spam, no sources. —Scouter Sig 15:39, 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 keep (non admin) — H ₂O — 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chekism

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —`'Míkka 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A huge original essay about a nonnotable neologism: only 88 non-wikipedia google hits. Let the huge number of citations do not mislead you: this is a collection of picked quotations in support of the essay, WP:COATRACK style. `'Míkka 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. First of all, this article is not about a neologism but about a historical phenomenon called "Chekism". The existence and notability of this phenomenon was supported by multiple reliable sources, as one can see in the article. Second, a few references in scholarly publications are sufficient to estalish notability of the term. Here they are. According to a former FSB general, “A Chekist is a breed" (reference to article in The Economist). Furthermore, there are references to a couple of publications in "International journal of intelligence". A direct citation in this article includes also the following passage by a notable historian Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov: "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a superpower (...) An absolute power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power — NKVD — MVD — MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau, Stalin’s personality, but the organization and the technique of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman."...A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from top to bottom." Finally, no arguments that article has anything to do with WP:COATRACK has been provided by nominator. Keep in mind that WP:COATRACK "is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline".Biophys 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical phenomenons are not created overnight by media, fortunately. WP should stick to widely used terminology. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, they are not created overnight. This phenomenon exists in Russia almost a hundred of years, according to cited sources.Biophys 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, it is neologism. It would be fine should the article say "this is recently invented term used by media for such and such purposes" but the current text is collection of rather unrelated facts trying to pretend wide and lasting acceptance of the term. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How come "recent"? This was published by Avtorkhanov in October 8, 1950 - 57 years ago.Biophys 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

57 years ago, so what? It didn't click. There have been plenty of Kremlinologists since then, who would gladly picked up this catchy term, but obviously it is nothing but a conspiracy theory overemphacising the comarative significance of secret police. Soviet Union was no better no worse of any authoritarian regime, where someone has to collect information about suspected coups, to quietly poison possible pretenders and torture dissenters. Read some of Three Musketeers for change, may be you will write the "Cardinalism-Richeliuism" article. `'Míkka 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If a plenty of Kremlinoligists picked up the term, as you said, this article has every right to exist. "Obviously a conspiracy theory" sounds as a personal opinion. If any sources explicitlly say "this is a conspiracy theory", such views can be included in the article, which is not a reason for deletion. I do not know such sources. The existing sources (not me) claim that significance of secret police in the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia was much higher than in other authoritarian regimes.Biophys 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FUI, a similar conspiracy theory exista about the USA aas well. Qouting: "Does the spookocracy want to destroy GWB and Cheney because of the purge to get rid of entire layers of incompetents revealed by 9/11 ?". Who wants to start spookocracy article here now? 417 google hits: 5 times more than for "chekism" (see on top), by the way :-) `'Míkka 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That is why one should not use Google searches to establish notability. An important matter is description of the term in scientific articles and scholarly books - reliable secondary sources. I found only one good source that uses "spookocracy" for Russia, but a lot of sources that use "Chekism", as one can see from the article.Biophys 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the very first version of the article reasonable (though possibly still NN), only later it accumulated pages of cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think first version is reasonable, why delete the article?Biophys 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment
- About FSB and Putin there already exist the article "Silovik", so here we have needless forking of content.
- The role of cheka/.../KGB in the former Soviet Union has nothing in common with the role of siloviki.
- Patching up the Imperial Russia to this collection is outright absurd.
These are the reasonss I called this article coatrack-type essay. Policy or not, coatrack style is the obvious sign of OR. `'Míkka 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Googing for "Siloviki" gives a whoopping 36,600 hits. `'Míkka 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Therefore I would suggest Biophys (who is basically the sole author here) to move Putin-related stuff into "Silovik", Soviet time pieces move into the opinion of Avtorkhanov (because your sentence "These ideas were also shared by..." is a dubious speculative generalization) and move on. `'Míkka 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - This article has not been created by me. According to WP:Notability it is enough to have several reliable third-party sources to establish notability of a subject, and we have much more than that - just looking at the list of references in the article and having as many as 800 Google hits. So, let's follow WP rules. There is no reason for deletion. BTW, this article has almost nothing about Putin. As about the Imperial Russia - please see the cited source. It was about Chekism.Biophys 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - "It was about Chekism" - , it is your wrong opinion. It was chaotic rant about Putin. `'Míkka 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - No matter how many reliable sources you have, the article spears about 4 superficially related subjects, whose only common denominator is secret service in Russia far past, past, and present, strung over a neologism which didn't catch on in original time, bt came handy to to bash Putin. Like I said, feel free to write four different articles.: Implerial Russia as police state, Soviet secret police (which is but a redirect to chronology now) and Siloviki. As for Avtorknanov's usage, I checked, and dindn't find that he use this term in his books The Reign of Stalin nor in Problems of the Peoples of the USSR. Surely "chekism" should have been a huge "problem of the peoples of the USSR" and backbone of "the reign of Stalin". It was a one-time catchy polemic word in a journal article, and now some wikipedians are eager to be sainter than Pope himself. `'Míkka 22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

One can suggest a lot of different articles on related subjects. But this article satisfy WP:Notability, and there is no any other reasons for deletion. Only that matters.Biophys 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but clean up. Chekism is not a neologism, it repeatedly and constantly is used in both books ([3]) and peer-reviewed scientific articles ([4]), which are highest level of sources for Wikipedia. Alleged WP:COATRACK can be avoided by introducing more proper sources to the article and POV is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Sander Säde 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is a valid term, on a valid, well-documented topic. Turgidson 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Biophys. Plenty of references treat this important subject. The article isn't perfect, but the idea of one is. Let's give it a chance. Biruitorul 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Very valid and notable topic. As for the "neologism," all I know is that I am quite well-versed in modern Russian and Soviet history and have frequently heard the word "Chekism." It's not a fringe theory or obscure concept! —Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Lastochka (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Mikka - non-notable original research. Relevant text can be moved to Cheka article.DonaldDuck 12:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and oppose merge with Checka First, as a neologism, it is about as old as soviet. The "-ism" should not be intrepreted as some ideology, but more like the suffix in "hooliganism" or "vandalism". Maybe chekist mentality would be a better title. It is about how generations under the shadow of all-powerful secret police has corrupted the Russian social fabric, and as such as much about the Russian Mafia and the oligarchs as the siloviks, the FSB, the KGB, the MVD, the OGPU and the Cheka, which is but the oldest manifestation of that secret police. Or oldet soviet manifestation, if you count in the Okhranka. The article is poor and would need some expanding in scope as well as some more encyclopedic writing style, but that's no reason for throwing it away. If the article about the Great Purge says that Jews were behind it or gives wp:undue weight to critisicing Stalin, you don't delete, you edit.--victor falk 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is nothing more than a collection of quotations from biased individuals. What's next, an article on Krovavaya Gebnya? Óðinn 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Chekism is no neologism at all. In Baltic states every citizen knows what Chekism is and what crimes it is respnosible. Do us this neologism is known since World War II. I found this article truthful and propper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.12.97 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral It seems to read like a high school essay or something like it. I agree that it certainly looks like a "Coatrack," but surely there must be some sources out there that aren't like that, right? I have added several types of cleanup tags to the article, but post no keep/delete vote here. —Scouter Sig 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale was "a nonnotable neologism". But this is not a neologism, because the term has been used by notable historians 53 years ago ("A state Chekism, a party Chekism, a collective Chekism, an individual Chekism. Chekism in ideology, Chekism in practice. Chekism from top to bottom."). Moreover, the subject satisfy WP:Notability, because it has been described in numerous reliable sources clearly attributed in the article.Biophys 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in a forgottent for good essay recently dug up by Chechen nationalists. `'Míkka 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The cited work by Avtorkhanov was published in a good printed journal that has nothing to do with Chechen separatists (in 1953). Unfortunately, it is not accessible online like all old stuff. So, I provided a link to on-line source that satisfy WP:Source. There are other refences to "Chekism" as well.Biophys 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep but it needs work. The lead, and indeed the entire article, fails to explain what "checkism" is. Someone above says: "In Baltic states every citizen knows what Chekism is". This seems to be the underlying assumption, and it is not OK. The article needs to be comprehensible to the lay reader. But all of this is for the editing process. The subject itself is clearly notable and I can see no reason to delete. As a neologism, it is not very neo. The logic of WP:COATRACK as a reason for deletion is very poor, it is instead an argument for improvement of an interesting subject. --SmokeyJoe 08:35, 2 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. --Core desat 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Front Counter

My only moment of doubt on speedying this article was the "winning the Ernie Ball international Battle of The Bands state title for Victoria, Australia" which I couldn't ascertain whether that was really notable. Otherwise, fails WP:MUSIC. Pig^man 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I can find no sources and the article is unsourced. Award is not of any great note. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Capitalistroadster. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I wrote the article, check out http://www.battleofthebands.com/community/dates

Go down to Melbourne Australia, and see the ernie ball winner.

I may have written it quite poorly but I tried my best. If somebody could help me re-word it that would be much appreciated instead of deleting it. Thanks heaps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkfan182 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem isn't with the wording, rather with the subject itself. There are heaps of articles with not-so-good wording and prose, yet they still exist. ~ Sebi 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the rest of there information from www.purevolume.com/frontcounter, as well as there myspace page www.myspace.com/frontcounter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.94.29 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, the band fails music notability guidelines. One local award won't save the day for this one. ~ Sebi 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no notable.--Grahamec 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, they played on Taste Of Chaos, an international tour (WP:BAND Criterion 4. Also notice the Important Note that starts the second paragraph.) That's good enough to have them keep. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 23:26, 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 by Aarktica per CSD A3. Non-admin closure. Deor 01:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KRFH

Contested speedy. Non-notable student-run radio station. If you look into the history, you will see an obvious COI (created by User:KRFH610AM). They have left a hangon rationale in the article itself, and it says they intend to let students at the university make changes over the next 6 weeks. I propose to Delete this article on the grounds of being not notable enough for Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom (Clearly NN). Too bad the speedy was removed by that IP, considering the contrib's for it, it is probably the same person who created the page. - Rjd0060 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Agreed. I was going to prod it, but I figured they'd remove that too . Also, the {{hangon}} reason was something along the lines of "I've created this article so my students can edit it, please don't delete". (WP:OWN?) I really didn't want to waste everyone's time here at AfD, but it seemed the only option left. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have tagged the IP with a "removing templates" warning and tried tagged for speedy again one more time, before coming here. It clearly would have been speedied had the tag stayed. - Rjd0060 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, I did - I'll re-add the csd template and if it gets deleted, then I'll speedy close this. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't look. Sorry. - Rjd0060 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment If it's reasonably obvious that the IP is the same user as the article creator, you could use the uw-speedy tags. It happens very frequently. JuJube 23:25, 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. --Core desat 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V.S.S.E.

An article about a fictional organization that fails WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. It's written in an entirely in-universe style that does not show any real-world impact or such that WP:FICT requires. Besdies that, the plot sections of each respecitve Time Crisis game adequately cover the roles of the V.S.S.E quite well. Taking it to AFD because a certain "anonymous" user objected to it. hbdragon88 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - VSSE stands for a suprising number of things when googling. But there are no reliable sources writing about them. -- Whpq 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
VERY STRONG Keep —It's the only way to avoid having to make this "Major Characters" page of a video game overly long. 71.57.74.109 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why need a long list of characters? Okay. I just read the article, and it seriously violates WP:WAF. They seem like huge long biographies even though their roles are extremely unimportant in the big picture – what else do you need to know besides the fact that they are agents? It's not necessary to understand the plot. hbdragon88 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as extensive list of primary sources is no substitute for reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability for this fictional covert organisation. The long in universe plot summary does not help either. --Gavin Collins 09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. —Scouter Sig 15:46, 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 keep. GDonato (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gay Street (Rome, Italy)

Non-notable, no real context. We've got a gay area of town in Nashville, Tennessee - does it need an article, too? SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep added project tag to talk page. While every gay area doesn't need an article of it's own, I feel how this one came about is an interesting story. It, in the scope of the LGBT project, will be expanded appropriately. Carter | Talk to me 08:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Add the info into Gay village perhaps? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:13, 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, W.marsh 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:STUB - fails to provide adequate context. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non - notable. - Rjd0060 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This may not be Stonewall, but it isn't just a shopping area that happened to develop, it has been formally designated in protest against an incident said to be discrimination, and it received international news coverage. I've added some Italian sources and more detail. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep While Wikipedia is not the news this seems to have attracted enough media attention to have some claim of notability. TonyBallioni 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - looks to have the requisite sourcing to establish notability. I'd like to see more background though. Otto4711 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep but source If sources can't be found, then delete. But hold until someone like the page creator can/will/should source it. —Scouter Sig 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is a gay villages category Category:Gay villages, (where the gay village of Nashville, if notable, is welcome to go!) which I added this to. Notability established Scarykitty 00:38, 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. This is a non-notable weapon within a video game. Natalie 00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Br55

Article is extensively a game guide, not a description of fictional weapon Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian Spetsnaz (talk • contribs) 2007/10/18 07:57:57

I got rid of the tactics for ... sections. It doesn't seem to be much of a game guide now. Don't delete. Σpsilon60198^{"Σ" is a Sigma.}_{"ε" is an Epsilon.} (Talk § E-Mail) 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:55, 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, W.marsh 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - many sections ("advantages", "Disadvantages" et al.) are still like a game guide, much of it is in universe, but in theory could be fixed. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete or merge and redirect - The article is still game guide like, but information on this belongs on the Halo wiki or in a list, not on its own. It is not notable enough outside, or even possibly within, the "Halo universe", to have its own article. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It reads like an in-universe guide, not an objective article. —Scouter Sig 15:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:OR. Also doubtful there are reliable secondary sources to show notability. Doctorfluffy 01:55, 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 Speedy deleted by JodyB. --Tikiwont 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killertron

Non-notable robot from UK Robot Wars TV programme. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Weevil Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no references, no links. Fansite. —Scouter Sig 15:52, 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 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Winsor

With a single imdb credit wherein he portrayed the film's lead character as a 12 year old, this is a non-notable actor. Everything else in the article is completely unsourced. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Does not demonstrate enough notability. • Lawrence Cohen 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Salt per WP:BLP and WP:N --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable. Why salt it after only 1 re-creation? Maybe this actor will achieve some more notability in the near future. I know what is crystal-balling but it isn't like there is a problem with this page constantly being re-created. - Rjd0060 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete but don't salt it as per Rjd0060. This person's IMDB rating is around the 200,000 mark, which means he's non notable as of now. TGreenburgPR 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, obvious non-notable figure. I fail to see how salting the title is necessary, anyway. ~ Sebi 05:57, 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. --Core desat 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta primary school, newham

Non-notable primary school. I would have speedied this to avoid an afd, but technically there is some context. Crazysuit 20:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable - TexasAndroid 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable & lacking context. One of a billion schools to be deleted. - Rjd0060 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable primary school it clearly should be deleted. TonyBallioni —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 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--JForget 01:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese superstitions

What is this? Its not an article, that's for sure. Please delete. Burntsauce 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - conditional on sourcing. Google Books shows plenty has been written on the topic. JapanZone might be an acceptable source. Gordonofcartoon 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, unless rewritten The title is so promising and could be a very interesting, intriguing and a beneficial article, and if it was well written by subject matter experts, I could see this as FA material. But, unfortunately, as it is, it is unsourced, unexplained, and mere listcruft. The talk page is right, it looks like it was written by a middle school student, but it has existed for almost 2 years to no avail. Maybe it could be brought to the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Mythology for a major re-write. Damn. How disappointing.--12 Noon 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Change to keep Article has improved significantly, thankfully!--12 Noon 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Poor sourcing and poor quality are not reasons to delete an article. This is clearly an encyclopedic topic; it just needs help. Tag it for improvement, maybe make some improvements yourself, and bring it to the attention of people whose core interests relate to it. LaMenta3 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- They are perfectly valid reasons for deletion, don't be silly. I'm not advocating the permanent ban on the subject of Japanese superstitions, but this material is BEYOND SAVING and should be removed. Clean the slate. Burntsauce 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I used what was in the article, plus a little less-than-creative Googling to make improvements to the article. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about this topic other than what I just picked up with my Google-fu. I'll get on the sourcing next. It took me less than an hour. LaMenta3 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean this up. Many of these can be sourced, but this needs some help. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Edited. I couldn't resist a haiku. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as they are sourcable. 132.205.99.122 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep What's the basis for saying that this "BEYOND SAVING"? There's an article on Japanese Wikipedia called 迷信 and there are, no doubt, books about Japanese folklore and superstitions "around the world". Other editors seem interested. Surely someone can source this. 72.151.55.27 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.151.55.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete completely unsourced listcruft that has not seen one single source since its creation in early 2006.Keep as cleaned up w/ sources. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I didn't expect to agree with a -cruft argument, but I have to agree with Alkivar here -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Per above (definitely needs cleanup but not deletion). - Rjd0060 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep but definitely clean up. The article right now is a bit loosely-associated, but there's definitely an article here (as there may well be for other cultures, but Japan is particularly known even in Asia for its superstitions). --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
keep and clean-up- per LaMenta. JJJ999 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have created a source repository that should be useful for further citing, expanding and cleaning up the article on the talk page. I'll continue to work on the article as I have time, but I wanted to put this out there for everyone to use. LaMenta3 03:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per LaMenta. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep it and clean it: good work has been done so far, let's give it a chance. —Quasirandom 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC), who also couldn't resist a haiku
Comment I posted on the talk pages of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Mythology & Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan a request for attention to this article so it can be salvaged.--12 Noon 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - There's nothing wrong with the article, just clean it up. --ざくら木 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and cross-pollinate with Japanese mythology and List of haunted locations#Japan Chris 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the article has been significantly improved. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:07, 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 speedily deleted -- this is clearly a BLP violation and part of an ongoing effort to document local conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. -- Merope 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William J Beggs

Non-notable professor. Article appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Patinkin, a vanity article that has been zapped a number of times. -- Merope 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing in the article claims anything more than everyday legal activity. CitiCat ^♫ 19:59, 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 delete--JForget 01:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brittany boxall

Person or her movie not on google nor on IMDB. No notability established. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Either Speedy Delete as patent nonsense or just plain Delete as a hoax. CitiCat ^♫ 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete despite her "pure skill". DCEdwards1966 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. IMDB gives no citation for a movie with the title "Valley Ralley" -- I also tried "Valley Rally" considering the unusual orthography of this article. No such film, regardless of who "straed" in it. I make this out to be a vanity/hoax article that fails WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete junk. JuJube 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Looks like a hoax. TGreenburgPR 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoax. JJL 13:52, 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 Korean Demilitarized Zone. There is already a section in the article which discusses the wall. It may certainly be expanded upon with good sourcing and verification. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Wall

Entire article is unsupported OR wbfergus ^Talk 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to DMZ Korea. It's a political term, but not a very notable one, and it's just basically one point of view about the DMZ. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone" or "move to DMZ Korea"? You can't merge to a nonexistant article. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, in this case, it's more than that. North Korea claims that South Korea literally built a wall. I don't know if it's made the news lately, but the Democratic Peoples Republic free press promoted the story back in 1999. Could be sourced to some extent, though there's not much to the story. North accuses, South denies it. Mandsford 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to DMZ Korea, as Dhartung had mentioned. More convenient as well. I had somewhat saved the article before the big decision happens (when is the question for it). this is iaN 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete As I stated for the nomination, as is, the article is 'original research'. The first reference can not be classified as a reliable source, being merely a statement made by a North Korean official (even if reported in a reliable publication), and the images in the article contradict the statements about the construction of the wall. In the first image, there is no wall, just a fence surrounding a military outpost. It can't even be distinguished who's military uses the outpost. In the second image, it very clearly is not a concrete wall. If it's a wal, then is clearly made of earth, but it could also just as easily be a clear-cut area allowing soldiers to observe if anybody crosses the area. It is hard to tell. So neither image supports the claims made in the article, and therefore actually helps to repudiate the claim made by the North Korean official, which then lends to the aspect of verifiablity. As is, this article does not meet the criteria, and even if merged into another article, would have the same problems. The other article could have a paragraph that merely says "North Korea claims.....", but the rest would have to meet the reliable and verifiable criteria, without violating 'original research'. wbfergus ^Talk 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article is not OR by the author but is an accurate depiction of a fiction created and promulgated by the DRK. The press releases by what are possibily an unreliable sources, can be taken not as verification of the existence of the wall, but as verification that the DRK wishes to promote the idea that such a wall exists, which this article has bent over backwards to make explicit, the very first sentence containing the word alledgedly, and the second disputed. Given that in all probability that it doesn't exist it shouldn't be merged to DMZ which does exist in the flesh. The wall if it can be said to exist, exists as a propaganda concept and tool of North Korea, that it might not in fact exist in the flesh, does not diminish its existence in the minds of the massed North Korean people. There is also the very real possibility that the DRK leadership have convinced themselves that such a wall exists. A thing does not have to physically exist to be notable and to have an influence on the behaviour of people and governments (if you doubt this just remember that the war being fought in Iraq was sold to the public using non existent Iraqi WMDs). KTo288 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep if sources can be found. Seems to be writen well with a few sources and pictures, but it really only needs to be wikified and sourced. —Scouter Sig 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Not enough coverage in secondary sources to support an article. If there were enough material, a move to an accurate name (Ficticious Korean Wall?) would be necessary as the wall never existed. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect It's an interesting footnote in the rabid propaganda war that's been going for decades, but not really big enough to warrant its own article. It's a good case study of the surreal goings on over there, though. - Richfife 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, but strongly recommend that article is expanded and sourced in the near future. Natalie 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VolksWriter

Contested PROD. PROD/AFDed because of a lack of any assertion of notability, and for no sourcing/reference to establish notability. PROD was contested under the argument that being "early computing software" made it inherently notable. I disagree with this. That may be an "assertion" of notability, and enough to avoid Speedy if software was eligible for A7 Speedy, but sourcing/references are still required for the article to remain. TexasAndroid 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete no secondary, reliable sources noted in the article. There seems to be articles written about Volkswriter 3. However, I am unsure if this artcile is references that particular software due to the article's incredibly lack of substance. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
BlindEagle's second sentence implores me to vote Keep here. He states that there seem to be articles written about VolksWriter 3 (being copyrighted software, you would not have multiple word processors named VolksWriter), and these articles would be the sourcing/references required for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Simply "being a stub" is not reason to delete an article; let's use the sources that BlindEagle claims that exist to improve the article and keep it! Andy Saunders 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Sources are available to verify notability. VolksWriter was a fairly well known product back in the day. A quick Google search brings up a few book and journal hits including the Encyclopedia of Microcomputers (ISBN 0824722795) and a Journal hit [5]. VolksWriter's VW and VW3 extensions are still widely recognized. • Gene93k 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notability does not expire. Needs sources, but this was a highly regarded application back in the day though it never really competed at the top level. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - sourcing may be difficult as it is an old product, but it was a significant presence during its time. a Google news search shows that reviews were written about the product in major newspapers. -- Whpq 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Andy, but he should source it since he seems gung-ho. —Scouter Sig 14:24, 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out to Lunch (video game)

Computer game from more then 14 years ago. It wasn't popular then and there isn't anything that I can find that would suggest that it's popular now. Law & Disorder 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep It looks like a really good article, and I'm sure we have other articles about minor games released for the SNES. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading up on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions and your comments seem to fall under a couple of of those sections: WP:PRETTY & WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Law & Disorder 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep being unpopular is not a reason to delete. JuJube 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but can you find any good sources to show that this game is in any way notable? Law & Disorder 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a MobyGames link. It was published by an established game company (MindScape). A simple Google search shows this game has been reviewed. I think that's enough. Your argument for deletion doesn't hold up. JuJube 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is about a notable product so popularity doesn't come into it. The reason there aren't plenty of online reviews is exactly because of the game's age, they're all in print. However, when the amiga version alone is subject to this many reviews and probably more. Here's some summarized reviews, complete with page numbers, issue numbers, reviewer and score. I'd suggest withdrawing the AFD and placing an unreferenced tag on the article. If you're ever unsure about a game's notability, drop the project a line.Someone another 09:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Popularity != Notability. Mdmkolbe 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- But as Someone another has pointed out, the topic does meet WP:N. The article needs work for WP:V, but notability is about the topic, not the article quality. Non-WP:N articles can't be fixed (it is a property of the topic) and should be deleted; non-WP:V articles can be fixed and should not be deleted (at least until there is a chance to fix them). Mdmkolbe 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Quite aside from the above correct statement, I remember a detailed magazine review. It's not in English, but that's not required. --Kizor 04:36, 2 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 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Buses

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article isn't encyclopedic and it would be hard to bring it to a notable state. Icestorm815 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. And the list of "Films Featuring Buses" is meaningless, because the creator has just done an IMDb title search for "bus", so you get Sudden Shock! Monster Bus (does that even exist ?), but no mention of Summer Holiday or Speed. Crazysuit 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - agree with nom. Nuke it. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft. Even though it was the most important list I have ever seen, and I will miss it dearly, it make no meaningful contributions to the project. It would make a cool username, though. Or maybe a book.--12 Noon 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This idea could have made a really cool list, that I would have been really sad to delete. This particular list, though, doesn't really take advantage of its potential coolness, and so its status as an indiscriminate list of information that isn't of much real use is more clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A tad on the indiscriminate information side, unfortunately, but as FisherQueen notes, it's entirely possible the topic could be turned into something worthwhile at some point (if we're not shooting "popular culture" articles on sight these days). Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this list was ill conceived from the get go. Burntsauce 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Please read the "article" before calling me unreasonable. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete same problem we always have with lists. The inclusion criteria is to broad and totally undefined. Also I've been noticing this a lot lately, what is the point of of having a list of red links? Ridernyc 06:07, 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. Natalie 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carsick Cars

This was an article that I speedied under A7. However the article's creator convinced me that playing a gig with Sonic Youth in Vienna (the band is from China) is an assertion of notability that rises above A7. However that gig is poorly sourced, and there is no evidence that the band otherwise meets WP:MUSIC. I note that being a band from China presents difficulties in meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC not faced by Western groups. That said, Delete. Dsmdgold 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete- not special Yourname 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I am the creator of the article (I believe I am permitted to vote). Deleted on very short notice before I had the chance to edit it to an acceptable standard. Added some better references now, but will continue working until it is deleted ;-) Foolip 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If established that "band has gone on an international concert tour" then sufficient for notability. WWGB 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep if this claim about a tour can be established by secondary sources. Otherwise Delete. A1octopus 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep The concert tour appears to have happened in Vienna, but the venue site linked is only current/future events and the Sonic Youth site doesn't make specific mention thereof. SkierRMH 01:39, 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 article has been already deleted on October 25.--JForget 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason M Burks

Non-notable hacker. A google search for v00d00 brings forth many results...none of which are this person. A search for v00d00 and Burks garners...well...this article. The article was created by the article subject. Jasonbtulsabiz = Jason B., Tulsa Biz (he works in Tulsa). IrishGuy ^talk 18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - seems to be unverifiable. No relevant google hits for "Jason M. Burks" or "Juggernaut Hydra" either. Lack of inline citations makes it hard to know what the magazines in the "references" section actually say. Even if we had some reliable sources, I don't think there is anything here that passes notability guidelines anyway. --Beloved Freak 18:45, 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. --Core desat 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Valley Christian Music Association

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. Happy editing!

^{Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}}

I removed the prod to send this on to AFD discussion in response to a show of good faith by the editor who's trying to keep it. She's added some sources, but in my opinion, they don't rise the the level of nontrivial. Do y'all think that this organization is a notable one? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's trivial. I am not a member of the organization, but I know the people that run it and I go to their PraiseFest almost every year. They represent a lot of people and their events have been a vital part of Noble County for more than 27 years now. They're even mentioned prominently at www.noblecountyohio.com. In my opinion, the page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblerose67 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — Noblerose67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep for while the formatting is a mess, the article appears to be well-sourced (3 articles) and may be a notable organziation. I'd agree to stubify the artiocle. Bearian 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unless non-trivial refs are added. The exisiting sources are just announcements in local papers, exactly the type that WP:N advises against, ie "announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination". Crazysuit 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Craysuit. Trivial media coverage does not confer notability--victor falk 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable source: Permanently referenced on homepage www.noblecountyohio.com as tourist attraction as noted above by NobleRose, in addition to newspapaer articles referenced. Kevin_Lauer —Preceding comment was added at 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Kevin_Lauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Delete as clearly WP:VSCA. All given references are trivial and/or not independent. Non-trivial and independent sources must be made available and added to the article if it is to have any chance of meeting WP:Music. A1octopus 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Added information today in top section showing similarites and differences between similar organizations (with references). Does this help to illustrate notability? —Noblerose67 —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- - Well, no it doesn't. The similar organisations are also not notable by Wikipedia standards (or they'd have articles) so I don't see how saying that this lot are similiar to some other lot who are equal nonentities makes sense. Nevertheless even if all these other organisations were notable it still wouldn't be a argument for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - in this debate we have to establish the notablity of this article's subject, and no proof or references have been given that this meets the guidelines laid out in WP:MUSIC. A1octopus 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've referenced the wrong page. WP:MUSIC doesn't refer to Music Associations, but rather performers. The organization, by definition, cannot meet the criteria described on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach hasseman (talk • contribs) 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply You can use WP:ORG if you prefer; it also requires multiple, independent, nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Further Comment - Yes I agree WP:ORG might be more useful but my arguments above still hold. Notablity isn't proved by comparing this lot to other un-notable organisations. A1octopus 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey OVCMA, list some of the notable members and accomplishments. Zach hasseman (talk • contribs —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — Zach hasseman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Ow, my eyes hurt from seeing so many light blue external links written as text into the article... That being said, they are not reliable sources, and don't cut it for making the article notable. —Scouter Sig 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
comment - I tidied up the text a bit (mostly removed excess bold) and added fact tags on specifics that need references. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. If there are no refs, delete. If somebody finds some....keep. --Rocksanddirt 21:44, 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 no consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shepard Road/Warner Road

A road whose claim to notability is: "an important route for trucks to bypass weight restrictions on Interstate 35E". Nehwyn 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ delete- The road is also apparently a county highway and part of the National Highway System. However, it's an otherwise unremarkable city street. —Scott5114 ↗ 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per Scott. Other than being part of the NHS, there's nothing out of the ordinary about this road. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This plays a major role in the history of I-35E, being one of several routes that heavy trucks must use. The 1975 law that imposed a moratorium on building I-35E authorized Mn/DOT to take it over as a state highway:

Route No. 380. Beginning at a point on Route No. 390 [I-35E] at its intersection with Shepard Road in the city of Saint Paul; thence extending in a northeasterly direction generally following along the course of Shepard Road to a point on Route No. 112 [Lafayette Freeway]; thence extending in a northeasterly direction to a point on Route No. 392 [I-94] easterly of the downtown area of Saint Paul; providing a connector route between Route No. 390 and Routes No. 112 and 392;
Although it was not taken over by the state (probably since I-35E was built), it has been rebuilt to handle the increased traffic due to the truck restriction on I-35E: [6][7] It is also part of the Great River Road. Should it be moved to Shepard-Warner Road? [8][9] --NE2 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. Its sole claim to notability is that it's good for trucks. Excvellent for Wikitravel, but not really grounds for Wikipedia notability. --Nehwyn 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Its "sole" claim to notability is that it's come up many times in the local press over many years (hence it clearly passes WP:N) because of its role as a truck bypass and a four-lane highway along the river. And, well, isn't Wikitravel geared towards tourists, not truckers? --NE2 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Any city road is bound to come up in the local press over the years. It's statistics. But what claim would those sources support? Indeed is there a claim to notability, beside being a useful road for truckers? And as for Wikitravel, it's geared towards travel information - and which road to choose if you're driving a truck is definitely travel information. --Nehwyn 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is more than a city road; it's a four-lane highway along the river that played a part in the I-35E controversy. The conflict between the riverfront park and the highway has come up: [10] There are many articles spread over many years that are specifically about the road; you won't find that for any random city street. See for instance Wacouta Street and Selby Avenue. --NE2 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep if improved. I understand the comments above as the article mentions only its "road" features. The road however goes for much of its length through the scenic, wooded, and bluff-lined river valley, which does not seem like it is in an urban area. It connects and runs along the state's earliest areas of settlement and travel, from Fort Snelling, by Pike's Island, along the steamboat levee where Saint Paul began, and beneath the Indian Mounds of earlier civilizations. I suggest keeping it for now and revisiting it if not improved. It is notable, and there is no good place to merge its content. Kablammo 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been partially revised. It still needs work (a map and photographs would be nice), as well as an expanded and referenced Importance section. Kablammo 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The road is significant in the history of Saint Paul, although that topic has not been addressed much yet on WP.--Appraiser 15:50, 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 delete. --Core desat 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funkmasonry

Non-notable band. Although "their release was met with universal praise" is extreme hyperbole, another user considers it sufficient claim of notability to remove my db-band tag. So here we are. Corvus cornix 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The praise wasn't quite universal, as Rolling Stone seems to have inexplicably overlooked this band. This forum post describes Funkmasonry as "my high school senior project CD," and it doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - zero indication of notability provided, either in the article or elsewhere. No reliable sources to show the band has had any publicity whatsoever. Fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Whether the assertion is sufficient to survive speedy or not, lack of verifiability eliminates its use to establish notability. I didn't find a WP:RS in the 31 distinct hits I scoured. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. i wish some users would exercise some common sense when considering what constitutes a claim to notability (per what Corvus C. was saying above). This fails notability and sourcing and is, as FisherQueen established, a high school project. tomasz. 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy 05:44, 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: Obvious consensus to restore the redirects - POV forks. - Mike Rosoft 12:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child Support Policy

Two identical articles created by Rogerfgay; they have neutrality problems and are duplicate with existing pages. I have been bold and redirected them to Child support and Child support in the United States, respectively; creator has undone my edits. I don't want to be revert warring, so I am bringing it here. - Mike Rosoft 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect as per nom. There are already existing articles on these topics; useful, verifiable information should be added there instead of creating new articles, imho. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and reopen debate on talk page, possibly through dispute resolution? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. or Redirect. User has WP:COI (has published anti-child support articles online) and has attempted on several occasions to advance his own (factually inaccurate) viewpoint on other child support pages. Material on this page is rejected stuff that he tried to introduce to the Child support article. Sourced pages on child support issues already exist on Wiki and these are unnecessary. DanielEng 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Mike's original research was not adequate, and I wish editors would not use delete tags merely to raise a question. That's what talk pages are for. The two new articles are stubs on subjeccts that do not duplicate any existing articles. The fate of existing article Child Support is being discussed on its talk page because its content is far too narrow for the title, and it duplicates material from other pages. Although there has not been such a rapid trigger finger on the delete process, deletion of the child support article has been suggested on its talk page. The article Child Support in the United States suffers from similar scope problems - i.e. it is not about child support in the United States generally. It's focus does not lend itself to an objective general review of policy but simply provides a specific agency pov. The new articles are intended to focus on the actual topic suggested by the titles - they will be on child support policy generally one article and specifically in the United States in the other. This intent is stated both on the stub article pages and discussion / talk pages of the new stub articles. I removed Mike's delete tags because no reason was given on the talk page and because he deleted the explanation from one of the article pages on the intent to separate the subject of the two articles. It therefore looked like a simple act of vandalism and I have issued a warning. I should add that DanielEng (above) is engaging in retaliation and has been reported for vandalism of child support related pages. Rogerfgay 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm obviously not going to respond to the above personal attack. However, I do want to clarify that I have never been "reported," blocked or warned for any sort of vandalism. In fact I am on the CVU. The supposed "vandalism" mentioned above refers to my restoration of the AfD tags to these articles, which were repeatedly deleted in violation of AfD policy. [11] [12] [13] [14] Feel free to browse my block log (empty) and Talk Page history if you wish; the only "warning" of any kind on my page originated with the above user and was an inappropriately used tag. DanielEng 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel. You deleted the warnings from your talk page, and left a message on my talk page explaining that you're within your rights to have deleted the warnings from your talk page. Rogerfgay 12:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I have invited everyone to have a look at my Talk Page history. All edits to a page made at any time are recorded permanently in the history, whether or not a user deletes them from public view. The only warning of any kind anyone will find in my entire Wiki history is yours, which was inappropriate as explained and was deleted as per WP:VANDAL and WP:UP. I'd advise you to have one more read of WP:NPA. DanielEng 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect per nomination as unnecessary forks. These are redundant with existing articles (Child Support for example), poorly cited, and an the case of Child Support Policy it isn't even an encyclopedia article (in fact it is borderline incorrect usage of the article space); it appears to be a proposal for one --Isotope23 ^talk 12:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why all the non-fact based opinions? There is no overlap between the intended articles and the cited articles. child support should be on its way to deletion, and is otherwise a complete non-starter as an article on child support policy as intended. Rogerfgay 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is still a POV fork any way you look at it. There is nothing "intended" for these articles that couldn't be in Child support in the United States and child support. Even if you wrote an actual article with reliable sources at these namespaces, I would opine that the should be merged back to the existing articles. In this case there is nothing to merge.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect per nom and Isotope23. Child support in the United States and child support should be covering the policy behind child support if they are not already. These also appear to be possible POV forks. · jersyko talk 12:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking over the battle to change the two articles so that they cover policy behind child support, since they are not already? There are people there who are extremely stubborn and willing to spend a lot of time battling to preserve the pov they have established there. And I have pointed out that the term "child support" means support of children generally - that focus on specific select government policies that aren't even comprehensive regarding government policies on support of children is far too narrow for the title. It has been discussed that the current material is already covered in other places - specifically in articles on laws and agencies in the few select countries chosen for child support (one of which is Child Support in the United States). An article on child support policy should be on child support policy. But that is still not general enough for the title "child support" which is mostly private - nothing to do with government policy. Rogerfgay 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. There is no excuse for creating content forks, particularly where they are POV forks or intended to evolve into POV forks. If the existing articles have POV problems, work on fixing the problems, not creating new forks to skew in a different POV direction. Oh, and BTW, the fork article people are aiming for is Wikipedia:Content forking, with abbreviations WP:CFORK or WP:POVFORK, not WP:FORK. --AliceJMarkham 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to existing article per nominator and numerous comments above. -- The Anome 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect. And this should really be handled through dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to existing: the first one isn't an article, but rather a suggestion, and the second one looks like it's covering territory more extensively handled in the existing article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

INVITATION You are all invited to the talk pages of the articles being discussed here to discuss the reasons these articles should not be directed as suggested. I am pointing out here that what seems "obvious" may just be lack of information and insufficient consideration. Please state your concerns on the talk page, and feel free to investigate further before commenting so that you have at least a minimal frame of reference. Rogerfgay 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect, per nom. Obvious WP:CFORK. Dreadstar † 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. POV or not, these are clearly forks. -- But|seriously|folks 21:14, 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. --Core desat 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Shoulders and Noses

This one has been prodded...3 times, at last count. I think that's good evidence it belongs at AFD. Procedural nom. UsaSatsui 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, nonnotable unproduced screenplay, violates WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Google shows no evidence of notability for this one. No prejudice against recreation if it's actually turned into a notable movie some day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it is not yet notable -- with only 8 Ghits [15], 2 from WP, none of which are independent, and none of which verify that it is actually in production. No IMdB page, either. Future movie or play not ready for its own article. Bearian 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Films that are not even in production yet don't come close to meeting WP:MOVIE, but I'm delighted to know that Sybil Danning is still getting work, even though shoulders and noses are not the body parts for which she's best known. Accounting4Taste 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. When it moves from being a screenplay to a film in production, then an article will be appropriate. Also note that the Tommy Ardolino page has also been deleted [16]. Shawn in Montreal 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Non-notable at the moment. Doctorfluffy 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Three prods? Delete per nom and above. —Scouter Sig 16:06, 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 Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SMS language

There is no reason to have this Wiki when it is a smaller version of List of Internet slang phrases Tabor 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll disagree; the general subject of SMS/ Texting is not the same as a list of phrases that are used in SMS. That said, the SMS article--if retained--needs someone who knows more about it than I do to add more content. For example, what about SMS/ Texting in other languages; is there really any grammatical difference between standard English (French, Tagalog...) and Texted English (etc.); social effects (such as children using texting in the school essays, see refs at end of article now); is there dialectal variation in texting within speakers of a given language (e.g. between the US and Australia, or speakers of Indic English); what happens in languages with non-Roman scripts (do they text in Roman scripts or in their own script?); computational linguistic approaches to texting (like [17], etc. I suspect there's a lot more that is known about this topic, but it's not my area. Mcswell 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, 68 hits on Google Scholar. Punkmorten 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge the intro to SMS, or keep but delete the "txt devices" section as a violation of Wikipedia articles are not slang guides. Crazysuit 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Mcswell ExtraDry 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Referenced lots in national media in the UK especially so IMO noteworthy, so definatly keep Carpo1982 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable, referenced and SMS is a medium distinct from chat.--victor falk 10:11, 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 merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Simon Theatre doesn't feel like the right place, but some of it could go there too. There's not enough to stand alone, though. - KrakatoaKatie 08:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon family

This is an article about a non-notable family who have lived in Brenham, Texas. One member of the family constructed a now-closed theater which had been designed by a well-known architect. The theater, Simon Theatre, is also up for deletion. There appear to be no reliable sources about this family, although they are mentioned in passing in articles about a Brenham synagogue. I don't believe this family, or its members, meet(s) the criteria for notablity. Karanacs 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - with sources like geocities you just know this is notable! Law & Disorder 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Crazysuit 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:SNOW --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community 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 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- If they are only notable when taken as a whole, then they do not belong as individual articles. Instead, any important, and reliably sourced (geocities and earthlink random webpages don't count), information should be merged into a separate article, such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Karanacs 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Karanacs: So then you should have nominated the articles for merging and the sourcing could have been improved with enough goodwill and especially since these are not controversial articles everyone could have agreed on an amicable solution. Thanks, IZAK 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deletesimply being Jewish and from Texas is not enough for notability.Ridernyc 06:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Notability" is measured by available sources, not by race or location. --SmokeyJoe 09:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge any relevant info to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Eliyak T·C 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect into History of the Brenham Jewish Community Merge notible family members into article as well. Nsaum75 23:09, 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 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. In the current state of the article, it looks like the sources are essentially primary, which would mean that Wikipedia would be the first place that a comprehensive article on this family would be published. Understanding and appreciating the effort involved in bringing this material together, the difficulty is that Wikipedia is intended only to republish material whose significance and accuracy has been previously vetted by other sources; a first biography would be prohibited by the no original research policy and biography guideline. I would suggest merging this material with an article on a broader topic such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community, since the policy for stand-alone biographies is stricter than the requirements for brief mention in a broader article. As a stand-alone article there currently isn't enough sourcing to meet policy requirements. If additional sourcing is found please let me know and I'd be happy to reconsider. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would urge not treating good faith and potentially valuable contributions which happen not to meet policy requirements as if they were vandalism. Salting and the like is reserved strictly for the latter. Volunteers, imperfect and merely human, contribute time and effort to produce these articles. We lose when we fail to acknowledge or respect this. See WP:BITE. --Shirahadasha 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community or Simon Theatre. Bhaktivinode 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So far, there has only been one vote to delete the Simon Theatre, so it should be considered as a possible place for the article to be merged with. Bhaktivinode 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Brewcrewer 04:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient sources for a subject so old. Merge is acceptable, subject to debate and acceptance at the target. --SmokeyJoe 08:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. The content of this article is already there! --SmokeyJoe 08:57, 2 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. --Core desat 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father Vernard Poslusney

Apparently beloved, but nonnotable, Catholic priest. Article written like a memorial, in conflict with WP:NOT. Claims that he wrote 3 books, 1 of which sold (?) 20,000 copies, but no sources. NawlinWiki 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines, and the text was also copied verbatim from a blog posting.[18] Karanacs 17:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and does not meet notabillity guidelines. BigDunc 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, and nothing found in Google Books/Scholar to back up theologian claims. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Also looking at links provided seems a copy and paste job. BigDunc 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment after close - His first name actually is spelled "Venard" as in Venard Poslusney and Father Venard Poslusney. (See Google search. I included these links in this AfD so that any recreation under a different spelling may link to this AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 01:48, 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 and cleanup – notable librarians and notable people who have been librarians kept; "notability TBD", "careers undocumented", and "no evidence yet" should go. - KrakatoaKatie 10:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of librarians

Textbook example of a list that would be better served by categories. Crystallina 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, lists and categories serve different functions. The additional text in this article makes it different from a category list which only contains names. Corvus cornix 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The additional text just mentions how else the list members are notable. This, too, is better served by categories. Crystallina 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, there is additional text, but it's absolutely useless, and shows how terrible this list is. We've got:

The following people are noted as librarians, and possibly also in another field
Other well-known people who have been librarians
Notability & importance to be determined
Not yet categorized: (careers undocumented in WP)
No evidence yet in WP for being a librarian

Of these, 1 and 2 don't seem to have any distinction, as they just list librarians. 3 is composed of other librarians that seem "less important", but that definition is largely subjective. The last two are of people that are separated because there's no indication they were actually librarians. Seriously, the surrounding text is totally worthless, and there is no real information being conveyed here that a category could not convey (the noted librarians of congress could be in a subcategory). Remember, it's not whether the list has additional text, it's whether the list has additional information. 138.88.182.135 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. List of loosely associated people, having worked as a librarian isn't a notable connection here, Benjamin Franklin, Laura Bush, Lewis Carroll. Does anyone really believe those 3 are closely connected because they once had similar jobs? If this was a list of people notable for being librarians, it would be better, but it isn't. Crazysuit 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete'per 138.88.182.135. Pavel Vozenilek 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and divide. That preliminary division was done by me when I was new here, as an attempt to sort the list into some semblance of order and try to find information on the missing people. There's a full discussion of this on the article talk page--I refer to it instead of explaining here further. I never had a chance to finish working on it, because I instead found my energies diverted into rescuing articles on individual notable people that had been nominated for deletion. The part on notable librarians should now possibly be split off into a separate article. The list of notable people who have been librarians is in this case defensible because of the rather large number of such people having had prominent careers otherwise--it's served as a way-station. There are not many other professions that have done that-- it can be turned into a real article and not just a mere list. If deleted, I will try to reconstitute the parts that can best be reconstituted. Getting someone involved again in working on this topic is an practical use of AfD, but tagging the article or asking on the talk page can do that also.

I note that I & the other people working a good deal on it were not informed about the deletion. Sure it's on my watchlist--but so are about a thousand other articles that I've worked on or commented on or are trying to track after nominating for deletion or possible rescue in one way or another. This unconcern for individual editors was one of the things that got me rather annoyed when I saw it on WP when I came, as it applied to others. I can cope with it myself as I can with all unpoliteness here--I have personally gotten thoroughly used to the lack of conventional manners on WP-- but it still strikes me as unfair as a way of working on a serious project.

More important, nobody notified the WikiProject. I will do so now, tho a little on the late side. DGG (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying anyone; I figured since the list had several authors and had an untouched cleanup/restructuring tag since November 2006, that it was abandoned. Crystallina 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I'm with DGG on this one; it is a potentialy useful springboard for several articles that it can also serve as a 'hub' for. --Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 09:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep the lists of those known as librarians and other famous people who worked as librarians; remove the doubtful ones until someone can give a reason for including them. I admit that as it stands, these two lists could be replaced with categories, so to maintain its advantage as a list, we need to add something about their contributions to the field, as in List of historians, List of geometers and List of explorers. (If you must delete, PLEASE give us time to assign them to categories first.) GUllman 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Or drastically trim. One category was not mentioned:

People not interested in librarians... Tiptopper 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to List of notable librarians. Create a category as well. Wikipedia needs more indexing, more navigation aids, not less. Remove entires that are not verified librarians. --SmokeyJoe 09:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Move per SmokeyJoe, and trim.--Aldux 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This can be done my a category. No additional information, other the one found in the librarians articles, is necessary. -- Magioladitis 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This would be better served as a category. Karanacs 18:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but move to List of notable librarians per SmokeyJoe, DGG et al. Seems like a worthwhile list. Bearian'sBooties 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. This needs independent reliable sources in order to be kept and none have been provided. Eluchil404 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Studios

No indepedent sources to back up this studio's weak claim of notability. Cap'n Walker 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Page is just begun today. Are ads to scans of the comic book ads acceptable? --Scottandrewhutchins 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Law & Disorder 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability not really backed up. The scans of the comic book ads are humorous, but not directly related to the text of the article. No other independent references have been added. SkierRMH 01:31, 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 01:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Dee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Natalie Dee

Articles for deletion/Natalie Dee (2nd nomination)

The template indicating that the notability of the subject has not been established was removed by an editor who appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding this article, as per the article's talk page. The notability of the subject herself has not been established at all. On that basis I suggest that the article on the strip's creator be deleted. There are no objections to an independent article on the strip being created in its stead, but there are no demonstrable indications of the creator herself qualifying as notable. John Carter 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

per nom. heqs ·:. 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. Breadmold 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. No secondary, verifiable sources are provided. A self promoting website generally is not counted as a secondary, verifiable source of information for an article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Is the article about the person or the comic strip? The first AfD treated it as the latter, but the article doesn't read that way. If it's rewritten to be exclusively about the comic (dump all the links aside from the comic, cut down the extraneous personal info), then I wouldn't see what changed between the first AfD and this one. But if it continues to be primarily about the person, it fails WP:N. Torc2 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete concur that it might be different if the article was about the comic(s). JJL 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no verifiability. bogdan 15:03, 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 Delete--JForget 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hee Sang Ro

Non-notable. Teacher at a single school - I call advertisement. High rank in school his father founded. Peter Rehse 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I mean, noone outside of a small area knows who this guy is. Law & Disorder 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Icestorm815 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete martial arts cruft about a non-notable person. 15 English GHits, none WP:RS [19]; ZERO Ghits in Korean for either Southern [20] or Northern [21] spelling of his name plus "Song Moo Kwan". cab 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Looks like an advertisement for the school. TGreenburgPR 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn instructor of nn art. JJL 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN and unsourced, "World Martial Arts Center" sounds like McDojo marketing --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:22, 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. Eluchil404 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronnie Duncan

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local TV sports personailty Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete local notability only. JJL 13:46, 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. --Core desat 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Friend

Non-notable aikido teacher. The general consensus is that for Aikido 7 or 8th Dan is notable in itself, for 6th Dan there would have to be something notable in its own right and for 5th Dan (there are just so many of them) it would have to be something really really notable. Although there are a number of interesting points to consider - I don't think this entry qualifies. He is a teacher at a single dojo. Peter Rehse 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

delete' as NN --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom. I can't find anything notable compared to any other of medium high-level instructor.—Mrand ^T-C 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn; merge any relevant info. to A.W.P. book page. JJL 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per clearly failing WP:BIO VanTucky ^Talk 17:55, 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. --Core desat 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erica Blaney

Article claims she's written several childrens' books; however, Amazon.com only shows one book that hasn't even been published yet. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Cap'n Walker 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no sources establishing any notability. NawlinWiki 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; it appears she's done a bit of writing (I found one piece on a webzine and mention of another in a British sci-fi zine), but with nothing actually published, I don't feel she meets WP:BIO. There's nothing to back up the award claims in the article, either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete when she wins an award or actually publishes a book, she will be notable, but for now she fails the criteria.Karanacs 20:25, 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. --Core desat 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For The Record

Unsourced, crystal ball-gazing article about a Mariah Carey song — it claims that the song will be released as a single, but I could find no reliable sources that mention this, and only one suggesting that the song exists. Prodded by myself; de-prodded without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. And it doesn't even claim it will be a single—it says "the song is not confirmed as the album's first single and may not even make the final cut of the album". :) If it is, then it will probably merit an article. Currently even if the song is registered it is non-notable and the article lacks sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 05:48, 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 There is one source that appears reliable; this does not rise to the level of WP:BIO, as indicated below. Xoloz 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Javier Gomez Durand

I am not convinced that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are sources, but none of them are the kinds of articles about the subject that are called for by WP:RS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The person in this article is notable in the IT comunity as well as in Puerto Rico. As the author/editor of several IT books he has certain recognition in that field. I believe the references are from notable sources like Microsoft web page and O'Reilly Publisher website (largest technical book publisher in the USA). Mocotechochi 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Mocotechochi

Reply What you need, to show notability, is actual articles written about this person, in newspapers and magazines for example, or reviews of his book in nontrivial sources. You've verified that he exists, but not that he is important. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with mocotechochi... he might not be famous as Paris Hilton, but he is notable in his field. I added the two times I have seen somebody else talk about him. I can probably scan the CB article, how can we upload that? 70.45.149.21 10:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sources are not sufficient to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. None of the sources are independent, and thus do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. --SmokeyJoe 09:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect with merge done by Blofeld of SPECTRE. Non-admin closure.SkierRMH 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QLTM

The creator offers no evidence that this phrase is notable; in fact, it appears not to be widely used. Prod removed by creator without comment or changes to article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect If it can be referenced redirect to LOL and have it at the bottom. If it can't delete ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why should all internet slang not have their place on Wikipedia? What is the justification for this not to show on Wikipedia as part of the internet vernacular and therefore a valid, although not popularly used I understand, but no less valid than any other part of the references made on Wikipedia. I have added it to the bottom of LOL, RFOL, and LMAO, as well as added this to the internet slag phrases listing.

I am not going to fight for this to be kept. I am really asking this as a larger question for the basis of information that deemed as "not notable." This is only one very, very small example of the type of information that might be lost or over looked. Wikipedia can contain so much information as a reference why is it not more freely open to new information and ideas? I believe all information should be vetted and accurate, and if the information can't be verified then it should be deleted. If this article could not be verified or substantiated, it should be deleted. But the policy on notability seems to be too broad or subjective to be used in most cases when articles are nominated for deletion. The Wikipedia "police" seem to be overly judgmental and narrow as to what this reference should or should not contain.TETFSU 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply As I replied to your similar message on the article talk page, the standard we're measuring by is the notability criteria. If you can show how this subject meets that standard, this is the place to explain it. But if you want to discuss whether or not the notability criteria are the best way to choose what articles we need, you should take that discussion to the talk page there, rather than having it over just one article. After all, you're asking for a pretty radical change in the way Wikipedia runs, and that change will affect all of the encyclopedia, not just this one article. And if we only kept verified articles, this one still wouldn't qualify, since your only cited source is another user-edited source, not a reliable one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 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. — TKD::Talk 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Burnett

This appears to be related to a content dispute at Freak Nasty; there are no reliable sources provided to verify that this is in fact the identity of that artist. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Fork of edit war going on at Freak Nasty regarding his real name, where neither side of the debate has ever provided verification of their claims. ... discospinster _talk 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete having seen the article the way it was before cleanup, I sincerely doubt there's any truth to this. JuJube 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a branch off of the Freak Nasty Edit War. This is an article created by one of the opposing sides. Jlau521 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. Dodgy. tomasz. 13:48, 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. --Core desat 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varkon

Contested speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Varkon has been deleted twice:
- At 10:36, 24 October 2007 by User:Anthony Appleyard
- At 15:13, 14 April 2007 by User:Soumyasch
  - See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Open source project advertising for people to write an article. Anthony Appleyard 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete based on my speedy nom and comments on WP:COIN. Notability cannot be asserted in accordance with WP:N. The article is based entirely on primary sources and was solicitated by the software developers per my evidence at WP:COIN. Add to this that it had already been deleted once and there is a clear cut candidate for deletion. EconomicsGuy 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as spam. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as this searching for this name on google returns 22,000 hits. Law & Disorder 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm waiting for independent third-party sources describing actual usage of Varkon and indicating it is valuable. The recreation of a deleted article without going through DRV, and the creator's apparent COI, are troubling issues. The intemperate remarks of User:VeganEater, the person who re-created the article today, don't suggest good faith or respect for our policies. EdJohnston 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete posthaste. Zero sources. shoy 16:02, 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. --Core desat 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EuropeanUnity

Incomprehensible personal musings by user Xxell and IP 64.69.127.105. Article content and authors seem highly related to a previous deleted article: Complexxon (of a year ago). Article probably not eligible for a speedy ( G4 for instance) or prod. Van helsing 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and profoundly POV. It is so confusing to read that it's difficult to say what it's about, but it's definitely not a fact-based, neutral encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as clearly nonsense. Law & Disorder 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
user talk and response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxell (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Seems to be an agenda being pushed by User:Xxell at http://xxell.com/. Corvus cornix 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Question: Do you consider new evidence based on facts of the -until now covert- European-Energy-Agenda-1963-Under-American-Pressure with global impact -in order to distinguish 'Unity' from 'Union'- an Agenda we should not endeavour and just rule out? And do you consider qualifications like musings and clearly nonsense quantifiable with arguments based on good faith and mutual respect? What is your mutual special interest of obscuring the evolution of intelligible information? Written & signed by: Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Presenting your personal interpretation of historical facts as an encyclopedia article runs counter to the policy of no original research. We can only reflect opinions which can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We'd apply exactly the same policies if a member of Shell's PR department tried to create an article on "How Shell are helping to create a greener future for all our children". An encyclopedia is not the right place for pursuing any agenda, no matter how important you feel that agenda to be. Thomjakobsen 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What are your arguments to think Union would include Unity? And how can special interests groups like you claim Unity not to be a seperate lemma from Union regarding the EU in this case? It is total nonsense as far as I can see. Unity does and should not redirect to Union either. Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 October 2007

It is common usage to associate the term "European Unity" with the ideas leading to the "European Union". Unless there is a substantial body of reliable secondary coverage talking about "European Unity" in a sense that is not related to the "European Union", European Unity will continue to redirect users to European Union. In the meantime, replacing that page with an essay of your personal ideas on "European Unity" is against our policies, which have been repeatedly pointed out to you. Does that explain things? Thomjakobsen 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It clearly explaines why your conventional way of thinking does not want to understand broader ideas and conception beyond common usage. That part of the problem of the world being in the situation it is now. I know history cannot be found in written documents. People like you are at threat to responsible development and sustainable globalisation. The concept of Unity is much broader than abusive authority under arrogant market pressure of the past.

Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann, arguably were traitors to the greater good while sustaining special interest groups. Therefore the lemma EuropeanUnity is not a personal assay based only on individual ideas. You should stop obstructing evolution and edit the lemma instead. You might be of positive added value for the Global Society. Written & signed by email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 October 2007

Delete - non-neutral, unverified original research.--Beloved Freak 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no Unity in the EEC, nor EC and there is no Unity in the Union. You repeat saying cash-flow, when say cash-fly. Tychon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2007

Delete as per Belovedfreak. Edward321 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Essentially incomprehensible waffle. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 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 g1, utter nonsense, "Thompson began writing at the age of 104, sometime during the early part of the 20th Century." -- but he somehow has a MySpace page. NawlinWiki 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joss Thompson

non-notable; only 3 Ghits if one excludes Wikipedia and MySpace; hoax entry?; some patently incorrect facts ^talkGiler 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be a non-notable person, despite the charming claim that his latest album "will be carried on the breeze to the many forgotten corners of these hallowed shores. Alternatively, it can be heard on his Myspace page." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:BOLLOCKS. --Evb-wiki 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - looks like advertising to me. A post on the Myspace Support forums may be of interest. - Snigbrook 16:06, 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. --Core desat 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Cook - Nyikina

Non-notable person, appears to have been posted by the subject or someone connected to her. Reads like an entry in a who's who book and/or a resume. No sources, cannot be verified. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, personal advertising, reads like a resume. NawlinWiki 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I bet it was copy&pasted from somewhere. The formatting is all messed up and it's hard to read. Law & Disorder 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is a good chance that the subject is notable enough for an article, but this article isn't it. As above, it looks like an entry in a who's who book and/or a resume. At least part of it has either been lifted from a MySpace site or more likely, both have been lifted from a third place. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A Google News Archive search for Sam Cook Nyikina comes up with a trivial mention in a Canberra Times story. [22]Article may well be copyvio and looks like a resume. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article should be renamed Sam Cook (theatre producer) or similar. Her name is Sam Cook. I assume the Nyikina (her people) was used as a disambiguation term. Including Nyikina in a google search would not help identify relevent terms. She is the executive producer of Yirra Yaakin (see [23]) and there should be sufficient sources to write a decent article. This article, however, is not salvageable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was the admin who declined it per WP:CSD#A7 however the notability claims seem to suffer from a lack of verifiability from reliable sources. Pedro : Chat 08:59, 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. --Core desat 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neurosphere (film)

Film expected to be released in 2009, no sources other than its own website, does not claim notability. Previously proposed for deletion but had PROD tag removed. Snigbrook 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability presented. --Fredrick day 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable at this time, no sources. NawlinWiki 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete because the article fails to establish notability or provide verifiable content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 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. --Tikiwont 09:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nic nolan

Vanity article with no independent sources to establish that this Program Director is in any way notable. Cap'n Walker 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - clearly fails to establish sufficient notability and a resume to boot. No news articles about Nick (he's mentioned as getting married, and as being at a party in articles about others), no books, no articles and nothing that meets the biographical notability requirements. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced autobiography. He just might be notable enough for an article if sources could be found, but this one is better deleted.-gadfium 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Fails WP:BIO. Doubtful that non-trivial, independent sources exist. Doctorfluffy 06:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If there were reliable sources in existence out there, I'd be in favour of leaving the article alone, but this... I think it would be better off to delete it. ~ Sebi 04:42, 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 delete. --Core desat 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrow-in-Furness Gallery

An article already exists on Barrow-in-Furness, and this article is a picture gallery, not an encyclopedia article. Prod removed. -- FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)}}

Delete. Should be on the Commons - just too bad if some of the images are not on the Commons. -- RHaworth 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of files. On a side note, I live a couple of miles from Barrow, and work on the main article. J Milburn 22:09, 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 Merge with Redirect, Author merged & redirected materials. Non-admin closure. SkierRMH 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. George's Cathedral Chennai Booklet

This is an odd one. This article is about the guidebook to a cathedral but without a corresponding article for the cathedral itself. (I've found it now - St. George's Cathedral Chennai - it didn't come up in an earlier search.) The article has very limited prospects of expansion. Fails notability and is probably spam. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I had created the St. George's Cathedral Chennai wikipedia page, and there has been a need to have in - text citations. The books St. George's Cathedral written by Dr. H.S.S. Lawrence was released in 2007 and the editing work was done by me. The book carries no ISBN number. So I wonder how I would be able to give in-text citations for the other article St. George's Cathedral Chennai. Can you please help me out?

--PRITHVIN 88 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate the booklet information into the main article and turn the booklet article into a #REDIRECT? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If the booklet has been published, it can be used for a reference without needing a separate article. References don't need to have ISBNs to be valid. A redirect isn't needed here. Espresso Addict 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to St. George's Cathedral Chennai per above. Since most of the information in this article talks about information in the booklet, which discusses the cathedral itself, it should be an easy merge. As for citing sources - WP:CIT is a good place to start. Use ref tags around the cite template, and just plug in information - publisher, date, title, etc. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the cathedral article. Every church has a pamphlet. Corvus cornix 18:00, 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 considering the option to merge(create a new article) without reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability would only result in another AfD. I do note that Torchwoodwho (talk · contribs) has copied the articles over to Fancruft.net which is a Sci-Fi wiki. The last three included in the nomination are lists, and most editors made mention of these seperately mostly about being retained in that form as such these three will be Kept but they need sourcing and I'll tag them cleanup,source and notability tags. Gnan garra 13:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Throttle (Biker Mice from Mars)

This article consists of nothing but loads of OR, no real world information and no sources. If the latter two can't be provided in the article, I suggest either deleting it or redirecting it into the main article or create a list of characters.

I am also nominating the following pages:

The Prince 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - This kind of series shouldn't need more than a couple of paragraphs about the characters in the main article. TTN 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge all but the last three into List of characters in Biker Mice from Mars. I'm undecided whether to merge the last three as well or leave them. —Quasirandom 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge key characters to a list as suggested above. Unfortunately, it's hard to provide references for articles like this; unless the articles are impeccably sourced, it's hard to keep them around. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Make just one character article (deleting the last three listed) and only put important characters, and a much less information. i ^said 00:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to a list article...what, you couldn't have nominated these before I spent all that time recategorizing them? Otto4711 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge all but the three last ones to a list article, leave the three. I don't see the supposed OR in the article, by the way, beyond the statement that "Throttle" as a name in a show about bikers probably comes from throttles in vehicles. --Kizor 13:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as none of these articles have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've imported all of these files over at Fancruft.net so if anyone wants to help tweak them over there it's much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources at all, and apparent wp:or - Ukulele 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into a main character list. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 23:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge most into one (or two - heroes and villains, or similar) character list; keep Throttle, Modo and Vinnie seperate as principal and eponymous characters. No OR apart from speculation on the origins of the names.Anglo-Norman 15:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per TTN. Doctorfluffy 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into one list article. —Scouter Sig 14:25, 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 Delete--JForget 01:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hadji bey turkish delight

Notability not asserted or not notable. It seems to be a local food item, which has not been produced for three decades. We might have a WP:COI issue here, the creator of the article has no other edits. Deniz^T_C 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator Deniz^T_C 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article fails WP:Notable and probable failure of WP:COI--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this is a brand name or simple variety of Turkish delight, an otherwise notable food, but used possibly as a coatrack, for which notability is not inherited. Bearian 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Rambles, is a bit coatrackish, and is not necessarily a notable brand of TD. Might be able to be considered nonsensical. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 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 Speedy delete g1 nonsense, expressly stated to be original research, Wikipedia is not every wacko's bulletin board for five days. NawlinWiki 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Carpenter's Son

This appears to be original research, from what I can tell. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This quote from the article says it all, really: "Wikipedia is the first and only to recieve this New found study of the Codes of the Bible". At least three of the five points of WP:NOT#OR apply here. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete completely original research, seems to be WP:MADEUP Deniz^T_C 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's not even amusing. Emeraude 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete blatant original research, and the fact that the initial letters of part of the King James Bible spells "NASA" backwards is hardly groundbreaking news. Hut 8.5 15:39, 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. --Core desat 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monash University Malaysia Students Association

A non-notable student's association, citing no independent sources with lots of OR for good measure. → AA ^(talk) — 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ORG and nom -- no third-party sources. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This appears to be the peak studet association for a university in Malaysia. I would think that in most cases these bodies would be able to assert notability. That said, large chunks of the article are largely lifted from here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe there is general consensus that student organizations at particular schools or universities are generally not notable. This follows from the WP:ORG guidelines on "organizations whose activities are local in scope". I should have mentioned this in my comments above. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article's title refers to Malaysian students but this is about a students association for a campus of Monash University. No sources are given for the article. I would be inclined to keep if the article was properly named and the article was sourced. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The title refers to the Student Association of Monash University Malaysia (note "Malaysia" not "Malaysian"). Would a move to Monash University Student Association (Malaysia) be less ambiguous? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If notability can be established per WP:ORG, then that would be more appropriate. However, a local student's union must show sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. → AA ^(talk) — 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would. However Capitalistroadster commented about an poor article name and my comment related to that. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:ORG and for OR. If there is anything of value, it can be merged back into the school article. However in no case should this be kept. Vegaswikian 21:24, 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. --Core desat 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open cuisine

Topic is non-notable, a Google search brings up blogs with tags for the authors promotion for the topic. Second author is suspect as has only worked on this article as well and has added a SPAM link and only added information on Molecular Gastronomy which is an entirely different topic. The article also seems to be written in a complete POV promotional view. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete pretty obviously made up. Chris Cunningham 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - WP:MADEUP. Comment: I'm not sure why this was removed: [24] - copyvio of what exactly? - Snigbrook 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment It was my belief that they had posted about a professional program which many chefs use that is a commercially produced product which they had not given proper citation for. Looking back at it now though I realize it is just a generic way of saying that one can use the "recipe generator" function of any computerized recipe program.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to receive an explanation about the given status. We are new to Wikipedia and HAVE read the policies about posting. The article was published with no economical reasons. The fact is that Open cuisine is a natural answer to what recipes have made to the process of cooking. It is just an invention of the whole new approach, that is relevant for worldwide cooking. If we are first to write about it, I don't know what is wrong about it. In the flood of various spurious articles (like Californian cuisine), we think this topic is highly relevant to cuisine and cooking. Foodizmo 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Californian cuisine is an established cuisine however, which can be studied as there has been numerous books, articles and even restaurants established based upon the cuisine. Wikipedia does not support creation of articles based upon original research see WP:No original research and there is also a criteria for notable topics see WP:Notable. This is not a personal attack on your theories, they are just not "as-of-yet" encyclopedic. I also have to be honest, I follow food tends very closely, especially with much of the newish Molecular gastronomy (which the article cites as being "open cuisines" foundation) items appearing through Ferran Adria, Grant Achatz, Homaro Cantu, Wylie Dufresne etc. and I have never heard of "Open cuisine" mentioned by them or at any conference including StarChefs where much new information usually is discussed. --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Obviously we don't match the Wiki criteria by current standards. So the article should be removed, unless we provide stronger basis of it, right? We sure don't want to negotiate the publishing of this article - will follow the rules. And answer to Christopher Allen Tanner: Recipe generator was meant in completely different way (and that topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I admit). If interested, drop a PM. Foodizmo —Preceding comment was added at 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research. Dr.frog 13:31, 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 delete. Fails WP:BIO, plus there's nothing to merge – every word except birth/death date is already in History of the Brenham Jewish Community. KrakatoaKatie 08:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Simon (Businessman)

I believe this should be either deleted or merged and redirected with the article Simon Theatre (if it survives AFD). The subject of the article constructed a local theater which was designed by a well-known architect. A Google search reveals no information about this man other than what is on wikipedia. If the theater is deemed notable, then information about its builder should be in the article about the theater; otherwise, I don't think the article meets the notability criteria. Karanacs 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Writing cheques is a form of self-publishing that doesn't confer much notability... doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. The article doesn't really assert notability either. Crazysuit 19:18, 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 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 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Building a theatre does not seem notable enough to justify an article about the man. The relevant info about the theatre is found at Simon Theatre, so the deletion discussion for that article can determine its fate. --Eliyak T·C 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, merge any relevant info to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Eliyak T·C 11:03, 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 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. In the current state of the article, it looks like the sources are essentially primary, which would mean that Wikipedia would be the first place that a comprehensive biography on this individual would be published. Understanding and appreciating the effort involved in bringing this material together, the difficulty is that Wikipedia is intended only to republish material whose significance and accuracy has been previously vetted by other sources; a first biography would be prohibited by the no original research policy and biography guideline. I would suggest merging this material with an article on a broader topic such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community, since the policy for stand-alone biographies is stricter than the requirements for brief mention in a broader article. As a stand-alone article there currently isn't enough sourcing to meet policy requirements. If additional sourcing is found please let me know and I'd be happy to reconsider. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community or Simon Theatre. Bhaktivinode 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So far, there has only been one vote to delete the Simon Theatre, so it should be considered as a possible place for the article to be merged with. Bhaktivinode 02:22, 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 Speedied per WP:NFT. Add appropriate CSD Criteria as desired (A1, A7, G1) Duja► 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ec es em

"The word was (sic) created at the University of Rochester in a philosophy class..." MER-C 12:36, 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 as patent original research and nonnotable. As with The Carpenter's Son, above, we have no obligation to allow wacko screeds to stay posted for five days. NawlinWiki 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deemsum

"It has to be known, the tyranny must end". Unsourced original research and possibly soapboxing. "A little known theory." Smells of self-promotion, as the creator is Deemsum (talk · contribs). MER-C 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete OR, promotion, soapboxing, non-notable theory - take your pick. Hut 8.5 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - soapboxing. Comment: The user page User:Deemsum redirects to the article, and has made no other contributions - looks like a single-purpose account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snigbrook (talk • contribs) 16:22, 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. --Core desat 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Moss Acid

blatant vanity page for un-notable musician Newsnight Watcher 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

you cant delete this page you nincumpoop. fair is fair, chris moss acid 4 ever. your jealous, moron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.145.164 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non notable musician. Karanacs 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable, maybe his fans should learn to spell. NawlinWiki 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable and maybe his fans are a total joke. Learnstraight 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Minitechnik 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. --Core desat 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy

Article is a remake of petroleum dependence. Brunt of the discussion there was that this is simply a referenced essay by a user. I don't believe that "Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy" has any particular coinage as a term, and if it does, the article doesn't address that well. I don't think much has changed since it was deleted before, and I'm positive that creating this was not consistent with the previous delete consensus. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. Yes, this strikes me as a essay/POV fork as well. However, it does seem like a valid way to categorize various sources of energy, so I would suggest it be redirected to a category, ex Category:Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy and populated. --Gwern (contribs) 14:53 24 October 2007 (GMT)
delete: No evidence the term is used anywhere in a significant way and not just by happenstance of proximity in a google search. And with respect to the above a category for non-fossil-fuel non-nuclear energy is simply the intersection (or lack thereof) of two other categories. Should we start to categorize things by category intersection I fear an interminable number of pidgeonholes would be created. For instance the existance of non-petroleum, non-nuclear power as a category would imply: Nuclear, non-petroleum power; non-petroleum nuclear power, and so on. Maybe to a more direct comparison, taking the intersection of musical artists from Sweeden and Death Metal bands in the same manner, would make "Sweedish non-death-metal bands," "British bands that aren't rock-and-roll," and so on... 129.89.68.218 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is notable; the article is sourced and based on published sources. Hence it can not be purely an essay.Biophys 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and put in more about what I think. delete. Actually read through this article and ask yourself what is opinion and what is genuine informative information. Examples:

In other countries, with more nuclear and fossil independence, the main electricity source are renewables - This part references Wind power in Spain. Spain gets 10% of their electricity from wind and 10% from hydro. You can be the judge of the accuracy of this statement.
there have been people who have claimed that the production of high level nuclear waste and damage done by Uranium mining is comparable to the environmental damage done by coal or petroleum. - here, when the article does make a clear claim, it's nothing but an attempt to insert unreferenced information in Wikipedia that could not survive in the main articles.

I could go through and try to remove the POV and information repeated from other articles in this article, there would be like 2 sentences left that didn't say anything useful. The entire point of this article is to create an ambiguous subject matter for someone to rant on. And like I said, it's already been deleted once, we already have too many ambiguous articles on sustainable development, and this is pure spam. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Has no context and is written in an essay style. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 18:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge with Sustainable energy, from which this article is a POV fork. The article Sustainable energy does deal with the nuclear issue, but this article is pushing a clear anti-nuclear agenda.--Gavin Collins 09:38, 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. --Core desat 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Liverpool

No reliable sources independent of the forum. 150 members does not seem notable. Spellcast 12:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - things like this just aren't big things on the internet, and simply aren't notable. ...a small but active forum... says it all. Lra drama 12:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Karanacs 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Just doesn't meet WP:WEB. --Gwern (contribs) 14:55 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete - No reason for a small unremarkable forum to have a wiki entry.Alberon 14:57, 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 exile to Phantom Zone for eternity. DS 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Kent

So far as I can tell, nothing on this page is true. There is no such character as Darren Kent recorded on IMDB as having ever appeared in any TV series based on Superman. He's not mentioned in any online Superman or DC Comics encyclopedia I can find, even though one of them lists all Clark's pre-Crisis relatives, including characters who only appeared in one story. I know he wasn't in Lois and Clark because I watched every episode (and I notice the page originally claimed he was in Smallville, but someone who knew better removed that). The character doesn't exist. Daibhid C 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Looking at this evidence I have to come to the same conclusion as yourself - there's no evidence other than this Wikipedia article to suggest Darren Kent existed. And even if he did, the character is completely non-notable. Lra drama 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The creator of this article, Jukla2 (talk · contribs), has also edited the now-deleted article Justin Klassen, which claimed its subject to be a "Canadian actor, best known for his recurring role as Darren Kent, Clark Kents (Tom Welling)cousin on the tv show Smallville." That is, it did after the IP who created the article turned around and decided he wasn't a hockey player for the Chicago Blackhawks after all. (Curiously enough, there does appear to be a hockey player named Justin Klassen, though none of the information about him matches what was in the deleted article.) In fact, following the trail of deleted contributions leads to more deleted hoax articles and several likely sockpuppet accounts (none of whom have edited in over a year). Anyway, even though I have no definite proof that this article is a hoax, based on all this I'd be inclined to say delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:10, 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 deleted ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

[edit] GENE CHIP ANALYSIS

Looks like a case of the author using Wikipedia either as a free web host or to publish original research (the user name of the article author is (User:Fareethahmed) and S.S.J.Siek Fareeth Ahmed is given as one of the authors of this document). Prod removed anonymously without comment. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: nothing here which isn't covered elsewhere (eg in DNA microarray) and not a useful redirect due to SHOUTING. --Pak21 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to DNA microarray.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:55, 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: nomination withdrawn, consensus to merge and redirect reached (non-admin close). -- Sander Säde 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Republic of Naissaar

~~Hoax article. 0 hits in google scholar [25], 0 hits in google books [26] and the 1480 hits in google comprises entirely of Wikipedia mirrors [27] Martintg 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. Martintg 02:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Martintg 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Since some concensus has emerged for a merge and redirect, I withdraw the nomination. Martintg 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Scarian ^Talk 10:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This article has been here for two years and has had time to grow roots, including translations in the Italian and Breton Wikipedias, an extensive mention in Stepan Petrichenko and links from dozens of other articles. If it is indeed determined to be a hoax, it'll take some effort to fully uproot. The article was started in August 2005 by Bloomfield (talk · contribs), who has been previously accused of problematic editing and sockpuppetry (confirmed by checkuser), but not of actual hoaxes. If this article turns out to have been a hoax, his other contributions and those of his socks should also be looked at very carefully. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As with all Bloomfield (edited by Petri Krohn) articles, there is a grain of truth in the general noise. For sources, see [28] and [29] (both in Estonian). The second one describes false burials given to the sailors by Soviet powers (the coffins were empty). From the Wikipedia article, only "In December 1917, the revolutionary sailors of the Russian Navy took power on the small island of Naissaar and proclaimed an independent "socialist republic" there. The Russian sailors, numbering about 80-90, formed a self-styled government and levied taxies on the local population." seems to be about the actual "republic", and that should be merged to Naissaar, provided it can be properly sourced - especially the second sentence seems dubious. So, in my opinion merge and redirect (actually, I don't think even AfD is needed for that, just some bold editing, which I'll do in a few hours, unless someone complains. -- Sander Säde 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment (after edit conflict, somewhat redundant): This source (in Estonian, archive link) from the earliest versions of the article seems to support at least some of the claim in the article. In particular, it says: "Detsember: nõukogu kuulutab saare soldatite ja kindluseehitajate sotsialistlikuks vabariigiks.", or, in English, "December [1917]: the Soviets declare the island the Soviet Republic of Soldiers and Fortress-Builders". There's more, but my Estonian isn't good enough for me to attempt a proper translation. In any case, I've notified WikiProject Estonia; hopefully someone from there can straighten things out. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect supported This should have been deleted two yeas ago as not notable(note the no google hits or scholar resources) in its own article as the incident involved a very small group of people creating a "republic" out of thin air, under command of its creators, members of stationed military. It is notable with in the context of Naissaar history tho. BTW, Ilmari, the link you have is someones personal web page, hardly a reliable source. Thanks for taking interest in this.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I merged the "socialist republic" part to Naissaar, using sources mentioned previously. However, as of now I did not delete/redirect Soviet Republic of Naissaar, as we should reach a consensus about that here. -- Sander Säde 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the merge looks good and a redirect seems quite reasonable. Thanks, Sander! Now if we could just get someone to flesh out Naissaar a bit more in general... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:09, 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. --Core desat 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Street-West

Artist has sketchy notability (As I noted on the articles discussion page, a section on iTunes does not constitute notability). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article also lacks heavily in the third party sources department. A PROD was added by a different user and then removed my myself in favour of deletion a couple of days later. It must be noted that the article would require a strong write up if to become neutral. And it appears as though there has been suspicious activity involving numerous newly registered users editing the article. On more than one occasion these/a user(s) admitted to WP:COI which, in my opinion, has detrimentally effected the article beyond economical repair. Scarian ^Talk 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The article is full of red links, and many of those that are blue just link to disambig. articles, with the article in question rarely making an appearance. This section is rather poor and indicatednon-notability. External links are either YouTube or MySpace, and again indicate non-notability. Lra drama 12:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Appears to be COI-type spam, reads like a press release and the original version was much worse, with peacock terms galore and grandiose claims. Be on the lookout for sock activity and incivility here, as it has already started on the article's talk page. -- But|seriously|folks 18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - COI self-promo of an NN subject. Peter Fleet 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Most of what is cited above is just plain incorrect. I find it difficult to believe that the parties involved in the delete recommendations have actually read the entire article and related talk history between the involved editors. One lone editor placed the tags on this article (Butseriouslyfolks)and until 24 hours ago his or her side of the dispute had no support from any other editors. Despite my repeated attempts to kindly dispute Butseriouslyfolk's claims, tags, and unfounded charges, and despite my attempts to compliment this person on the work he or she is doing to help the Street-West editors create a better article and on his or her work to keep Wiki standards high, he or she has rapidly escalated the dispute despite my urging that Butseriouslyfolks follow Wiki protocol in the case of a dispute. The number one recommendation is that the editors give each other the benefit of the doubt and agree to take some time off from the dispute and yet he aggressively and seemingly maliciously has proceeded to escalate the dispute by placing the Delete tag. This is when I began to think that this must be someone's attempt at vandalism, someone with an ax to grind against the subject of the article. Early on in this dispute Butseriouslyfolks did edit the article which did nothing to improve it and then proceeded to make outrageous charges about COI. He has made repeated personal charges against Street-West editors and yet seems to think that I have no right to my own suspicions regarding Butseriouslyfolks own suspicious behavior.Due to the COI tag that was placed very recently the article is still in the process of a major text overhaul, despite the fact that the COI tag had nothing to do with the text of the article. In point, this quote from Scarian above (he is quoting from Butseriouslyfolks here) : "On more than one occasion these/a user(s) admitted to WP:COI" shows that neither this editor (Scarian) or Butseriouslyfolks did a proper review of the actual circumstances, as it (the COI tag) refers only to a mistake in the uploading of the article's photographs. I had made a request to the record company of the subject of this article for photographs and the employees made a mistake in their upload protocol. That's all folks! No conspiracy to push a worthless artist on the public, no conspiracy to skew the article towards personal gain or any other situation that indicates need for a COI tag. What am I supposed to think when repeated attempts to patiently and thoroughly explain to Butseriouslyfolks the circumstances involving mistaken photo uploads gets spun into a fictitious personal attack on my character involving COI? Due to the complaints that the writing does not fit the Wikipedia standards, I have been working and I've noticed that other editors have been working diligently to attempt to bring the Street-West article up to Wiki rules. If any of you have checked the Street-West article in the past few day you will see that many new source materials have been added. The article is very much still in progress in attempts to fit Wiki protocol (including the photograph situation which should be remedied by within several days.) The article is still in progress and this dispute must be solved. Editor Scarian writes "Artist has sketchy notability (As I noted on the articles discussion page, a section on iTunes does not constitute notability). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article also lacks heavily in the third party sources department." Again he or she is simply incorrect. Nathaniel Street-West easily meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC guidelines. The subject of the article is quite influential in the music community as any of you who are interested will see as the newly edited article becomes thoroughly documented. His or her quote here on "a section on iTunes does not constitute notability" is really uncalled for and certainly does not apply to this subject.Lradrama|drama writes above: "Childhood This section is rather poor and indicated non-notability]. External links are either YouTube or MySpace, and again indicate non-notability." The childhood section is in rewrite to scrupulously meet Wiki standards and like I said above other editors have been editing this article, some for the better, some for the worse. And he or she again is incorrect to say that most of the external links are to YouTube or MySpace. Most are to ALLMUSIC GUIDE, ASCAP ACE Title Search, and so forth.Butseriouslyfolks in his post above writes: "Appears to be COI-type spam, reads like a press release and the original version was much worse, with peacock terms galore and grandiose claims. Be on the lookout for sock activity and incivility here, as it has already started on the article's talk page." I believe you are all decent folks and can see that here alone in this quote that the editors of the Street-West article are not being given the most basic of Wiki's pleas for civility: to use the benefit of doubt in assuming good will on the behalf of other editors until PROVEN otherwise. Butseriouslyfolks is assuming that Street-West editors are going to bowl y'all over with "sock activity and incivility", I urge all of you to go back and read his previous posts if you want to see "sock activity and incivility". I truly am worried about vandalism and an overly aggressive series of groundless attacks by someone with an ax to grind,. This is a very serious matter and Butseriouslyfolks's overall tone again and again appears to stoop to incivility. Making personal charges against an editor is a serious matter and the COI tag as he or she expresses it here is a slap at my character and good name. The original article was written by a creative writer who is very knowledgeable about all of the reliable, third-party information available on the subject of the article and made an attempt to walk the tightrope between creating an interesting article while also sticking with "facts and nothing but the facts" verifiable by proper sources. When I contacted the record company to try to get more interesting photographs, the source (Street-West) and the people who work with him were hearing nothing but compliments on the writing of the article. The usual comments (and there apparently were hundreds) that were fed back to them were as such: "Best Wikipedia article I've ever read". It now reads like a press release (1) because it is serious rewrite, and (2) because the creative parts were removed in response to Butseriouslyfolks aggressive behavior and due to other editor's attempts go bend over backwards to stick to Wiki rules. I am a busy student, have considered the article a work in progress, and simply could not come to grips with the unending pages of complex Wikipedia "legalese" which often reads as if editors need a law degree to dot every "i" and cross every "t" that Wiki requires.PennyLane100 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks 05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't respond to the entire post above, because I frankly do not have time to analyze it all. I do want to mention that the suggestion that I am the only editor that has challenged this article until the last 24 hours is just plain wrong. The original version of this article, written by the same author, was tagged for speedy deletion by BigHaz on September 29, 2006. It was deleted later that day by Sarah with the comment "A7". It was reposted by the author about 20 minutes later. It was tagged for deletion again (albeit improperly) by Deon555 on September 30th, 2006. Maintenance tags were added by 17Drew last month. It was prodded by an IP a couple of days ago, at which point Scarian, who later upgraded the prod to this AfD, added comments to the talk page opining that there was a serious WP:N problem with this article. All of this took place prior to 24 hours ago.

By the way, PennyLane100, you never answered the question I left on your talk page. Who is "our webmaster" you mentioned, and what website is s/he master of? -- But|seriously|folks 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. I didn't have time to write it either. I would have answered your "webmaster" question had I read your message. Did I say "our webmaster"? Hmn... Since I like to do a lot of creative stuff on the web, such as website design, I have a friend who works on my computer when something goes wrong. He knows a lot about the more technical stuff so I call on him when I can't figure stuff out — which is most of the time it seems of late. He can read and explain the Wikipedia "legalese" at times when I am completely stumped. I call him my webmaster.

Why are you so suspicious? Do you really think there is a big bad conspiracy going on here? I guess I think of him as "ours" because all my other friends call him up too. He is also our keymaster... :) Hey, let's just drop this thing. What do you say? If time is on my side I will be able to get away from this "editing war"(the one that began around Oct 1, 2007, instigated by yourself) and actually help make the article what it should be. If I have anything to say about the article every single phrase will be numbered and footnoted, just like my graduate thesis. Please, please give it a rest for a reasonable time so I can work on the article and not on defending the article's right to exist. The article should speak for itself. This will probably surprise you, but I almost never read the mail associated with my Wiki account until I saw your tags at the top of the page, so you did manage to get my attention. I notice quite a few new editors working on the article. Hopefully they are better at figuring this stuff out than me.:)PennyLane100 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am suspicious because, unlike many other articles here, this one has a decidedly promotional bent, and also because you are very persistent with regard to this article but have no edits to other articles. I am required to initially assume that you are acting in good faith and, since you have denied it, that you have no particular connection to the subject. However, in my experience, people who edit in this manner usually have a conflict of interest. Also, to your credit, there's no edit war at this article, i.e., editors have not been reverting each other in a back and forth fashion. So your request for page protection was not appropriate. Moreover, if the article was protected, you wouldn't be able to fix the problems that led to this Afd, and it would almost certainly be deleted.

I will not respond to your allegations of sockpuppetry and axe-grinding at WP:RPP. They are obviously unfounded. -- But|seriously|folks 03:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As the Nathaniel Street-West article is apparently being diligently rewritten to meet the important standards of Wiki, and since many of the charges made against the article itself, against the subject of the article and against the Street-West editors themselves are patently false, the article must be left in place. Soon, if everyone involved follows Wiki’s regulations for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution this unfortunate dispute should be easily brought to an agreeable conclusion for all.The facts are clearly in dispute and the editor(s?) who initiated this particular dispute around October 2007 and who have aggressively kept it going, have consistently failed to follow the Wiki guidelines for how to handle a dispute, as outlined as official policy in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution article. Avoidance is the first step advised, taking some time to allow things to cool down, and under this title Wiki guidelines clearly state: do not make personal attacks. Several Street-West editors repeatedly asked the involved editor(s?) to drop their aggressive tactics, to change the uncivil tone of their posts, and to follow the Wiki policies for dispute resolution, including Avoidance and yet the involved editor(s?) appeared to ignore these requests entirely.Under the title What is considered a personal attack?, Wiki’s guidelines in the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article lists "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme” as one of the major examples of what makes up a personal attack. However as PennyLane100 so eloquently addresses in the very long post above on this page, other editor(s?) involved assumed a WP:COI charge based on their suspicions that editors of the Street-West article were somehow guilty by some sort of imagined association. These aggressive, conflict initiating editor(s?) made personal charge after personal charge, continuing to “insult and disparage” the characters of Street-West editors. As Wiki guidelines further state within the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article: "These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." If the simple, friendly behavior that Wiki demands had been followed by the initiating editor(s?) in this case, this dispute could have been either avoided all together or quickly brought to an agreeable conclusion. Hopefully everyone has learned something from this and Wiki will grow stronger and more compassionate as a result.

Note:I use the term editor(s?) here repeatedly because most of the problems appear to be associated with one editor, the person who initiated the current incident around October 1, 2007. There are 2 or 3 editors with some questionable actions who came into the dispute very recently although their participation has been very limited. I want to stress here that by far most of the people involved in Wiki disputes appear to abide by the guidelines. In my limited experience this seems to be a rather isolated incident. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to those editors who have offered their kind help and advice to those editors engaged in rehabilitating the Street-West article. Dylanharvey 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Dylanharvey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks 05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Struck -- User has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get "several" from? There's only one editor actively writing the article (using two usernames and an IP), and only that editor has objected to the attempts by at least three other editors to resolve the problems with this article. -- But|seriously|folks 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dylanharvey's keep should be struck and indented. Scarian ^Talk 17:28, 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. krimpet ⟲ 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of educational institutions in India which have Latin phrases as their mottoes

List with way to narrow an inclusion criteria. Ridernyc 10:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not needed in an encyclopaedia (and I haven't checked, but I bet there could be similar 'articles' for other countries). Emeraude 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated institutions. Crazysuit 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. JJL 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, maybe the worst case of listcruft I have ever seen. Doctorfluffy 03:46, 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 all into Isle of Man Railway Level Crossings and Points of Interest (which should be moved to conform to the naming conventions, but that's not part of this AFD). - KrakatoaKatie 10:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballahick

Is that a train in the distance? Unremarkable level crossings and other railway features. None of these have asserted any notoriety of any sort (e.g. a serious accident) and a quick search for sources found precisely nothing. I don't see why we should care. MER-C 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, merge with Isle of Man Railway Level Crossings and Points of Interest then delete, but none seem worthy of their own articles. Or just delete. Emeraude 14:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence or assertion of notability for these railway crossings. They can't be any more notable than the Progressive Rail crossings at Old Shakopee Road, Lyndale Avenue, West 90th Street, West 86th Street, American Boulevard, or any other crossings in Bloomington, Minnesota. (Those streets aren't notable either, but that's beside the point.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Isle of Man Railway Level Crossings and Points of Interest (and that article needs to be moved to bring it in line with established naming conventions). Level crossings by themselves are not inherently notable enough to warrant separate articles for each one; if one has a historical designation, such as being a listed building or somesuch, then we can reconsider that one, but I don't see that here. Slambo (Speak) 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge; I agree with Slambo. --Tkynerd 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge - I agree with Slambo's suggestion. Should there be anything found about these seemingly ordinary crossings that demonstrates any special uniqueness, an article can be created then. --Oakshade 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Everybody loves the sound of a train in the distance. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Slambo. I concur also with the proposed renaming of the points of interest article, though that's a request for another day. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:26, 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 Speedy delete copyright violation from [30] Hut 8.5 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Downgrade your PSP to version 1.5 using your PSP battery

Prod removed by original author without comment. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per original nomination. Unencyclopedic content. No references cited. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a how to guide. Ridernyc 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Better suited for WikiHow. ff m 12:37, 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 Keep --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotsman guide

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scotsman guide

Articles for deletion/Scotsman guide (2nd nomination)

~~No assertion of notability made, written like advertisement, no refs despite being tagged for rewrite since June 2007. Delete as nom SarekOfVulcan 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)~~Withdrawn, adding refs to main article myself.

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam. Bearian 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Agree to keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

refs added 61crocodile 20:29, 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) 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - People may find this interesting. This magazine brings up lots of Google hits and has won an international award. Lra drama 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Week keep. I distrust press releases by default, but I doubt it's outright lying when it claims the magazine has been running for more than 2 decades and has a lot of readers. --Gwern (contribs) 14:59 24 October 2007 (GMT)
- Comment -- note that I didn't say that the organization wasn't notable, just that the article didn't assert it, and a cursory Google search didn't bring up anything that didn't seem to be generated by the org itself. Given the awards, though, I withdraw the nom, and will be adding links.--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 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. --Core desat 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beggsy

This nickname doesn't seem to be in widespread use. About 3990 ghits, so not a likely search term either. Plus it is almost impossible to verify this article amongst all the crap out there. MER-C 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:OR, no WP:RS and not WP:V. --Evb-wiki 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ff m 12:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy 23:14, 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. --Core desat 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Game

Previously prodded, but contested. Unsourced page about a game that exists, but that is not notable at all. See e.g. "rotation format", the "more commonly played variation": no independent confirmation could be found.[31] The two lower sections (Weinger Parsons and Esko High School) definitely have to go, but the rest is unverifiable and non notable as well. Fram 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The combination of "un-verifiability" and excruciatingly detailed directions lead me to believe that this is just something made up in school one day. Joyous! | Talk 11:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NFT ff m 12:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources show up. There are wikis for this sort of ephemeral silliness. --Gwern (contribs) 15:00 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete Per nom. Rray 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep a request for editors to verify information was posted on October 2007. We ought to give them more time to verify the information. The goggle search that Fram posted is a rather strange search for the game I thought. I found 227,000 hits [32] --Pinkkeith 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The 220K G-hits don't refer to this topic, though. Did you find ANY of those hits that are talking about this game, that aren't on Wikipedia mirror sites? Joyous! | Talk 23:23, 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion polling for the next Danish parliamentary election (by party)

The only polls that are interesting are the newest ones, and those already can be found in the article about the forthcoming election. So the info in this article is redundant, and what is not redundant falls under the WP:NOT category of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate source of information. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it's essentially the same article:

Delete per nom. The election was called today and these figures will no longer serve much purpose. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is not encyclopedic in character. –Henning Makholm 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Move title to reflect 2007 date. This is useful in-depth coverage. Everyking 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 and 2006 figures have a major flaw, as the figures there primarily come from a single of Denmark's 5-6 opinion poll institutes. Without the similar figures from the other institutes, I don't see the point in keeping this list, since the pollsters are often in complete disagreement with each other, and Catinet isn't among the leading opinion poll institutes. I guess the leading pollsters would be Gallup and Megafon. Besides, every opinion poll institute publishes new figures regularly, often once a week, so many figures must be excluded even in the recent material. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete this list of indiscriminate information that may belong in a specialty text but is far too arcane and uninteresting for an encyclopedia. Biruitorul 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Valentinian. --Tikiwont 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep we have similar articles for many U.S. elections and there is no reason to be inconsistent. I believe that the polls show th changes in national mood over time and are thus interesting and encyclopedic. Eluchil404 02:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Historically interesting, possibly, but then why not include material from the other five opinion poll insistitutes? On a more general note, these polls are extremely unreliable since the institutes generally phone max. 1,000 people per poll and voters have around 10 different parties to chose from. Not to mention that the pollsters don't reveal the number of actual respondents, and that it is hardly a secret that several institutes "correct" figures by simply taking a guess at how many respondents refuse to disclose that they vote for the DPP. All in all, the statistical uncertainty is so massive that it is next to impossible to tell which way trends actually move unless a party makes a surprise jump by say 3% or more, which is a rare occurrence given the number of parties. One week, 2-3 polls say that the overall trend goes one way while the other 3-4 say that it goes the opposite direction. The actual figures from the election night is something that has lasting value, but I don't see lasting value in this kind of material. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:37, 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 as a how to guide. Gnan garra 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bash syntax and semantics

Prescriptive content which makes no attempt to not read like a howto. Previously removed from Bash for same, then shunted into Talk:Bash in an ill-judged move to preserve it against policy, and finally moved here to get if off talk. Possible transcription candidate, but it's not really well-written enough that it matters. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki this. Certainly a reduced version is appropriate for the Bash page in the same way programming language articles cover interesting features of syntax and provide examples, but something of this length is more appropriate for a tutorial. Doesn't Wikibooks have a Bash tutorial? --Gwern (contribs) 15:39 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep. I'm guilty of creating this page. I did so after seeing how the Python (programming language) is handled in the wikipedia. In the case of Python, there is a Python syntax and semantics page for the express purpose of explaining the language syntax. The quality of the Python syntax page is better; but the bash syntax page has just started. It should be given some time to improve. Jeff Carr 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep needs improvement ( and a limited version on the bash page ), this page is particularly useful as wikipedia is used as a 1st point of contact for new linux users! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.78 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. While widely used bash (IMHO) does not have enough of historical notability to keep such an info. I could imagine a page documenting how Unix shell syntax had changed over time. Pavel Vozenilek 18:43, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dannii Minogue's Fifth Studio Album

another crystal balltastic "[x] artist's [y] studio album"-style article, the most that's confirmed is that she has a single out in December; that has an article already, so there's no need for this. tomasz. 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, at least until this album actually has a title and release date. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No title, no release date, no definitive track listing. No reason for article as yet. Capitalistroadster 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, until the album is titled and the expected release date given. Otherwise, the article is pretty much a crystal ball. ~ Sebi 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete- It fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC with "no significant coverage". It is to WP:BALL —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-G-Unit-Boss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete ASCAP title confirmations really aren't proof of being in production as of yet. No release date or title. CRYSTAL. SkierRMH 01:10, 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 "d" is for "deletion", that's good enough for me. DS 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie colour secret

Seems to be made-up. Didn't really need to look, but google searches for "Cookie Colour Secret" returns nothing even remotely connected to the claims made in this article. I particularly like the last sentence though. What's the point of having an article if we can't divulge all the required facts? A^RendedWinter 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ExtraDry 09:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Creator keeps removing hoax tags, even removed the AfD notice. Nuke it from orbit. Dethme0w 09:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it obviously seems to be a hoax. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it's a hoax.Seventhofnine 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete seems to clearly be a hoax. Ridernyc 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Most likely a hoax ff m 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per DethmeOw. It's the only way to be sure! --Gwern (contribs) 15:43 24 October 2007 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diary of Ancient Rites

This book does not appear to meet our notability guidelines, and it appears to have been primarily contributed by the author. This image is also related: Image:Meaid.jpg. John Vandenberg 09:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BK ff m 12:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BK on all 5 main criteria. SkierRMH 01:05, 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 snowball delete. Acalamari 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adams equation

Unsourced original research. Plus I get the feeling that this is just something made up one day. MER-C 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. OR or joke. Operating 09:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be a hoax ff m 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is crap. He's taking the piss. Let's wash our hands of it. Emeraude 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as I couldn't find any sources on Dogpile. There are such things as the Adams-Williamson Equation or the Bohart-Adams equation, but they have nothing to do with this article, which is written in a comical fashion, especially that last sentence. Cute, but not encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, made-up nonsense, not even funny. NawlinWiki 17:38, 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. Certainly a hoax, and possibly an attack / BLP violation (just imagine that the name plus birthdate match e.g. a teacher of the author). Certainly no reason to keep this article any longer. Fram 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin kummins

Hoax article about a supposed killer made up by the editor's own admission. Prod removed without comment. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Was also previously speedied. Dethme0w 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per above and also author admitted it's made-up. A^RendedWinter 09:03, 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 Speedy delete the entire walled garden, no assertion of notability in any of them. NawlinWiki 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tangy Mangoes

Contested PROD. Non-notable small town band. No assertion of notability, no sources presented. Furthermore, when looking at the talk pages of the two creators, User talk:Gray751 and User talk:Tripsey12, it appears that these pages have been created and deleted more than once, as well as a page about Clarrie Duncan, which was CSD'd and deleted in its latest form just today. Therefore, I'd like to recommend a SALT to the closing admin. GlassCobra 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of significant others of Friends

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of significant others of Friends

Articles for deletion/List of significant others of Friends (2nd nomination)

Fancruft/listcruft. The previous deletion keep !votes consist mainly of petty reasons such as "it's interesting", "it's of relevance to thousands of Wikipedians" and "it's a character list from a notable show". The notability of the show does not affect the notability of the topic (i.e. Significant others in Friends). Most of the list is composed of minor characters, who ought not to be included. The more significant characters have relevant info found on the main characters' pages. •97198 talk 08:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete wikipedia is not the place for every tiny piece of information about a tv show.Ridernyc 10:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Listcruft ff m 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the notability of the show doesn't make lists of every subset of characters notable. I assume that each of the lead characters have articles; list off their romantic entanglements there if need be. Otto4711 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge each section to the relevant character article per Otto. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Friends triva/minutae. Crazysuit 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Before voting for it to be deleted, have a look at the number of articles that link to it. Deleting it would undoubtedly spawn a bunch of short articles for the more notable characters in the list, and WP policy dictates that lists are preferable. Those who think this article should go, might also consider nominating this one. I would prefer removing info on non-notable and non-recurring significant others (or reducing them to one-line blurbs), which is how the article started off. Since I don't think there's any meaningful way to integrate the information into the articles for the major Friends characters, this article should stay, in one form or another. --Aramգուտանգ 10:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The links are misleading because the page was included in the navtemplate, which causes it to link to every other page with the navtemplate. Many of the links are to user pages (which aren't relevant) and redirect pages (which can be changed as needed). Looking at Rachel_Green#Relationships for instance it looks like there's a spot designated in the article for information on significant others and I assume that it's the same for the other Friends. Otto4711 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are 127 pages linking to the article, and only 27 articles that use the Friends navtamplate (heh, interesting coincidence with the numbers). Of the remaining 100, not that many are user and redirect pages (I haven't counted, but it's 10-20 tops). I agree that the less notable characters should probably be deleted, shortened, or merged into Rachel/Phoebe/Monica/etc, but there are at least 7 major characters in the list that would definitely need their own pages if this one is deleted (look for the characters with infoboxes next to them). So I'd have to say that the "meaningful list is better than small individual pages" guideline applies. At the very least, you have to agree that merge is a better option than delete in this case. --Aramգուտանգ 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I already noted that the significants should be in the articles for the individual friends. Otto4711 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per others. Multiple cruft-types, WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because such arguments as this one from the earlier discussion that ended in an overwhelming keep still have validity at present in addition to the significance of this particular and central aspect of this notable and popular show to its plot and structure. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 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. socks ignored. RS, V, etc Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa Panhandlers Union

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}}

Non notable union. Seems like an Industrial Workers of the World subgroup of little notability. Few real mentions in conventional news sources with one Ottawa Citizen op-ed piece. I consider the article to be a soapbox for something that a few anarchists think is a good idea. Halting traffic on Rideau Street and harassing shop owners does not confer notability -- Samir 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. This article provides basic information about the Panhandlers Union in Ottawa. IT is notable for being a success in the organizational efforts of the IWW in Canada and around the world. Transcona Slim 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time a group of people with a political axe to grind have gone after the Panhandlers' Union article. The irony is that the Panhandlers' Union was just in the media -- again -- as a result of someone at Ottawa City Hall vandalizing the Panhandlers' Union article, as revealed by the Wikiscanner. I suspect that the person responsible for nominating this article for deletion may in fact not only be the same person who vandalized the article (on behalf of which politician I wouldn't hazard a guess) but also the same person who has been posting death threats on city streets about the union's current organizer (see: http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3216/0000999ok3.jpg).

For those who may not be aware, the Panhandlers' Union in Ottawa has been featured in dozens, perhaps hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, radio interviews, and television interviews. At least one article regarding the Panhandlers' Union was syndicated internationally and became the Canadian Press "strange story of the week."

I suspect that this AfD is part of an ongoing, organized attempt to attack the Panhandlers' Union and its organizers. SmashTheState 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's a big conspiracy against people who beg for money in Ottawa. And the guy named "SmashTheState" clearly has no agenda here. Where are these news stories again? -- Samir 02:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP The burden of proof is on you to prove you aren't attacking this article because of your political views. Smashthestate does have strong views but he has barely contributed to this article. The only changes he has made are minor fact corrections. The real bias of Wikipedia is the class bias. Do you expect us to have 100 panhandlers come on and vote to keep this article? I am the main contributor to this article. I have just rewritten the article and added more references to the Panhandlers Union from various news outlets. I somehow doubt you'll be satisfied.--Apples99 05:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)— Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uhm, no, the burden is on you to show that this is Notable. The sources are 3 in indy newspapers and one in some anarchy multi-lingual service. One's written by Jane Scharf. Seems like a local Ottawa phenomenon worthy of mention in Ottawa newspapers, but not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. -- Samir 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, have given dozens of interviews to print media, television, and radio. Amazing as it may seem, not every media story is archived on the Intertubes. I can think of a half-dozen off the bat which ARE, but I resent very much being forced to spend hours of my time hunting through media archives for them for no better reason than preventing what amounts to a bad-faith campaign of harassment by someone who doesn't like the politics of the IWW or the Panhandlers' Union. SmashTheState 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - From what I've read and understood of the article, I am leaning towards "delete". But, before that can any supporters of this article explain to me with some degree of clarity what this thing is. I hardly can understand a word of the lead. Sarvagnya 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete or massive rewrite. Right now this is a long rambling POV essay. Would like to add before anyone comes after me. Talk to me here about this not on my talk page. Ridernyc 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment All references in this article either lead to broken links, forums, or a website of questionable notability/neutrailty. Ridernyc 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Re: Samir's comments in the larger discussion, the question is not and never has been of giving every shop of the IWW its own page. The question is of preserving a single page bearing on a group that has had national as well as local Canadian media coverage, and which has direct bearing on the bumpy ride (to put it nicely) of Ottawa's mayor - presumably a notable figure himself, no? This union shop has generated a great deal of discussion, as well as sympathy and hostility, in Ottawa and abroad. It has even provoked vandalism of its wiki page from someone within the mayor's office. If the union shop is of so little import, why is the city going after it? Here are some links to start with, there are others: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=615a7936-caaf-4613-b676-d5635bdb0790 http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=955 http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/brief.aspx?iIDArticle=2828 Feldsparo 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, number one that you cite is an op-ed piece by a local panhandler, and numbers 2 and 3 are pieces in tiny and very alternative media. This does not meet WP:N, nor is it accurate to say that there has been national and local Canadian media coverage based on these cites and the ones in the article. -- Samir 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an op-ed piece printed in a major city newspaper, so one would think that it refers to a hot button issue in that city (otherwise why print it?). And the Ottawa Xpress, which is available on practically every street corner, boasts a large readership, and is Ottawa's major arts/culture newspaper, is neither "tiny" nor "very alternative" if honestly assessed. Feldsparo 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP -- How many times has someone come along and tried to delete this entry? Is this the third time? Fourth? I don't know about the rest of the planet, but in Ottawa this particular union is getting a lot of press. --Nik 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP -- This is news in Ottawa. 70.49.133.158 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Ottawa Resident — 70.49.133.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP -- This article is invaluable to Ottawa activists. 99.224.75.237 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — 99.224.75.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment if it is news in Ottawa provide links to references.Ridernyc 02:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - doesnt seem notable. Sarvagnya 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment A few of the media organizations which have covered stories about the OPU: newspapers: Ottawa Citizen Metro News Ottawa X-Press City Journal. Radio: CFRA including an hour long interview on the Lowell Green Show which is syndicated nationally. The organizer Andrew Nellis is also mentioned in Lowell Green's book "How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging, Thug Huggers are Wrecking Our Country". The book was a bestseller in Canada. [33] Several interviews on CHUO. An interview on CBC Radio. Television: Interviews on CBC Television and Rogers Television. Smaller outlets: Dominion Newspaper. Not all of these are archived on the internet. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. I have included enough references to notable media articles that I believe it's quite clear that this is indeed a newsworth story. Yes, there are articles in smaller newspapers like The Dominion which cover the issue of homelessness and activism. Isn't that a fitting place for such a story? The corporate press has long ignored these issues. Asking us for articles from mainstream corporate press again shows your political bias and the political bias of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete There are 12 references for the article. 3 blogs, 2 invalid pages, 2 listserv e-mail, 1 image, a link to Shinerama (it's not even really necessary in the article), a self-published page and two articles by Jane Scharf. The Scharf links might be useful, but they seem to be opinion pieces, rather than trusty news sources. The CityJournal is something of merit, but the article would still have major verifiability issues due to lack of reliable sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

People actually FROM Ottawa have repeatedly mentioned here that the Panhandlers' Union is often in the media. Not every media outlet happens to archive their material on the Web. Having personally given dozens of interviews on behalf of the Panhandlers' Union, I know this to be the case. There is NOTHING in the Wikipedia guidelines which states references have to be electronic or even print. It is unreasonable to totally ignore television and radio references. These references are not in the article itself because, since the media itself is unavailable via the Web, such citations would serve only the purpose of protecting the article from deletion by people with a political axe to grind. It should go without saying that the Wikipedia articles should not HAVE to be designed around and for the explicit purpose of self-preservation. The fact that it's necessary in this case when numerous people have assured Wikipedia's editors that the union is often in the local media reveals that certain people are here only to use the article as a weapon to attack the organization. SmashTheState 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide us with newspaper/radio sources. Those are perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia. In fact, many of the articles I write contain references from books, magazines and newspapers — not online sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP -- How many KEEPs do I have to put here for you guys to understand. The reason that the corporate press is ignoring this is because of conservative right-wing influence on people who want to delete this article. I know for a fact that alternative Ottawa media like Metro and Ottawa X-Press have written at least 3 articles on it, and there is also one major article in Ottawa Citizen. Also like Apples says Andrew Nellis (even if he didn't talk about Ottawa Pandhandlers Union) was on CFRA and in Lowell Green's book. I know it doesn't meet your mainstream standards but this is clearly a major event that is shaking Ottawa even if the media isn't covering it. The reason it should be on Wikipedia is to fight the prejudices of the mainstream even if there has been little coverage! Pro Smith 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.139.29.235 (talk • contribs) — 59.139.29.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

again wikipedia is not a soapbox. If it's a major event provide me links to references from notable sources. Stop telling it to me, show it to me. Ridernyc 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, how many keeps have you put on here? -- Samir 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

and so what if I posted multiple times "keep" here! it's right wing "puppets" of the city like you that are ruining organized labour in the city of Ottawa. Damn right I'm telling people to come here and put their votes down in order to protect free speech from fascists like you. Pro Smith 59.139.29.235 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — 59.139.29.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That violates WP:SOCK, and as a result, your IP has been blocked. Usage of meatpuppets to violate rules is not tolerated. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You know damned well it was a rhetorical device, meaning "How many times do I have to tell you?" Now you'll try to claim that all the "keep" votes are sockpuppets. It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone here that you've nominated this article for political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia or the notability of this organization. SmashTheState 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that almost all of the keep votes here are coming from IPs who just happened to make their first edit on Wikipedia here. It's clear that that there's sockpuppetry, or that someone is telling others to vote "Keep" in this AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no "sockpuppetry" going on. As has been mentioned here before, there is bias built into Wikipedia. The people who regularly edit Wikipedia tend to be computer nerds. Computer nerds are a self-selecting and very narrow segment of the population, one which has a distictive point of view -- one which is actively hostile to both the Panhandlers' Union and the IWW in general. This has been established over and over again among those of us who regularly deal with attacks on organized labour articles here on Wikipedia. In this case, the people who actually have the most expertise to state whether the Panhandlers' Union is notable (that is, the local Ottawa activist community and the larger labour community as a whole) are taking time to vote on the issue in a medium they don't use enough to warrant a user account. If you're going to argue that only the specific group of people who contribute large amounts of time to Wikipedia are qualified to judge notability, then you are flying in the face of not just the stated goals of Wikipedia but logic and reason itself. I refuse to accept that the people best able to judge notability are the Asperger and OCD shut-ins who comprise the majority of the Wikipedia "community." SmashTheState 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you of our no personal attacks policy? Also, you're making quite a stretch there in saying all Wikipedia users hate Panhandlers' Union and the IWW. I don't even live in Canada, and I came into this AfD as a neutral user who has no prior knowledge or bias on the subject. I offered my two cents, and as a result, there are accusations that I am biased because I did vote to keep the article. If an article truly establishes notability, it would be evident to any readers, not just people from the Ottowa activist communities. Please don't make accusations regarding bias, when it's quite apparent that you have a conflict of interest, since this is an organization that you are a part of. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks, I made some very generalized (and accurate) attacks against the heaviest contributors to Wikipedia. In any case, it is inaccurate to say that notability should be immediately obvious to everyone. There are literally thousands of entries involving, for example, physics and chemistry which I have never heard of -- and neither have you. The mere fact that a random Wikipedia editor has not heard of a specific chemical compound or sub-atomic particle does not make it non-notable. Likewise, it is not reasonable to demand a union of panhandlers (this in itself makes it notable; how many unions do YOU know of for panhandlers?) be immediately identifiable to people all over the planet for it to be of significant note. Yes, it must be notable, at the very least, in its own field. Numerous people from the Ottawa region or the activist and labour communities have appeared here to tell you the OPU is notable. Your demand that I somehow produce the dozens and dozens of television and radio interviews representatives of the OPU have done is not reasonable. No other article is held up to such scrutiny. It is not outrageous for me to suspect there is political bias at work here, either conscious or unconscious. SmashTheState 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that if you haven't heard of a subject, then it's not notable. I said the notability of any article should be apparent after reading the article. Instead of saying that I'm over-scrutinizing this article, just produce some more legitimate sources. WP:RS and WP:BLP are serious policies, and if you can't show that you can write an article using sources that satisfy these two policies, then I don't think the article should exist. Also, the fact that a panhandler union exists does not make it notable. Form an organization that has never existed, and it's notable? It's unique, but that does mean it meets Wikipedia's notability policy. This matter would be much easier resolved if you actually granted my requests. This AfD is about this article. It's not about any other articles. Don't say I'm over-scrutinizing when you fail to answer my simple requests. These are Wikipedia policies, and I'm only Wikipedia policy to support my arguments. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I posted the list of all the news outlets in Ottawa which covered/covers the OPU. I forgot to mention that the op-ed article written by one of the OPU was written in response to an article in the Ottawa Citizen which is no longer available online. The original article was syndicated a week after its release. It was featured in many of the Can-West newspaper including the [Winnipeg Free Press]. Instead of screeching about the rules like a Wikipedia Admin cliché User:Ridernyc why don't you actually read the articles or learn something about Ottawa?--Apples99 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP - the Ottawa Panhandlers Union is a known organization in Ottawa and within a community of street people across the country. Regardless of political biases about whether or not you think this is a desirable organization, it is active, has consistently attracted coverage in community media, and is certainly worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.24.109 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — 64.230.24.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again references please. Ridernyc 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're being told by people who LIVE HERE that the Panhandlers' Union is notable. You're some random person -- apparently from New York -- who is voting on an organization which isn't even in your *country*, let alone your community, who is being told by people who LIVE HERE that the organization is notable. Every time an issue around panhandling and the legal issues surround it comes up in Ontario, it's the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union which gets called for comment by the media. As I have stated over and over again, not every media outlet archives every article. I have been interviewed a least a half-dozen times by CBC Television alone -- the Canadian national television agency -- and you won't find a single one of those interviews archived for your viewing pleasure. I am at a loss to explain why people who actually live in Ottawa with direct knowledge of the Panhandlers' Union and the media accounts it generates are obliged to prove to you, a total stranger with no knowledge of the subject, what is completely obvious to everyone here in the community. SmashTheState 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP - I don't think there's any set bar for how notable something has to be before it can be included on wikipedia. But first, the article exists. Second, it's been covered by televised and print media. Not all IWW affiliates have been covered by their local media. However, if any organization does something newsworthy enough to be covered multiple times by news outlets and someone takes the time to write an article about it, I don't see why it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't running out of paper, nor is notability exclusive to US media or non-local media. If anything about this article can be solved through edits, that's what should happen, not deletion. Drvoke 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Drvoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is a bar determining how notable the subject is. See WP:NOTABILITY. Also, some of the arguments here are about notability, and some are about reliable sources. Both are valid arguments. The other users voting keep argue that union is notable, and that Wikipedia has a bias against these types of organizations. On the other hand, I argued that there are a significant lack of reliable sources, which can ultimately result in BLP violations. My concern has yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How many "reliable" sources do we need according to YOU? I've already listed all the "reliable" sources the OPU has been mention in which include: The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, Ottawa Xpress, Ottawa Metro News, Ottawa City Journal, Centretown Buzz. In addition to these I've also included secondary sources from The Dominion newspaper, thehour.ca, blogs, forums. This is more sources than most articles have so can you remove the AfD notice now? I think you've been proven wrong.--Apples99 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You should have enough to sustain the article. I'm stressing reliable sources because there are clear verifiability and neutral point of view issues in this article. Blogs, op-ed articles, forums are not reliable sources. A number of the links you posted don't exist. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

there are also some misleading ones. one link says metro news Ottawa and leads to a blog. And having pointed that out I know leave the debate, since I have searched for references myslef, and I have asked for references multiple and I get nothing but excuses every time. I think it's clear there are no notable references for this. Ridernyc 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Metro News article. It exists but that link to the blog is the only online source for that article. I have the original hard copy and I'm going to reference that with the date, issue number and author. If you're not convinced you could always call up Metro News or email them asking for this particular edition.--Apples99 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If the Metro News article exists and you have the original hard copy, just post the date/issue so that it can be tracked down and confirmed. Furthermore, that news organization keeps PDF archives of their paper on their website [34]. References need to properly identify their source by providing enough information for users to get hold of the source without relying on blogs - in this case, you need to at least provide the issue and page of the article in question. It's great if you can get an online version, but you want the "official" PDF over a blog posting (and it also looks bad when the reference in question says it's from Metro news rather than being a blog.) --Sigma 7 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be that really notable despite having various sources. I say merge and redirect to Industrial Workers of the World--JForget 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So what if there are no "reliable" sources that meets your definitions. We have about 10 articles in media that you call "alternative" on top of my op-ed piece in the Citizen and that easily should suffice. Also we live in the city and we are telling you this is a major movement that is dramatically altering the way labour is organized in Ottawa. Listen to the people. But you'll keep on fighting with useless "facts" like the City Journal article didn't even talk about the Panhandlers Union. It talked about Andrew for Christ's sake. I also used the Wikiscanner on the person who nominated this for deletion and found that he is using computers from Ottawa Police Service and Ottawa City Hall. I am not surprised about this political agenda which I am sure is coming from instruction from mayor O'Brien's office. It is Staff Sgt. Samir Bhatnagar who has been a scourge against the street people in the downtown core. I am convinced that this is the person who is trying to delete the article. He is also targeting me in specific because I am from Bangladesh heritage. The union has upward of 34 members now and we will not be stopped by the fascists who are trying to suppress organzied labour and free speech. Pro Smith 59.139.29.235 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — 59.139.29.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am sure that what Proshanto has uncovered is correct! and we should be applauding him. The deletion of the panhandlers union is part of an organized campaign from municipal council and Ottawa Police Services to smear Andrew's name due to his involvement in Ottawa Copwatch. Recently there have been posters placed on Rideau Street with Andrew's picture and a gun pointed in his mouth that are related to this same campaign of harassment. I am also certain that Sergeant Samir Bhatnagar who was the particular member of Ottawa Police Services to target Proshanto last year was none too happy to help out by putting this article for deletion. Also it looks like the wikipedia administration is trying to stifle opinion on the matter. Proshanto was unfairly blocked from participating here by wikiadministrator Nishkid64. Does anyone know where we can appeal this???

Stop trolling. There's no conspiracy here. I blocked Proshanto (?) for violating Wikipedia policy (WP:MEAT). The rules apply to everyone, and no one will be excluded. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that you deleted Proshanto's comments and blocked him proof enough that there *IS* a conspiracy? You're sure acting conspiratorial. This isn't the first time the OPU article has been attacked by someone at CITY HALL. This time we just happened to find out it was an anti-panhandler sergeant. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is reaction to all this isn't out of the ordinary. Remove the ban on Proshanto and keep this article!--Apples99 06:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I blocked Proshanto for violating Wikipedia policy (I have stated it already; see WP:MEAT). Also, Samir deleted Proshanto's comments because he was being accused of being someone he's not. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was obvious to everyone and even pointed out to you that Proshanto's comments were rhetorical but you took them literally. He was asking "how many times do I have to post here to prove to you that this article should be kept?". He was not saying that he had posted multiple times. And you had no proof of this anyway. You just banned him arbitrarily in the full spirit of Wikipedia. I have no doubt it was to erase his comments about Samir. As for his comments on Samir I will be mirroring them on my page. I find it disturbing that you claim to know his real identity when your talk page claims you're from Washington, DC and his IP is located in Ottawa. Maybe you're both cops. It wouldn't surprise me. --Apples99 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First of all, Proshanto said this "and so what if I posted multiple times "keep" here! it's right wing "puppets" of the city like you that are ruining organized labour in the city of Ottawa. Damn right I'm telling people to come here and put their votes down in order to protect free speech from fascists like you." Read WP:MEAT. He admits to telling others to put their vote down here. I blocked him because there are a number of single-purpose accounts and IPs who have come here just to vote in the AfD. Clearly, someone's telling others to create an account, or vote on this Afd with their IP. Also, I've never met Samir in real life. I have talked to him on a number of occasions on Wikipedia, and outside of Wikipedia, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. This article provides basic information about the Panhandlers Union in Ottawa. This organization is notable, both in the mainstream and alternative Ottawa and Canadian media and among community organizations and activists in Ottawa and Ontario. It is the only Canadian organization of its kind, and while small, it provides a valuable window into an initiative that has street people organizing themselves in the face of a hostile mayor, hostile media, hostile law and courts system. I am concerned by the reference fetishism I see in this debate. The number of citations available online should not be a criteria for deleting valuable information such as this entry, particularly from an online encyclopedia whose goal is to be open and accessible to all. Mooremedia 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — Mooremedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. In general, WP:ORG says that organizations that are local in scope are generally not notable. This organization appears to have gotten no more than the amount of press one would expect for a small, local organization, and none of it indicates that the organization is important outside of Ottawa. I don't think this organization meets the notability criteria. I would point out to the single supporter with the many accounts that this is not a vote, and that her personal attacks and empty rhetoric make it more likely, not less likely, that people will be inclined to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, notable enough for me. Murderbike 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I feel that notably has been proved through the listed media sources. We have two editors repeating the same arguments despite contradictory evidence. I am from the US, have been to Canada only breifly, yet have heard of the OPU numerous times. Of course word of mouth, really a much truer judge of notability than corporate owned media, could never meet the standards you're seeking to judge by. Joseph_Lapp 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are specific policies on Wikipedia regarding notability, reliable sources, verifiability, WP:BLP, among other things. An article must meet these policies. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete does not follow WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Cbrown1023 talk 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How much more notable or reliable does it have to get?! Victims of the System A front page article in a local newspaper. The article also featured an editorial on the class war relating back to the front page article. The main article was several pages long in print form and contained many pictures of organizer/delegate Nellis. Are you from Ottawa? No? Then you aren't qualified to judge the merits of this article. Panhandling was recently a municipal election issue in Ottawa and remains a hot button issue in the capital. I don't expect outsiders without any knowledge of Ottawa or even Canada to understand this. If you aren't qualified to discuss the issue of organized labour, issues relating to Ottawa or poverty issues don't do it. As SmashtheState said, he has no knowledge of unusual chemical compounds but that doesn't make him qualified to assess the quality of an article on that subject. I agree fully. Stop shrieking about verifiability Nishkid64 and start making constructive suggestions on how this article can be kept. That is the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? I see more references here on this page than there are on most useless pages which aren't targeted for deletion at all. So it begs the question again: Why this article?

I dug up this article from Centretown News (Odd isn't it how some of my references actually have entries on Wikipedia but still aren't notable). This article mentions Nellis and the panhandlers Union. More notability for you: Panhandling emerges as a top safety issue. This is also proof that panhandling is indeed a hot button issue in Ottawa. --Apples99 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Another article from Centretown News. Homeless art vendors stir opposition. This isn't to be confused with an article which appeared in August in the Centretown Buzz about Nellis, the OPU and CopWatch. Are we notable yet? But restricting people to certain areas would rid other areas of the cultural contribution of the vendors, says Task Force member Andrew Nellis, who is also the organizer of the Ottawa Panhandler’s Union. Nellis says he sees the proposal as a replacement for panhandling, and to a way to help get people off the streets --Apples99 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)— Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What is wrong with you people? Centretown news is a local paper in Ottawa published by Carleton University and has more than 7000 readers. Just because it is given away for free you are discounting it. Same with Cityjournal, with over 5000 readers. Just because its free doesn't mean that it's "unreliable". Just because Jane Scharf wrote the articles in the Dominion doesn't mean that it's unreliable. I have unearthed evidence here of a conspiracy involving Ottawa Police Services deleting this article and you wikiadministrators are colluding with them. Andrew has been working hard getting people on the internet to come here and vote this deletion down. This has to count for something! I myself have put down at least 7 votes here because you don't seem to understand that this is a major movement. So what if the sources don't reference the panhandlers union. So what if I'm just a homeless guy who can't walk who grew up in the ghettos of Blackburn Hamlet. Supporting the establishment like this is a disgrace to Ottawa. Andrew is a true hero for the working man. He has gotten so many people on the internet to come here and vote to keep this article. I have been trying to get the street people of Ottawa to come here but there is so few access to free computers. So just because there are no "RELIABLE SOURCES" as defined by you doesn't mean that this shouldn't be deleted! Just because there are no CONVENTIONAL MEDIA covering this doesn't mean that the people are not talking! We are notable! We have over 34 members. I am writing to CJOH TV and telling them about Bhatnagar and O'Brien colluding in this matter. Pro Smith 62.149.18.100 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)— 62.149.18.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to hear any nonsense that I'm censoring you guys. I have repeated myself a number of times that Proshanto Smith violated Wikipedia policy on meatpuppetry. He admitted to his violations. This is a blockable offense, as is block evasion. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Pro Smith: Are we supposed to include every itty-bitty detail on Wikipedia? News coverage does grant notability. My town newspaper has 10,000 readers, and if there's some union there that's creating some sort of hubbub, I still would not it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 is acting more and more like a cop. The fact is that your town DOESN'T have a panhandlers union. The Panhandlers Union is completely unique in the world. There's nothing like it anywhere else. It's notable because of this uniqueness. If there were panhandlers unions in every city I'd understand your ridiculous argument but there isn't. You deletionists are pissing me off. There are articles on every Star Trek character that ever appeared on TV. There are articles on stupid Star Wars aliens and Pokemon characters. Why don't you go delete those articles? If anything belongs in an encylopedia it's stuff from the real world. That being said, this article then has the advantage over 1000s of other articles. I wonder if the Panhandlers Union will become notable according to you once this edit war is covered in the Ottawa news. It was already discussed once before on CBC Radio. Andrew Nellis has appeared as a guest on the CBC Radio show 'All In A Day as well as Ottawa Morning. Stop trolling! This is notable and you do have a political axe to grind.--Apples99 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per WP:NPA, WP:ALLORNOTHING. I did a check on some of the references - at least one of the URLs for a source used online was incorrect or incomplete, making it more difficult to track down the source (especially when it looks like a dead end). Also, Wikipedia is not MySpace, and is not meant to be a "home" for activist organizations. [35] --Sigma 7 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable, also badly written. Suva Чего? 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP - I don't really know much about the IWW but it looks like there is a sufficient number of people, many from Ottawa itself, who believe it is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Perhaps needs some editing however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.212.201 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — 81.86.212.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Google search reveals enough nonpartisan reliable sources to meet notability, some of which mention further TV coverage not available on the web (not to mention hundreds more partisan sources covering the union). ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't say it show it, links please. Ridernyc 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds more? I think you're just referring to Google hits (which has been proven to be a faulty indicator of notability). If you remove the wikipedia mirror links, there's actually only a handful of websites at all who mention "Ottawa Panhandlers Union". Nishkid64 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop lying!--Apples99 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, I'm not. Just click the link, and you'll see. Dozens of the links are just Wikipedia mirror sites. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We keep getting drive-by "deletes" from people who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject being discussed, which is par for the course on Wikipedia, but looking at the user pages of people who are posting "keeps" reveals they all have an interest in labour politics and activism. Should this not tell you something? I've used the example of chemistry and physics, in which it would not be expected for a sub-atomic particle or chemical substance to get a lot of (or ANY) media coverage, yet be notable within its own field. Even dismissing the fact that there has been large amounts of media coverage of the Ottawa Panhandlers Union, since certain people seem curiously blind to any evidence of it, it is STILL notable WITHIN ITS OWN FIELD. You would be hard-pressed to find an anti-poverty activist who has not at least heard of the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Since some of you folks gaming the system seem so fond of quoting Wikipedia policy, might I refer you to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia? SmashTheState 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We also keep getting drive-by "keeps" from people who don't know a thing about Wikipedia. Also, the policy you cited doesn't mean anything if other policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY aren't met. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't HAVE to know anything about Wikipedia to know the OPU is notable in their community. This is part of the problem. You have this axiomatic belief in the back of your mind that knowledge of Wikipedia confers general expertise in every subject area. This is not the case. To make reference to the same section you quote, WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Since it appears to me that you're moving the goalposts back every time someone finds new media references for you, I'd like to get a firm statement of what you believe an adequate number of references looks like. Much of the coverage is now very hard to find, since it is not archived on the Web. I want some kind of assurance that you're not just going to move the goalposts back again after considerable effort has been made to track down the citations needed. SmashTheState 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that real-life notability does not establish Wikipedia notability. I just don't think the current sources used can sustain the entire article. I would have accepted it being significantly shortened and merged into IWW, but it seems too localized of a focus for that article. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) You have refused to state how many media references is enough to confirm notability. Having personally given dozens of interviews on behalf of the OPU, I know for a certainty that we can find as many as is necessary if we're given a firm number. The fact you're unwilling to do so leads me to believe that you are in bad faith, and have a conscious intention of moving back the goalposts no matter HOW many media references we find for you. (2) There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia which says references must be archived solely on the Web. Contrary to popular belief, not every media outlet archives their news on the Web indefinitely. I sincerely wonder how many Wikipedia articles could survive the kind of scrutiny and standards being applied to this one. (3) It is extremely disingenuous to complaint about the size of the article relative to its importance when most of the article now consists of the very references and citations you're demanding! From where I stand, there is absolutely no way we can EVER prove this organization is notable and this whole process is nothing but a ritual used to justify a priori deletion. That's known as a kangaroo court. SmashTheState 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not determined by the number of reliable sources you have. Essentially, you need to have enough sources, so that you can have a well-referenced article that is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. IIRC, I told you that you did not need to have web sources. See some of my articles: Thomas C. Hindman, Samuel Adams, Lee Smith (baseball), J. R. Richard, 1880 Republican National Convention. Those articles do not contain a few, if any, online resources. If you have the page number and the newspaper name, that's good enough for a reference (provided that it's actually legitimate). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: Poverty issues in Canada are already too marginalized, every information source is needed. Anti-poverty groups especially are frequently ignored by the mainstream media, yet their actions are significant. We can help fix that here in Wikipedia. Panhandler's Union is a worthwhile group within Ottawa to recognize. Pbock 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)— Pbock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: I'm in Denver, Colorado, and i consider the topic of this article notable. This is my only comment on this page. On the other hand, much of the DELETE noise generated here comes from a very few individuals. Nishkid64 has entered twenty separate comments on this page. Ridernyc, eight comments. Samir, five comments. Maybe three other single DELETE entries by individuals. It seems to me that the article could be improved, but also that the attacks are mostly orchestrated. Also, this article has a long history of being sabotaged. That's pretty notable in itself — in a sense the attackers are confirming notability by their long and persistent attention. If the attackers would spend half of their energy and time improving the article rather than engaging in unwarranted attacks, it might by now be a candidate for GA. Richard Myers 21:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note. Richard Myers's contribution was solicited by User:SmashTheState. This does not invalidate his opinion, but it may be relevant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the keeps are coming from people who were told to vote in this AfD, off-wiki and on-wiki. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacking an article does not imply notability. Wikipedia links frequently show up high up in Google searches, and if a member of City Hall wanted to check up on OPU, then he would find that Wikipedia article. Then he could just as easily vandalize it. Also, it does not matter the number of people who are participating in this AfD. It all matters about the arguments. Also, even if this article was cleaned up, there's no chance it would pass GA. Much of the article just details all possible mentions of OPU and the background of the homelessness situation in the media (most of this stuff could just be removed). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Underlying issues aside, it is simply a POV essay. Poverty is better covered in other places. Vegaswikian 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable, POV.--Sandahl 00:20, 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 There are no independent sources, no real assertion of notability. Probably a valid speedy, so the minimal discussion suffices. Xoloz 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SUSU.tv

Notability. Is it established?. TorstenGuise 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to the Student Union, unless notability per WP:WEB is established (which I don't currently see). --Gwern (contribs) 15:44 24 October 2007 (GMT)

SUSU.tv is established and officially exists. Also, merging with the Student Union article is out of the question. It's a bit like saying merge the Wessex Scene and SURGE 1287AM articles with the Student Union. Although SUSU.tv article is very short and lacks additional references, it can be improved by adding minutes of the meetings from the Union, for example. Dedkenny66 13:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Does not appear to meet notability criteria.Karanacs 18:29, 2 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. There are no independent, reliable sources to which information can be attributed and verified. The information in the article might be coonsidered notable only by those deeply involved in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 2007-11-03

[edit] Olman

No reliable sources outside of D&D fansites, this plot summary about a fictional race a provides no context, analysis or claim to notability. Gavin Collins 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Dungeon is not a "fansite" --Pak21 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Gavin Collins, please review these nominations before making them. This is one of the primary player-character races in the oldest (circa 1974) Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting, and is broadly cited with respect to the published material. -Harmil 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What evidence do you have to show that demonstrates this? Any evidence of notability? My searches indicate that there are no secondary sources, just fansites. --Gavin Collins 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Re: "This is one of the primary player-character races in the oldest (circa 1974) Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting...", this is exactly the kind of content this article needs in order to be an actual encyclopedia article. I notice that this assertion isn't made in the article though, but instead most of the article is game guide/in-universe type stuff. Of course, for this info to be included, a suitable reference would be appropriate too. Rray 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure why one out of hundreds of fictional game characters is notable, particularly if the book of game settings it comes is not itself notable. This seems similar to saying that a toner cartridge listed in the photocopier repair manual is notable, which does not make sense to me. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I decline to make judgements about its notability or encyclopedicness (encyclopedickousity?), but I would point out that none of the sources currently cited can be considered independent. Resources should be independent of the subject per WP:SOURCES. Deltopia 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Harmil.--Robbstrd 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Cleanup tags should have been given more time to attract clean-up. References do indeed need work as well as better statement in the lead-in about notability. Sadly, this could have been discussed in the article's talk page instead of here. - Ukulele 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability outside of the D&D universe. Pilotbob 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 04:50, 2 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. --Core desat 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banyule Junior Football Club

Non notable Australian rules football club catering to juniors only. No assertion of greater notability has been made. The club does not meet WP:ORG Mattinbgn\^talk 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article was a contested PROD. No reason for contesting was given. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete A junior football club would not ordinarily reach a sufficient level of importance for inclusion here. Banyule is no exception. --Stormbay 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, appropriately named author has produced a great number of other articles about amateur sports clubs which I expect will be listed for deletion in due course.--Grahamec 14:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Gnews comes back with only one hit; notability not proven. SkierRMH 00:58, 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 ⟲ 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saabs in popular culture

This page lists every time a Saab appears in a movie, TV show or book, or is mentioned in a song. Indiscriminate. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. While the page manages to partially avoid original research by citing some sources, I completely agree that it is indiscriminate and non-notable. I might also add that if H.R. Pufnstuf can take care of this in a couple of paragraphs and Fender strats don't even refer to their prevalance in pop culture, I see no reason why Saabs should enjoy the privilege. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above, bearing in mind that Saabs are equally as well-represented in popular culture as almost any other kind of car. •97198 talk 06:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notability and sourcing seems to be established for some of the entries. Outright deletion is therefore not appropriate. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 07:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If I may probe your thoughts on this a little further, then, you feel that the article can be worked into something useful as it is? My impression was that the subject as a whole fails WP:N. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - The article history indicates that it was recently spun off from a main article about Saabs. Presumably that why it looks somewhat odd by itself. Despite the claim of consensus, I see that another car has such material in-line, e.g. VW Beetle in pop culture. My point is that the notable material should either be retained as the foundation of this separate article or the original spin-off reverted. Colonel Warden 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    - The VW beetle in pop culture is in the VW Beetle article, and Beetles were important in popular culture. (Herbie). This Saabs articles is about glimpses of Saabs in movies. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

can someone point to the policy that explains AFD is not cleanup. If an article has no merits worth cleaning up what are we going to do about it? Ridernyc 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete basically a trivia list and as in most cases if it can not be part of the prose of the main article it's not worth mentioning. Ridernyc 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article was indeed spun off from the main Saab one. Various WikiProject Automobiles members have been working to keep the many, lengthy, and often unreferenced and unencyclopædic lists of utter trivia relating to pop culture from taking over car articles. This section was particularly busy, so rather than just deleting it, it was spun into an article precisely in the hope that the wider community (here via AfD) would express their opinion on it (and therefore any deletion decision would have a wider mandate.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Query. So, if this is deleted as a separate article, will the good stuff be welcomed back - for example, that James Bond drove a Saab? I'd like to see this information retained somewhere rather than be lost in this shuffle. Colonel Warden 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment:There are examples of articles which manage to maintain a sensible and useful amount of pop-culture stuff. The test which was suggested and seemed to meet with general approval at the project I mentioned was this: was the popular culture entity important to the car (e.g. the film "The Italian Job" for the Mini), in which case include it; or was the car important to the entity — in which case the trivia belongs, if anywhere, in the article about the entity rather than the car. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete "Films with footage of Saabs"??? Sheesh! Move to "Films with product placement" instead. JJL 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - for all the reasons similar lists for the Citroen, the Mini Cooper and the Ford Pinto were deleted. Presence of a car in a movie or TV show is not a theme of the movie or show and this is a directory of unassociated items. Otto4711 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as it is a referenced article (I helped clean-up reference format some before posting here) and satisfies List by being organized in a manner that is better than how a category would handle it. Articles of this nature help to demonstrate the influence and significance of a subject and as long as they remain coherent and sourced and editors continue to work to improve them, they are worth keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What isn't unsourced is sourced with non-reliable sources. Violates WP:OR, WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Indiscriminate information and a list of loosely associated films, books, trivia, etc. Crazysuit 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a trivial dumping ground for every Saab mention and appearance. RobJ1981 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the above. The Saab is hardly a pop culture icon, and as such this list is unnecessary. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:01, 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. --Core desat 01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julie hrdlicka

Deltion nomination Only claim to notability is as a candidate for public office. No claims to have ever been elected or served in public office, no evidence of notability, as defined by the notability guideline WP:N or the biography guideline WP:BIO seems to exist. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I scanned this page and didn't tag it for CSD when it first appeared due to her nomination, but I didn't read closely enough to realize she didn't win. The article makes no assertation of her notability, and the external links consists of links to homepages of organizations; this doesn't exactly qualify as reliable sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not yet even an also-ran ;) Being a candidate does not equal notability, & no other mention thereof therein. SkierRMH 00:54, 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. Neil ☎ 13:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrell's Military Institute

Deltion nomination Non-notable school. No assertions of notability. Had a prod. That was removed without substantially addressing the problem. A speedy tag was then added by another editor. The speedy tag was contested by a hangon. As this has been contested twice, I thought it prudent to bring to AFD for furthr discussion. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Objection The article has been nominated twice for deletion, and a hang-on tag added and then deleted, all in the span of 17 minutes after in was originally listed. Doesn't that seem a bit hasty?? User talk:sf46 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it was brought here. Do you have any evidence that address the problems of the article, specifically a lack of notability in the form of multiple, extensive references in third-party sources? Such evidence would go a LONG way towards getting me to vote keep for this particular discussion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I agree with sf46's comment on the hastiness of this nomination. While it's true that this article has not yet established notability, it is not inconcievable that it would be able to do so; after all, several schools on the list of defunct United States military academies are notable enough to warrant their own articles. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete withut prejudice to re-creation if the creator can find some information about the place. But I'm doubtful of the notability: Google Books finds basic details in educational directories - FERRELL SCHOOL FOR BOYS, New Orleans; non-sect.; boarding; LC Ferrell, Prin.; 4920 St. Charles Ave - but that's about it. Gordonofcartoon 11:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as empty and lacking notability. Read the article, there is nothing there! Vegaswikian 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no assertion of notability. Doctorfluffy 05:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as all other secondary schools, though it needs some more information.DGG (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability, no sources, just one circular reference (being on the wiki list). SkierRMH 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:N. Zero ghits ("-wikipedia"), indicating that this school has no significant coverage from any sort of reliable source. Doctorfluffy 08:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lushlife Presents: West Sounds (Kanye Meets The Beach Boys)

Mixtapes are considered to be non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Daniil Maslyuk 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete These should be mentioned in the discography at most. They have virtually no potential to expand. Spellcast 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 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) 03:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Kanye West discography lists about 30 mixtapes. After deleting, can be redirected there. CitiCat ^♫ 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to even redirect. Those 30 were also deleted. Spellcast 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC with no "Significant coverage". Also delete per past AfD noms by me which all ended in delete:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sopranos (mixtape)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Good
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freshmen Adjustment
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer School (The Late Registration Prequel)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ LRM & Kanye West: Ego
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Digging: As Sampled By Kanye West
Delete all - It's pretty well established that demos and mixtapes do not qualify as notable, irrespective of composer, unless they have their own multiple non trivial sources and have widespread release. Footnotes on the respective artists' pages will suffice. A1octopus 22:11, 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. John254 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenProj

Contested speedy. This article was previously speedied twice, and the original author posted this article, which in its current incarnation is more of a complaint about its deletion. The original author has been indefinitely blocked because of his username being deemed appropriate, among other things. Another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Week Keep a possibly notable software. The administrator's decline of the speedy request was bizarre, because the article declined speedy was nothing more than a rant about previous deletions and the possible pro-Microsoft tendencies of the people who deleted it. It has now been edited as a one-line stub; and there are sources cited. However, the sources merely claim that the software has been launched. WP:Notable states that objective evidence of notability may include "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" (my emphasis) - a small handful of stories repeating a press release claim is coverage, but not substantial coverage. It serves to prove that the software exists; but not that the software is notable. As the notes on the notability guidelines state: "adverts, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources." However, IF more reliable sources can be found; and IF the article can be expanded then it should stay. At the moment, it is only notable because it intends to "replace" a Microsoft software (which is itself, not notable, and I've flagged that article with a request for sources). B1atv 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep since we have some good sources to write an article from such as this. Oh, and maybe it's a good idea to encourage more competition in a field that doesn't have too much. Law & Disorder 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps, but encouraging and/or promoting anything is not Wikipedia's mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Marginal notability, but still warrants an article. ff m 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per L&D and FFM. I would note also that at least one of the external links certainly seems like a piece of substantial coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 24 October 2007 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 given established lack of verifiability. Anyone may place a redirect to an appropriate article if needed. --Core desat 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masquerade (Haylie Duff album)

Fails WP:V. A Google search for Masquerade "Haylie Duff", returns 337 hits, mostly unrelated. Those which do mention this supposed album are either WP mirrors, wiki-based or social networking sites - one of which claims to be official but looks very unprofessional. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 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) 03:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Haylie Duff as the thing's still in production, the completion of the album will (possibly) merit a creation of an article for said album. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as above Not quite WP:V but rather WP:Crystal. May warrant an article once the album is finished. A1octopus 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect, as there are no reliable sources that there will be such an album. Corvus cornix 18:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm with Corvus cornix here. I looked for reliable sourcing for this, but I couldn't find anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per CRYSTAL; nothing to prove any official notification as of yet. SkierRMH 00:50, 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 and redirect. Neil ☎ 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WebRank

No references can be found to support the claims in the article. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - zero Google hits for the topic as presented. Was created by a COI/Spam only account, probably part of an Internet marketing scheme. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. From What is Your Site Yahoo! Webrank?: "It seems Yahoo WebRank was basically a rank assigned to a URL by Yahoo on a scale of 0-10 which was introduced as an exprimental feature on the Yahoo toolbar a few years back and now is no longer available as a part of their toolbar." Obscure and obsolete, in other words. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think a redirect to pagerank would be a good idea however. Law & Disorder 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Law & Disorder. Not noteable and superseeded by PageRank. ff m 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Yahoo! Toolbar if this even still exists - the Yahoo help page shows nothing. I'm not about to install the toolbar to find out (which would be original research anyway). Yahoo may have eliminated this (at least the term), in which case delete. CitiCat ^♫ 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i think more people would be searching for "pagerank" when they type in "webrank" then yahoo's toolbar. Seems that "webrank" would be a reasonable misspelling of "pagerank." Law & Disorder 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No real argument. In theory there could be a disambig page, but I'm sure it's not worth it. CitiCat ^♫ 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Yahoo! Toolbar. This was a briefly available feature with some credible coverage.[36] In that article we can dabnote to PageRank. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As it doesn't seem to exist anymore (that article was from 2004) it doesn't seem worth mentioning in the Yahoo Toolbar stub (which doesn't even list many of the current features). If someone ever felt like writing an extensive article on the subject, and included the history, then it might be worth mentioning. CitiCat ^♫ 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect as this was a feature that did have some coverage, but not extensive enough to warrant its own article. SkierRMH 00:49, 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 No consensus --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mapic

This appears to be a non-notable trade show but admit to having little experience in judging these for Wikipedia. I don't have an opinion either way. Perhaps it only needs more WP:RS. Pig^man 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete just another trade show, nothing notable. The Rambling Man 06:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree, I know the show and am in the industry. There are almost 9000 global participants, and it is acknowledged to be an extremely important networking enviroment in the industry, and it is growing fast. Regarding it reading like an advert, I am no real expert on that but I guess it is hard for it not to. Note on the history that the author was specifically asked to "demonstrate notability" which I guess is not easy to do without giving it a "boost". In my opinion an important page and should stay. Laows 07:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - first off, notability is a prerequisite - see WP:N. Secondly, it must not read like an advert, regardless of what it's describing. It must be pruned down to ensure it's not just disguised spam. The Rambling Man 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Please see this list of trade shows that take place annually in Cannes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannes_Film_Festival#Other_Cannes_Congresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viv McCourt (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - you mean look at the list you added of non-notable congress shows? The Rambling Man 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Define notable. This congress is most certainly notable to the 9000 attendees. How many directly interested people would constitute "noteable", please? Presumably the Cannes film Festival, which is the focus of the page user Viv McCourt suggested for reference is "notable". It has 29 000 registred delegates. So where between 9000 and 29 000 is they line, please? Laows 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:N is the policy on notabillity, but moreover, any kind of notability must be verifiable using reliable sources. I see absolutely no evidence of such. The Rambling Man 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment As the author, I will try to improve on this in terms of verifcation. The reason I have not is that when I did in the first writing, it was flagged as "written as an advert". Most of the sources are official sources which eminate from the organisers of the congress. I will try though. There are literally 10's of thousands of articles in this site wbhich are less notable, worse written and with no verification. I am suprised this one is singled out. KnightStrider 16:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Okay, I have updated and cited sources and references where possible, and where I the information has been gathered verbally and I am unable to provide a direct link to source I have deleted or re-written the reference. I trust this is okay now? KnightStrider 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep The article still looks like a fluff piece produced by their PR department. If that isn't fixed, then delete it. Article needs a major rewrite. Going by sources not in the article, it looks like one of the major trade shows in its industry.jonathon 18:28, 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) 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete although this is an international real estate related trade show, and their of lots of ghits promoting the event by its promoters and exhibitors, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. There is a similar event, MIPIM, and although MAPIC is different, it is not unique. Notability to come.--Gavin Collins 10:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually the MIPIM Congress is general Real Estate, and this MAPIC congress is specific to Commercial Real Estate. You know, go ahead and delete for all I care. There are 9000 delegates to this congress, this page is already ranked 9 at Google.com and it is a well trafficked resource. I am an attendee to this Tradeshow for 6 years, and have tried to put useful information out here as is the purpose of this site. If you think it is not useful to have an overview/ official links and suchlike for a group of 9000 professionals then just go ahead and delete it. I am sorry I bothered trying to contribute something to this project. KnightStrider 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite. Has anyone bothered looking for sources? It is mentioned in major sources throughout the world (166 relevant Google News hits[37]), including Arab News [38], the Moscow Times [39], Il Denaro from Italy[40], ... While this gets a lot less media attention than e.g. MIDEM due to real estate being slightly less sexy than pop music, it is clearly an important event, recognised by independent, reliable, international media (and I haven't even searched in professional real estate magazines and the like). Fram 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Fram and others. A trade show with 9,000 participants is almost notable by definition. It's going to get a lot of press, and people all over the world want to know about it if 9,000 people care enough to actually travel great distances attend - hence, encyclopedic. That seems to be borne out by the coverage. People know about this show, and they want to know about this show. Wikidemo 19:58, 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 keep. It should be pointed out the prior AFD discussion was closed as no consensus, and a month is not unreasonable for a follow up AFD in that situation. However, even discounting those arguments to keep as this AFD was "too soon" after the first, the consensus is still to keep the article. Neil ☎ 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muten Roshi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muten Roshi

Articles for deletion/Muten Roshi (2nd nomination)

(View AfD)

It's been more than a month and none have taken the time to improve the article. It remains unreferenced, and is filled with so much original research. Now I'm aware of the character's notability and all, but there isn't any real world information that can be attributed here since the character lacks real-world perspective. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Muten Roshi. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep One of the more notable anime characters and very notable in Dragon Ball (although less so in Dragon Ball Z). Rename to his official English name of Master Roshi though. For far too long the members of the DBZ Wikiproject have thought that they are allowed to ignore policies and guidelines and use the English translation of characters names rather than their actual English name (as required). It's the reason I stopped editing Dragon Ball related articles. TJ Spyke 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The character definitely qualifies for notability, and the problems in the article are not so great that they can't be corrected without starting over. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment The real problem is that Muten Roshi has no real life sources, and this article will continue to remain like that since there are none whatsoever. Who will take the time to place any references to the article? Obviously, no one cares. Also, WP:WPDB does not ignore any guidelines or policies, here they are right here. The page should actually be deleted per violating WP:V and WP:OR, but I say a merger would be best to save the data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, you don't ignore policies and guidelines because you followed unofficial policies and guidelines that cannot be enforced ever? Well, if you can create such a guideline, I make one that says the opposite of your naming conventions. Oops, already made - it's called the official naming conventions guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Correction - it appears that your guidelines and policies are official. However, you are arbitrarily enforcing certain policies and ignoring others. Why would there be a guideline that says we should use the English name, if the MoSJP was intended for this? There is a proper English name for Muten Roshi, it's Master Roshi. The MoSJP does not cover fictional characters in the slightest. Would you also support using direct translations of video games developed by Japanese developers? On multiple occasions, the idea that fictional subjects are covered by MoSJP has been considered bunk. The only fictional subjects that apply are those that do not have proper English names, and this is definitely not one of those subjects. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Notability is rightly undisputed; sourcing issues are trivial - would Lord Sesshomaru have the article's editors give specfic episode references? <ref>Episode 47, 13:47</ref>... And I don't know that a mere lack of out of universe perspective merits what would amount to deletion of the lion's share of the article. A merge isn't a good idea either for an entirely other reason; Master Roshi figures in how many disparate parts of the DB franchise? etc. --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Strong Keep Per above comment by Gwern. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per pretty much all of the arguments provided. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sppedy Keep as a snowball. AfD is not the venue for article cleanup or to initiate a merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it has nothing good going for it; there are no primary sources to support the article's veracity, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What it has got is not good: the article has a long "Background" section written from an in-universe perspective that is just a plot summary. There is no real evidence that this article should be kept.--Gavin Collins 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep as blatantly premature - one month isn't at all long in the circumstances. To the best of my knowledgte, AfDs a month apart are considered unacceptably close together. --Kizor 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Didn't we already go through this? The last very recent AFD was keep, and there has to be secondary sources on Master Roshi, he is a central character to a very popular anime. Viperix 21:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment doesn't matter how many keeps this page gets. Per WP:VERIFY policy, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. How is it original research? Original research is something with no sources. The article says that it is derived from anime/manga. Sure it doesn't have every seperate comment individually referenced, but that is not required under WP:VERIFY--Marhawkman 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep- for same reasons as last time, bad faith nomination so soon, when the last vote was not "no consensus" by a firm keep based on the voting outcomes and reasoning.JJJ999 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article. I am offended that the previous AfD's were closed as no consensus, there was a clear consensus, in both reasoning and votesJJJ999 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources beyond the plot itself, fails WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Non-plot being derived from plot is original research. Jay32183 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you need to go to WP:OR and read about original research. What you define it as above is incorrect, what you define above is "'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia" (from WP:OR). Second a very quick search produces many many sources that speak to notability and have sourceable info on them. Here are a few of these, some are good for notability and others for information: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=glpnews&search=master%20roshi%20dbz&img=\\na0012\692760\8122183.html http://100megsfree4.com/abcsofdbz/roshi.html http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6715/ http://www.absoluteanime.com/dragon_ball/master_roshi.htm http://www.dragonballz.com/index.cfm?page=characters&type=O&id=63 There are many, many web pages to go through and I haven't the time to see if they agree with policy for sources, but you know as well as I do that with this many hits on a search a few will be genuine secondary sources. Viperix 09:52, 2 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 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kretzer magnitude scale

Ghits = none. No sources, but I'm not taking it to speedy as it's not my area. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research. Good luck to the author getting this published in reliable sources elsewhere, cuz then it can be an article on Wikipedia. But not now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Definite NFT. Bordering on nonsense. -- RHaworth 06:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. No ghits, and seems nonsensical ff m 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete made up one day? JJL 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete even if it's not made up it must have extremely limited notability. Hut 8.5 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, original research. NawlinWiki 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up in the bullpen one day. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 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 - Nomination Withdrawn. Icestorm815 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibbage

No notability asserted. Miremare 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Despite looking decidedly unpromising, I found a Game Tunnel review, GameSpot list PC Zone UK as having reviewed it (!?!) and there's a GamaSutra article about the game, it's in the Independent Game Festival 2007. There's 3 things here - 1) the game itself, 2) the website and 3) the developer's lack of experience in developing games and the broader discussion about indie developers. There's various other sources kicking about which may or may not be usable/up to this standard, but I'm pretty sure there's enough for the article about the game (with the level information chopped, blegh).Someone another 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the massive laundry list of pop-culture references. Someone another 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, possible notability... However, ign's claim may be wrong, as a search on the official PC Zone site [41] yields no results. Unfortunately, no one on the Magazine project has that issue, so we're a bit stuck with that. Gamasutra is certainly reliable, but I'm not sure about gametunnel.com, as it seems to be a site that specifically covers independent games. Whether that's an issue or not I'm not sure, but it seems that any "popular" independent game is going to be featured there whether or not it's covered by the mainstream gaming press. What do you reckon on that? Miremare 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The PC Zone review is also listed at GameRankings, with a score of 71%. The game author writes for the magazine sometimes so the review was probably placed as a favour (though it wasn't given a silly score of 98% or whatever, so I count that as perfectly OK for reliability). Game Tunnel does just review indie games, but I'm quite happy that their reviews are reliable and that a review from them provides some notability. It is an actual review rather than a selling piece, and GT does have reviewing standards overseen by the webmaster. If nothing else the PC Zone score can be cited to gamerankings and the GT review can also be used to write about the game's reception, and the development section can be written with gama sutra and self-references.Someone another 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep pending investigation into the magazine issue. Unavailability of a certain source to Wikipedia editors at a certain time does not tell us anything about notability. The other sources look good. User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Dan Marshall did a series of development diaries for PC Zone. Gamasutra interview him about his entrance into the 2007 IGF competition, but the game wasn't shortlisted for any awards.[42] - hahnch e n 18:43, 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 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Concur with previous comments about magazine and gaming media-in-general coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:09 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Weak keep. It's at least somewhat notable as per above (direct reference to the PC Zone UK issue would be nice though), and after shortening the introduction and adding a section about its development (the fact it was created by only one person seems to be the most notable feature), I can see an adequate encyclopedic article. --Allefant 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn sorry, this escaped my watchlist somehow. Anyway, PC Zone seems to have featured it on more than one occasion, and there's the other web sources, which Someone another says are likely reliable, so away with this AfD. It would still be nice to see the PC Zone coverage referenced in the article though if anyone can do this. Miremare 18:39, 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 Withdrawn by nominator --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Duncan

Doesn't meet WP:N. Unsourced article that reads like an ad. Torc2 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - if the fiddler actually revolutionized fiddling like the article claims, I would consider keeping the article for that one notable fact. However, there are no refs or cites to back up that claim. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
While the article is brutal, the artist has won six - count'em, SIX - Academy of Country Music awards since 1996. (Go here and navigate into the Awards section - it's a downloadable spreadsheet.) They don't give those out lightly. He's also apparently played with a lot of big names, so I think he probably nudges above WP:MUSIC. Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I've expanded the article, detailing his awards. Clarityfiend 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. -- I would like to withdraw this nomination given the additional information. Good job on that! Torc2 03:36, 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, John254 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er... why the relist here? The keep immediately above is the nominator, withdrawing... Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 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, though this closure is not in any way an endorsement of the blatantly incivil behavior shown toward the article creator in this AFD. --Core desat 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Dunin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin

Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2

Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3

Stanley Dunin is a non notable aerospace engineer who fails all 6 points of WP:PROF. All scientist have been a part of something, nothing makes him exceptional. Also, being born in Poland moving to the US doesn't make him important by any means. Thousands of people move to the US, nothing makes him stand out. No independent, reliable sources exist to prove he is notable, and notability is not temporary. Simply being named by a Senator does not make you important, or notable. Being a business consultant doesn't make you notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Didn't we just do this? And weren't you the nominator then, as well? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- About a month ago. I don't see any difference in doing it again. The article is vastly different, with all of the original research removed. Carbon Monoxide 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CO, I'm a little confused--you say it's improved, and yet you nominate for deletion? DGG (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? It hasn't improved. All of the OR research was taken out and no independent, reliable sources have been brought to show the article's notability or importance. Carbon Monoxide 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete, but I'd like to ask: when do we plan to stop wasting time with Dunin-related AfDs? Don't people have something better to do like, say, build the project? Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, most users are rather partial to some zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles, so unfortuna tely the answer is no. But that doesn't stop you, the user who hates zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles from writing a few articles. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This time a firm delete, as no independent sources attesting to the importance of this individual's contributions have been brought forward in the intervening month. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Close this as last AfD was less than a month ago. This seems to me to be verging on an abuse of the AfD process. If I hadn't have participated in the last debate, I would prob have closed this. WjBscribe 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- WJBscribe, I would hardly call this abuse of the AfD process. If the last AfD was speedy keep or even keep, sure. But both AfDs have closed with no consensus. Carbon Monoxide 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  - You wouldn't of course. I think its high time we brought in a proper rule against such repeat nominations though - all it takes is one delete outcome at AfD and articles tend to be gone regardless of the number of times they have been kept previously. It leads to excessive amounts of time spent by people defending articles that would better be spent elsewhere. WjBscribe 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm shocked at your tone. Carbon Monoxide 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    - WJBscribe, I concur that repeat nominations can be abusive, but (particularly in the absence of such a rule) I think a month is sufficient for a no consensus close to be brought back. That's ample time to address sourcing concerns, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not even close to meeting the general notability criteria - the first reference is nothing more than having your name mentioned in a government letter, which doesn't count. The second reference apparently indicate he was part of a major engineering project - ok, but every major project by definition, involves hundreds of staff, so this is meaningless. Lastly he was a consultant on a report - the reference isn't about him, so this again doesn't count. Addhoc 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Addhoc. I disagree with the process wonkery going on on this AFD. Consensus can change in less than a month, and this is not an abuse of the "process" at all. Majorly (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The sources fail to establish any sort of notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Deor 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as I believe Dunin's aerospace engineering work to be notable - in particular that he calculated the most fuel efficient manner of launching a geostationary satellite. The sources don't confirm all of this at present but it seems to me a little pointless to delete this article only to probably end up recreating it later when further material is located. This man is not a figment of someone's imagination - he clearly exists, the problem is that the sourcing needs to be improved to more encyclopedic standards. However, the article seems harmless and frankly there are worse ones out there. AfD isn't cleanup. WjBscribe 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article has been around for more than a year and a half, and because of the contentiousness surrounding it, I feel sure that extraordinary efforts have been made to find reliable sources. That none have been forthcoming suggests that your "when further material is located" is oversanguine to say the least. Deor 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think now would be an excellent time to find further material. Tim Vickers 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Fails most notability points therefore shouldn't be here. — E ^talk_BAG 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The most rational explanation for the failure to produce sources by this time is that they don't exist. Waiting for them to be produced is thus an inherently indefinite enterprise.Proabivouac 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think relisting is acceptable considering that the last one closed with no consensus, and that extra work has been put into determining the importance of the satellite claim in the meantime (in particular, Talk:Stanley Dunin#Notability of spacecraft guidance work). Even if the "calculated the most efficient..." part can be sourced and re-added, it doesn't appear to be something which has been recognized as a significant contribution, and on current evidence it sounds more like something that he was asked to do as part of the team rather than an important theoretical breakthrough (i.e. an implementation detail that any such project would sort out, as opposed to some pressing theoretical problem that had the field's finest minds stumped). Thomjakobsen 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the individual is a notable recipient of the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal and has sourcing to that effect. Yamaguchi先生 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaguchi先生 (talk • contribs)

Wow, that would be an undisputable reason to keep. However, I am afraid you misunderstood that statement. Harold Rosen received the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for that work (1982). IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Recipients --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded that sentence to avoid confusion. Tim Vickers 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Working for someone who received a notable award is not notability. In general when I see such a claim in an article I start looking more closely at other claims, as it's a very telling bit of puffery. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The life of this individual is not covered by reliable, independent, available secondary sources. The article thus fails to meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep once again. Article has improved since last afd, even the nominator says so... clear proof of nominators keep listing til I get it deleted mentality. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The nominator did not state that the article has improved per se, but that original research had been removed. Naturally, that's an improvement, but one which also lays bare the fact that no reliable source attests to Mr. Dunin's notability.Proabivouac 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable - even more clearly so now that the OR and non verifiable information has been removed. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Although the article has improved since the empty sources and the roundabout references to Elonka Dunin have been removed, that still doesn't make this person historically notable. Was this article here just because of Elonka Dunin? Will we remember this person in 100 years? Mindraker 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WJBscribe. I also completely agree that this is abuse of AfD. Tim Q. Wells 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so trying to form a concensus is an abuse? --Slarti (19 92) 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to form a delete "concensus" over and over again like this abuse. Tim Q. Wells 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The other two discussions ended with no concensus (which defaults to keep). I bet if it defaulted to delete you would actually want this discussion. But, of course, defaulting to delete would be absurd so here we are to actually form a concensus. --Slartibartfast1992 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. The abuse has been in the protection of this and related spam. 72.106.196.73 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.106.196.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Preceding comment added by user:Disavian.

Comment - I am traveling, always edit anonymously, and what business of yours is it to purport to tag comments in any case? 72.106.196.73 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because anonymous contributors don't typically get any say at AFD. If you wish your input to be considered for AFD, please consider signing up for an account, it only takes a few minutes. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Their contributing... CO 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the fear is that anonymous IP voters probably will lead to sock-puppeting [43], instead of constructive criticism. I'm not accusing 72.106.196.73 of doing this, but you can easily see how it can be done. Perhaps this article could be boiled down and merged with Elonka Dunin's article, avoiding the whole deletion process? Mindraker 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Elonka Dunin's article is the appropriate place for this information. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just an idea. I'm quite suspicious of this article being here, for the only reason it might be here is the link to Elonka's claim to royalty -- see: this link surprise, the second sentence is that he is a "Count" -- and it references, surprise, surprise, Elonka's personal web page. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. Mindraker 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a little bit like a personal attack on User:Elonka. Tisk tisk. Also, that link appears to be a mirror wiki; you're just citing an older version of the article in question. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being critical, yes. I'm working on the Dunin disambiguation page and the whole issue of royalty comes into question: see the old version of the page here and the link cited here. It's not the first time that people have used Wikipedia to make claims to royalty, you know. Mindraker 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I came across something similar to Dunin (surname) recently: Griffin (surname). I was somewhat surprised to see such a thorough article about a surname. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (although I have some vague reservations about bringing this back to AfD so soon). The claims to notability made in the article when it was nominated for deletion a month ago were largely debunked over the course of that AfD. I think that shows some value in nominating borderline notable articles for deletion, many of them appear notable because the authors of the articles have puffed them up with over-reaching claims. The article last nominated for deletion claimed achievements for Stanley Dunin more correctly attributed to other people. With those spurious claims now removed from the article, it clearly fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Stanley Dunin was a member of a team that put up a satellite, his role and contributions were such that his name does not appear in NASA histories like this, I see no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment On a related note to this discussion, I consider the rarity of engineers on Wikipedia an example of our systemic bias, even though systemic bias is typically portrayed as being overly western and/or academic. I also believe that a month is too soon to hold another deletion discussion, and that there should be a guideline (not a policy) somewhere about how long you should wait before trying again. There's probably already an essay about it somewhere in project space. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Someone was lamenting the scarcity of poets (while defending a NN poet), so I told them to start with Category:Poetry awards and mine for redlinks. Category:Science and engineering awards doesn't have as many as you think (most of the major prizes have 100% bluelinks, which isn't true for poetry) but it does have some. Best start there, with the engineers that other engineers have recognized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are also all the members of the National Academy of Engineering. Several hundred, and almost none have a WP page. Membership in the US National academies is generally considered a certain indication of notabilityDGG (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am normally very much opposed to rapidly repeated AfDs, but the previous one was no consensus, not keep, and was no consensus in good part because of extraneous factors such as family relationships. Read it--I consider it a travesty. See Dhartung's comments there and here, which I fully support. See what I said there about the nature of the references used then. The AIAA paper that remains cited in the article has him as a junior author--and it has been cited only 7 times in the whole period since 1962. DGG (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Established after much ado as non-notable. Brunon ia 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Its a damn shame that it took three separate nominations to finally get to the bottom of this, but there is no doubt in my mind that this calculated puff piece was disguised to cheat our notability guidelines. I think good faith has been exhausted here, unfortunately. Burntsauce 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Slarti (19 92) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I support the work of Elonka Dunin, and it is really obvious (to me) that some folks on Wikipedia really have it out for her, but on this one article I have to agree, the subject fails the relevant guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps some do have it out for her. Speaking for myself, I had no problem with User:Elonka (and supported her most recent RfA) until I witnessed - and was ultimately myself the victim of - the hardball tactics to which she resorted to defend this vanity series. Several administrators have carried her water, proxying for her original research and/or threatening, megablocking and irrevocably violating the privacy of users who've attempted to scrutinize these articles. These articles must go for many reasons, but another very good one is to protect editors who mean only to uphold our sourcing policies from the vindictive actions of their creator and her IRC-based allies.Proabivouac 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I just don't see notability here, at least not in anyway that is verifiable with reliable sources. Sarah 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per nominator and Burntsauce. No offense to anyone but nothing notable here, sorry. Thats just how it is. If its deleted and if anyone finds any non-trivial reliable sources on this, feel free to recreate. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn for Elonka. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Delete (as article creator). Life's too short to deal with griefers, let's just delete. Back when I was a new editor in early 2006, I created this article about my father in good faith, about an individual that I felt meets WP:BIO. He was born to Polish nobility, was involved with the launch of a historic satellite, and helped with the cracking of a famous code. After I created this article, per Wikipedia guidelines I asked an uninvolved editor to review it, and they gave it a thumbs up. Now, if I would have just created the article and then never edited Wikipedia after that, it probably never would have been a problem. But because I am an active Wikipedia editor, it seems that some other editors are using this article about my father as a constant target as a way to seek revenge against me for other disagreements on Wikipedia. I've seen editors come in and systematically dismantle the article, removing a sentence here, a paragraph there (yes, even removing sourced information) until they get it down to a stub, and nominate it for deletion again. My 70-year-old father (who really has led a remarkable life and has already overcome incredible odds at even surviving the chaos of World War II) truly doesn't deserve this kind of constant harassment. And to be honest, the information about him doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. I've already got the information in multiple other places on my elonka.com website. If Wikipedia wants to "lose" the data, well, fine, it's Wikipedia's loss (shrug). Let's leave my dad in peace, delete this article, and just move on. --Elonka 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, removing original research isn't "harassment." Threatening other editors for upholding the sourcing policies, using back channels to get them blocked and their privacy irrevocably violated…that's harassment. Such machinations have de facto banned me from most of the spaces to which I used to productively contribute, brought Matt57 one step away from a formal ban, all to protect these articles from scrutiny. Fact is, Matt57 was right. Many other people are seeing that now. This article will surely be deleted, and if policy is to be upheld, without reference to personal alliances and favoritism, more will follow. But there's nothing you can do, is there, to undo what your IRC friends did to me.Proabivouac 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about one of the many editors of this article or any past Wikidrama, it is about whether or not this article meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Please do not allow this discussion to move off topic. Tim Vickers 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Elonka, please be assured again, this is not about you or revenge or anything, its about: whether the article meets notability criteria. Almost everyone here has said delete in this pretty much extensive discussion and given their reasons especially the nom who laid it out. None of these people had any 'griefing' to do or wanted to take revenge on you. Just for you, I'll withdraw my vote. Please see the opinions of uninvolved editors. I hope you'll be able to see all of this impartially. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have seen much less notable articles that has been kept based on the argument that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". If there is any original research there that Elonka does not verify them, we should keep them out. Many of the humanities majors and their publications are really working based on trust and assumption of good faith on the part of those who collect the data. I haven't checked all the sources closely; others can do. I myself, in my vote, have gone beyond the letter of wikipedia to its spirit. Let's separate this discussion from Proabivouac's case or Matt's case. --Aminz 02:07, 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, John254 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Elonka and Sarah. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment This AFD should not have been re-listed but rather closed on its original nomination page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-noteworthy - also, let's watch the close of this Afd to ensure it reflects policy and indeed consensus this time - no shenanigans. And, Ms. Dunin, your comments above are very touching but at odds with this quote..."Please don't assume that I made this page because I actually like my father" [[44]]. I for one don't even know you, but this gentlemen (who seems very nice and must be quite capable) doesn't meet notability guidelines. A cursory review of your editing shows that you know these policies well. Your remonstration above can be reversed: would you have created this page if the subject was not your dad? I think not. 75.224.244.206 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — User:75.224.244.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konstakuten

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Konstakuten

Articles for deletion/Konstakuten (2nd nomination)

This article was kept in an AfD in January, but no independent sources have been added since then. Google gives a number of hits on the term, mostly in CVs, but I did not find really relevant news coverage or the like. So, unless someone can suply sources now, the article has really little chance to expand. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looking at the history diff, there were no changes to the article text or to sourcing between the last AFD's closure and the new nomination. It doesn't have an external link, and doesn't feel like spam. But does anyone care about this? Is it significant? Are all the sources in Swedish and none of our Swedish editors have happened to notice. I don't think this article needs to go away, nor needs to be kept. I'm indifferent. GRBerry 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. —GRBerry 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —GRBerry 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I !voted for keeping the article last time, based on the assertion of an invitation to the Venice Biennale. Searching their pages didn't turn up any links to the organization, so unless something comes up in the next few days, this is a delete. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
keep I know about it, one of the major non-commercial galleries in Stockholm. Founded by Per Hüttner, a notable artist. [45],[46] [47], [48], [49].--victor falk 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- But is that independent coverage? To me these sources seem to be self-descriptions and press releases (as far as I can read them). Maybe the article can be merged to Per Hüttner? --B. Wolterding 09:06, 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) 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I searched the archives of DN and SvD (the two major newspapers of the Stockholm area) and found a few hits, but all were trivial mentions (in the context of articles about specific artists or lists of galleries). I don't think it is independently notable. henrik•talk 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Doctorfluffy 07:15, 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 keep. - Bobet 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulma

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bulma

Articles for deletion/Bulma (2nd nomination)

(View AfD)

It's been more than a month and none have taken the time to improve the article. It remains unreferenced, and is filled with so much original research. Now I'm aware of the character's notability and all, but there isn't any real world information that can be attributed here since the character lacks real-world perspective. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Bulma. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't have time right now to do a quick re-write, but I can do one later. I think it would probably be worth keeping a seperate article on Bulma as she is an important character in DBZ. Red Fiona 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I recognize her fictional importance but there isn't much or any

out-of-universe data. The page should actually be deleted per violating WP:V and WP:OR, but I say a merger would be best to save the data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per my comments on Master Roshi. (If you find this annoying, consider I at least didn't cut-and-paste my nomination and arguments.) --Gwern (contribs) 16:10 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep per my comments in previous discussion, which was held less than a month ago. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Duane543 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep AfD is not the venue for article cleanup or merger discussions. --Farix (Talk) 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there are no primary sources which suggests this is WP:OR, nor are there reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The "Background" section is written from an in-universe perspective that reads like a plot summary. This article is fancruft dressed up to look like an encyclopedic entry. --Gavin Collins 13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy your arguments. (1) The Primary sources are the DBZ films, video games, and millions of other merchandise, per WP:OR: "Examples of primary sources include ... photographs; ... and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." (2) Fancruft isn't a valid argument per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (3) In-universe style can be cleaned up. (4) Secondary sources exist, but it takes time to find said sources. With a quick news search you can find over 1,100 news entries alone, a quick google search provides over 12,300,000. Surely this speaks to real world notability and the existence of secondary sources. I don't have time to go through all of the news articles and see which ones are reliable, but with 1,100 news articles some are going to be reliable. Here are a few promising ones: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/16/DD84943.DTL http://www.dragonballz.com/index.cfm?page=characters&type=&id=93 (notice Bulma one of very few characters trade marked) http://www.absoluteanime.com/dragon_ball/bulma.htm http://www.lycos.com/info/bulma.html Viperix 10:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep as blatantly premature - one month isn't at all long in the circumstances. To the best of my knowledgte, AfDs a month apart are considered unacceptably close together. --Kizor 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment clean-up tags should be allowed time to work and AFD is not a process to force clean-up in a "timely" manner. However, the article has existed without references for almost a year!- Ukulele 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A year's not much. Just some time ago I was cleaning up and referencing an article that had needed them for over one and a half, and longer periods aren't implausible. --Kizor 14:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Didn't we already go through this? Per my comments on the last very recent AFD. Viperix 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I say. Bulma is an important character who warrants her own article. K00bine 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep No comments --SkyWalker 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment doesn't matter how many keeps this page gets. Per WP:VERIFY policy, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I also agree with Sesshomaru on WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:WAF and WP:NN as well as all of the policies I have in mind. My vote is neutral. Greg Jones II 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep- another bad faith nomination in an indencent amount of time (given it was such a firm rejection last time anyway, if there was genuine ambivalence I could agree). Same reasons as last time. Someone senior needs to have a word to this guy about his AfD's.JJJ999 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article. I am offended that the previous AfD's were closed as no consensus, there was a clear consensus, in both reasoning and votesJJJ999 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
keep I am not friend of anime or manga and even me have heard of Bulma --Zache 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, even non-fans know of the importance Bulma's eventual relationship with Vegeta brings to the future developments of both DBZ and it's spin-off Dragonball GT Dr. R.K.Z 18:24 31st October 2007

]] 14:40, 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 Delete. No notability claims here apply to guidelines. CitiCat ^♫ 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Mata

Non-notable spiritual person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Cap'n Walker

Keep: A quick search on Amazon shows she wrote at least one book and is mentioned in another. The article should reference these. Toddstreat1 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep She nets numerous google hits (870k +) and is notable in relation to the self-realization fellowship.Baka man 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- COmment. 870k Google hits?! 870,000?? She gets 278 unique Google hits, out of a total 1,040 results. Try using quotes, "Tara Mata". Crazysuit 04:35, 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, John254 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As stated above, she only gets 278 Google hits (some of which aren't even about her), and no non-trivial coverage. Crazysuit 04:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sourcing is improved... a book someone wrote is not generally a great reference on the events of their own life, and a passing mention in another book isn't enough either. --W.marsh 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable Sfacets 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Firstly, the article is verified and there is potential for the article to be expanded greatly (more research needs to be done). Secondly, Tara Mata is a very notable member of Self Realization Fellowship. She was the main editor of Paramahansa's books when he was writing extensively. It must also be taken into consideration that SRF in itself is a very notable organization. Moreover, using google to establish notability here is not accurate because Tara Mata was a very reserved monk. She was highly praised by Yogananda during his lifetime and she was a larger-than-life presence in the organization until her death in 1971. Tara Mata was one of Yogananda's most trusted disciples, heading the organization's publishing operation and serving for many years on the SRF's board of directors. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable; the question is not verifiability... the Ghits do not show any non-trivial coverage. Leaving the Ghits aside, notability would need to be proven in other ways, which isn't apparent in the article. SkierRMH 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I fail to see any notability. --Slartibartfast1992 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, she was the main editor of Yogananda's books and writings. Surely, that is notable in itself? Moreover, she was also a member of the board of directors within SRF. That in itself is a notable position. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Google hits are, of course, not the most reliable of proofs, but only 287 hits doesn't exactly scream "notable!". In addition, it has to have independent notability, that is, notability by itself. It shouldn't solely rely on a parent entity for notability. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Sure, Yogananda is notable enough to have her own article, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her editor is notable enough. There are cases where this doesn't hold true, but in my opinion, this isn't one of those. --Slartibartfast1992 22:33, 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 keep. - Bobet 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kuririn

Page has barely two references; perhaps the character is notable but there isn't enough any out-of-universe information to apply for him. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Kuririn. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep One of the more notable anime characters and probably third most in DBZ (after Goku and Vegeta). Rename to his official English name of Krillin though. For far too long the members of the DBZ Wikiproject have thought that they are allowed to ignor policies and guidelines and use the English translation of characters names rather than their actual English name (as required). It's the reason I stopped editing Dragon Ball related articles. TJ Spyke 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment The real problem is that Kuririn has no real life sources, and this article will continue to remain like that since there are none whatsoever. Who will take the time to place any references to the article? Obviously, no one cares. Also, WP:WPDB does not ignore any guidelines or policies, here they are right here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits)
I know what they say, but they do ignore guidelines and policies when it comes to the names used for characters. In all move requests, they use numbers to get move requests done the way they want. TJ Spyke 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. — Duane543 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, or at least do a real merge (and not the deletion in all but name sort of thing certain editors are infamous for). Strangely, I do not remember "no one cares" being anywhere in WP:DELETION. --Gwern (contribs) 16:16 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Strong Keep per being a central character to the series he is in. Puns could be considered for out of universe. As well as the references in his character to monks. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Gwern, the comment about him was unnecessary. This subject of this article is not notable, and should not have an article. I'm not sure the best place to merge this to would be, but List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball seems good at first sight. So redirect the article, and people who are knowledgeable and care can merge as they see fit. i ^said 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I, you are correct it was not necessary to name names there. But I regard their sort of merge as not much better than a delete; I also believe such merges make a mockery of the other editors' good faith expectation that a merge will actually be done and not be (ab)used as a convenient way to remove material on the sly. --Gwern (contribs) 19:00 25 October 2007 (GMT)
  - The name wasn't so important as the comment. TTN has not participated in this dicussion; referencing him is not neccesary. But people who don't care about a topic aren't the best ones to do a merge. People who care should. If the result of this is to merge, anyone can do it, but no one is required. It is just redirected until someone who cares merges information. i ^said 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep AfD is not the venue for article cleanup or merger discussions. --Farix (Talk) 11:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is not a cleanup candidate, it is a 24-carat AfD. It has no primary sources, which alone justifies its nomination. Furthermore, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, nor have any come forward.--Gavin Collins 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect The lack of primary or secondary sources is the real issue. - Ukulele 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems the Lord dislikes DBZ characters having their own pages. There has to be secondary sources on Krillin, he is a central character to a very popular anime. Viperix 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gavin Collins and Ukulele. No sources at all. Doctorfluffy 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment doesn't matter how many keeps this page gets. Per WP:VERIFY policy, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment If refs are all that is needed, this AFD can be stopped now, as I can easily ref most or all of the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well do so, and it may alleviate the concerns here. However, until this is done, we have no way of knowing if the refs will do so. i ^(talk) 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I am still afraid that it will be deleted and I would have wasted 2+ hours of my life. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep- Lord dislikes them getting their own pages, but since this is the first nomination I will explain this keep in more depth than previous "see previous reasons". This is not OR, of which he has a bizarre understanding, and notability cannot be disputed. However, of all the DBZ characters, Krillin is pretty firmly in the notability section. He has been in basically every manga I believe as a key character. DBZ is a huge franchise, see the numbers thrown around in his previous Bulma and Roshi AfD's, and Krillin has more than enough real world notability from the show to exist on his own.JJJ999 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article.JJJ999 09:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a speedy keep candidate; it is a legitimate AfD. This article, without sources, is original research, by definition. I dispute notability, as he does not have notability by our standards, so arbitrarily saying he is firmly notable without any real-world sources is just as "basically wrong" as you say the nom's are. If you seem to think that it would be cake to source this article, then by all means do so; until then, however, it does not meet WP standards for inclusion. i ^(talk) 13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been editing long, and even I know this is a silly line of argument. "Real world notability" does not mean Krillin had to live in our world and become Karate Champion at the Olympics, as you effectively infer, it just means he has significant notability as a fictional character, like other fictional characters who get their own pages. 5 seconds of google search confirms what I already knew, why is this prima facie assumption wrong? If you reply with another generalistic assertion like "lacks RS" I'll know I don't need to bother to reply.JJJ999 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say he had to be a real person. I said he has to have notability outside of the fictional universe he lives in (the real world). Not that he is notable within his own universe. We're not discussing other pages that have their own article. And if you can give us some sources from that google search that proves he is notable in this world, and add them, then this article can be kept. Until then, it should be deleted. i ^(talk) 02:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 370,000 google hits for Krillin...he is among the main characters of a franchise than has spanned decades, sells millions of toys, hundreds of millions of books, his character is discussed on Amazon.com or movie/TV review sites like this (http://www.amazon.com/review/RW2YWW4BM0VED) at least as much as your standard character. While I doubt the BBC news has ever featured a "How awesome is Krillin" interview, it becomes obvious the character is noteworthy when giving even the most casual observation to these facts. If what you want is a news article "why Krillin rules", you will not be satisfied, but you would likewise not be satisfied for almost every other fictional character, from Indiana Jones to Buzz Lightyear. This is not the accepted standard for notability on wikipedia, the fact is he is notable because he has exposure and noteworthiness/fame among millions upon millions of people. This is not complicated, you seem to have some agenda for making it so...JJJ999 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the accepted standard for notability, read the criteria. Being popular, famous or often talked about does not necessarily make someting WP-notable. Significant coverage by reliable, independant sources does. You keep citing the thousands of things on him that make him notable, I have yet to see one. The article you linked is about a movie he starred in, not him. And it's not a reliable source at any rate. i ^(talk) 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The way you have interpreted that is totally at odds with the way it has been interpreted by the overwhelming majority of wikipedians. Your analysis would render untold thousands of subjects on wikipedia now deleted, needless to say I don't agree, and I think what is happening with other articles IS relevant as far as finding the standard for this debate goes.JJJ999 09:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While there are many wikipedians who agree with the inclusionist view of the notability guideline, there is a significant who agree with a more deletionist, and thus it is not correct to say the "overwhelming majority". And yes, I do think thousands of fiction-related articles should go. I just don't have the desire to AfD them all. As I see some that have been, I comment. Hence this duscussion. And we can compare other articles yes, but the fact that other articles that may or may not be similar have articles has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. i ^(talk) 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Krillin has no real world notability is exactly like saying that Bush has no real world notability. Both saying it and believing it would be daft. I searched for under a minute and found a "real world" article that includes Krillin and speaks to his notability (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/shimakon_80909___article.html/convention_anime.html). A longer search would produce more results. If he is so un-notable, why would the guy who voiced him be signing autographs? Viperix 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I found another in a couple more minutes. (http://www.animatedbliss.com/FORUM/forum_posts.asp?TID=3187), I am not going to continue going through the endless piles of news articles found in a news article search and weeding out the good ones, just be assured sources do exist. Viperix 09:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Ecologists

Article about a small political association linked with the new Democratic Party (Italy), with no content, no sources and a short list of mostly redlinked politicians and activists claimed as "leading members" (not a NPOV sentence in its own). I also thought about merging its content within Democratic Party (Italy), however there is no source confirming it will actually be a significative wing within the party, jointly with a recent declaration by the new party leader claiming no political wings will be accepted within it (at least not officially). Have your say. Angelo 11:28, 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, John254 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a tiny group, what could be written here? Pavel Vozenilek 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nn. WP:NOT. There are many splinter politcal groups in Italy, and cannot see how this one is notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:38, 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--JForget 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of towns or cities that have grad or a similar form in their name

Wildly indiscriminate information, the only connection between Leningrad in Russia and Belgrade in Missouri, USA is that they both have "grad" in their name. Almost as pointless as a List of countries that have "land" in their name. Masaruemoto 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Indiscriminate indeed - shall we have lists of -ton/-town/-burg/-ville? Please, no. Acroterion _(talk) 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, very much an unencyclopedic list. Serves no useful purpose whatsoever, very loose criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information in a very loosely-linked list. This info is more trivial than encyclopedic. Useight 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, utterly useless list, fails WP:UNENC. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete for not making the grad(e). As indiscriminate as it gets. Clarityfiend 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Such lists aren't encyclopedic but are more something you would find in a directory of some sort. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Otto4711 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 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 delete Duja► 10:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Best Places to Work in America

non-encyclopedic list copied from the Fortune Magazine article Ewlyahoocom 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Have removed the 2006 list completely so eliminating the copyright objection. It has been replaced with the winner from each year which is more notable. Colonel Warden 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a copyvio; I can't see how such a list can be presented as an "in your own words" composition. Acroterion _(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete not much to say. Mac OS X 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Charts of this sort usually get extensive coverage in other news media and so notability should be easy to establish. Since it is an annual chart, the full list from 2006 is not ideal content. Better to show the top ten from each year, say, and this would be fair use to address the copyright concern. Just needs more work. AFD is not cleanup Colonel Warden 08:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above - copyvio re-hash. Peter Fleet 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
delete How is this list encyclopedic. Is there some sort of universally agreed on standard for ranking. Also are we going to update it every year. Ridernyc 10:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- comment There are many pages that require update every year - elected officials, trophy winners, etc. This is a notable award ranking of notable companies by a notable publication and so credible enough to be here. Colonel Warden 11:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Blatent copyvio and hard to maintain. This is not what wikipedia is for. ff m 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I couldn't care less about the copyvio aspects, but the list as a list is inherently massively POV and constantly changing; if it is about Fortune's list, then I am equally skeptical that it deserves remembering (is there really as much coverage of Fortune's list as there is of say a generic bestselling boook) or a place as a page and not, say, a category. --Gwern (contribs) 16:14 24 October 2007 (GMT)
- Comment What have best-selling books got to do with it? This may not have the pop-culture impact of the Oscars, say, but businessmen seem to care about it. For example, see this Senate testimony. Note also that there is an independent organisation which validates the award and that similar lists have been sponsored for other countries, e.g. the Sunday Times does one for the UK and the EU sponsored one for Europe. The US list now has a web page at CNN. FWIW, Google won in 2007. The article just needs work to generalise and update it. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violation of Fortune magazine's intellectual property. Corvus cornix 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I wouldn't mind an article about the list, if such an article could be written, including trivia and stuff, e.g. Enron was #22 in 2001 [50] -- the same year it filed for bankruptcy, cf. Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. But just the list from a single year dumped on a page? No. Ewlyahoocom 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Very weak keep, noting that it has been substantially revised since nomination. Evidence of notability (i.e. someone besides its publishers caring about this) is still lacking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Extremely weak keep if only for historical purposes. The article itself seems to be valid... kind of... but it's borderline in a big way.--WaltCip 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft from a magazine article. Doctorfluffy 03:28, 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 keep. - KrakatoaKatie 08:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Theatre

This article is about a defunct theater in Brenham, Texas. The article's claim to notability is that the building was designed by Alfred C. Finn, but there are no reliable sources cited (of the 4 sources listed, one does not mention the topic, one is self-published, and the other two are non-reliable. A Google search of "Simon Theatre" (and "Simon Theater") with Alfred C. Finn or A.C. Finn gives no useful information at all. The contributor has previously asserted that it is important in Jewish Texan history, but it's only tie to that is that the theater was built by a Jewish family. Karanacs 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep this article is relevant to Jewish Texan history. Bhaktivinode 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The fact that a theater's owner was Jewish does not prove that the theater is important to the history of Jews in Texas. --Metropolitan90 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are numerous historical recognitions that were not included in the article before. These have now been included under the section "Recognition." Thanks. Bhaktivinode 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I checked the citations. The League of Historic American theaters includes any theater in the US that is over 50 years old.[51] The Texas Historical Commission citation is only to a list of documents that the archives has concerning THC proceedings -- it does not indicate that this theater is actually considered a Texas Historical building, just that it was discussed as to whether it should be. The Brenham revitalization project is of strict local interest, or at least no reliable sources have been presented to show that it is of broader impact. Karanacs 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per additions demonstrating it is a historic site. --MPerel 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have included a new section in the article concerning the "Save our Simon" organization and their recent fundraising. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, how is this of more than local interest? There are many organizations devoted to saving a particular old building which has sentimental value in a certain area, but that does not make the building notable. Karanacs 13:58, 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 James Simon (Businessman) or with Simon family, 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)
- I would disagree with the above as a rationale for keeping this group of articles; there have been many Jews in Texas who were apparently more notable than the subjects of the above articles. (See this Handbook of Texas Online article, which ironically was written by the aforementioned Jimmy Kessler.) An article about the History of the Jews in Texas would be a good idea but it's not clear to me that most of these people would have leading roles in that history. --Metropolitan90 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Hi Metropolitan: The correct procedure would have been for the nominator to have (a) contacted the editor/s of the articles she had questions and doubts about and (b) to then to have tried to work on combining them into more unified topics, and only as a last resort, (c) request that they be merged into History of the Brenham Jewish Community or James Simon (Businessman) or with Simon family. Since these are non-controversial topics, and there are sources that need some sorting out, it should have been a fairly straightforward thing to do. Thanks, IZAK 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - What on earth does a theater have to do with the History of the Brenham Jewish Community? The article mentions only that a Jewish businessman built the theater; that doesn't automatically give it significance in the history of the community. The other articles you suggest merging into are also nominated for deletion for not establishing notability. Karanacs 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge any relevant info to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Eliyak T·C 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Per the Simon Theater FAQ, it says it's part of the Brenham Downtown Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. It appears to be a contributing property to this district, although the multiple property submission doesn't identify it specifically by name. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:59, 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 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it that whenever a series of Jewish related articles is nominated for deletion, the intentions of the nominator are questioned? What happened to WP:AGF? Jewish is not always notable. Vegaswikian 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. The town of Brenham, Texas is big enough to have a local newspaper, the Brenham Banner, which has given it substantial coverage it, and this along with (relatively sparce) other sourcing meet the basics of WP:V and WP:N in terms of having independent sources assess its notability and verify basic information about it. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article clearly shows notability. Vegaswikian 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article has been expanded concerning the Simon Theatre and its position as part of the Brenham Downtown Historic District, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Bhaktivinode 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep seems to at a bare minimum meet wikipedia notability standards. The sources could improve slightly though. Yahel Guhan 01:00, 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. --Core desat 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asia DeVinyl

Non Notable model. She hasn't modelled in any of the mainstream magazines. She has received plenty of google hits but most of them are from her site or blog or myspace. The books subsection in the article are not the books written by her but by different people. Delete WriterListener 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. -RiverHockey 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Books subsection includes publications in which she has modeledRozDeMinion 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep as it seems to be well-referenced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- a model? NN; no mainstream press coverage. Sdedeo (tips) 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Most of her google hits are from her MySpace blog page. Non notable model. TGreenburgPR 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable; Ghits don't show any independent coverage. SkierRMH 22:50, 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. CitiCat ^♫ 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Suicide Club Berlin 1995

Contested prod. Release by a notable artist, but this seems to be a very non notable release. The title as used on Wikipedia gives 6 Google hits, none of them independent of Wikipedia[52]. His label gives a slightly different title though (and indicates that it is a limited order release)[53]. With this title, we get an edditional thirteen Google hits[54], again none of them indicating any notability through reliable independent sources. It is nowadays so easy to release some Live CDs (certainly DJ sets), that simply being by a notable artist can hardly be considered enough anymore. This record is a perfect example of a release that has gone completely unnoticed outside the fan circle of Alec Empire. Fram 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

mix has been referred to under various titles, googling "Suicide Club" "alec empire" returns about 1,000 hits. the mix was released under a notable record label, given its own catalog number and given a wide release via his tours and website. --AlexOv Shaolin 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And most of these near 1,000 hits are not about this record, but about the club in general, or even a completely unrelated club (e.g. the Chicago Suicide Club), or about a similar titled record by the Snic Subjunkies. Removing only the last one reduces the Google hits directly to a mere 78[55]. Fram 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 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) 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless the article is verifiably sourced before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with A1octopus. Given the research by Fram, I would suggest retitling the article to the official name and merging with the parent article, since it seems to lack stand-alone notability, but there's nothing sourced to merge. Its sole claim to notability is its existence. I have changed the name of the release at the Alec Empire discography to match the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 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. --Core desat 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Integrated Automation

Babel fish-written article about a non-notable brand name. Essentially an advert for Siemens. -- RHaworth 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and being completely unsourced. meshach 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unreferenced, and gibberish. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsalvagably incoherent. ff m 13:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No Please,i just want to descript a strategy.and the strategy is from Siemens.that is all. i think my artikel should bleib there. thank you =)
Hallo everyone,i have read the text again about:Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. i think what i done, i mean the link. that is not wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Show Time 2008 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable neogolism.--Gavin Collins 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable in-company(?) something... unsourced & probably unsourcable. SkierRMH 22:47, 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 Keep. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but allegations of canvassing here and here are somewhat troubling. — Scientizzle 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tri-City Skins

Non notable website. The article alleges that this website was run by two individuals of questionable notability. There is no evidence that the claims that this website was run by these individuals is true. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, only two out of the five reference work in this poorly written article and in the two sources that does work, the website is not the subject of the article. Moreover, the website is now defunct. Also, we should be very careful about WP:BLP with the unsourced claims made in this article. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, defunct NN website. Fails WP:N miserably meshach 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep A significant group and a landmark court case which focused on the limits of free speech on the Internet. I have to wonder if people actually looked at the sources here and in the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team entries before nominating this for deletion? AnnieHall 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, most of your sources do not work and the few that do work do not sufficiently support your claims of notability. Secondly, this had miniscule reference to the case that you are referring to and that case was not a landmark case as Zundel v. Citron (2002) was the landmark case. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- The sources that were listed worked at the time they were added. Am I at fault because I haven't been babysitting the article? And I'm afraid it is a significant legal decision that has had an impact on the Canadian right. AnnieHall 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, you asked whether I "actually looked at the sources here" and I responded no, they don't work. You might consider citing the sources properly, that way other people know what the sources are and you won't need to babysit the article. Consider reading WP:CITE#HOW. And the case you are talking about is irrelevant to this website or group (if such a group even exists). The ruling found no conclusive connection to the site with either of the accused and found no conclusive evidence of a group called tri-city skins. If anything the case you are talking about confirms the non-notability of the subject matter. Pocopocopocopoco 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    - I didn't ask if you looked at the sources. I had stated that at the time they worked properly. And this was one of the first articles that I created here so you'll forgive me that, at the time, I was uncertain of exactly how to cite the sources. The sources listed below by Will Beback could be included as references to back up the article. AnnieHall 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This isn't a website, it's a former white power group. The proper notability guide is WP:ORG. This groups has been the subject of articles:
- "SKINHEADS ON THE MARCH"
- "Rights tribunal launches probe into 'vile' websites" Shannon Proudfoot. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Sep 2, 2004. pg. A.8 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your first source (Now Magazine) does not qualify under WP:RS and the article is written in a gossipy style. Your second source does not establish this to be a group but a website. And it has brief mention in that article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't NOW Magazine count? It does not appear to be self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Now_Magazine is basically a tabloid focusing on entertainment and a big portion of it is just sex adds. I don't have a problem with that but I seriously doubt they can be considered a reliable source for this subject matter. Pocopocopocopoco 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that the nominator seems to have duplicated the AfD for Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team without giving consideration to each individually. Any unsourced BLP issues should simply be removed from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is patently false. Please re-read the statements I have made in the AFDs. Also, since these websites are of questionable notability, we can also delete the articles in order to deal with BLP issues. If we removed the unsourced statements from this article, there would be very little left in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - definitely notable and well sourced, don't even understand the AFD. Seems like some people are just bored and AFD things these days. --Mista-X 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep A significant group with a well-documented history. CJCurrie 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Everyone in this AFD indicating that we should keep this article has been canvassed by user:AnnieHall. Eventhough she has not explicity directed the users how to vote, she has ~~only canvassed users who agree with her~~ not canvassed anyone who has disagreed with her in the past. This should be taken into account by the closer of this AFD. I also believe that WP:COAT applies to this article as this article attempts to give excessive focus to the articles Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson which are of nominal notability. Pocopocopocopoco 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- How would AnnieHall know how I would vote? All she knows is that I have edited articles related to far-right groups before. That indicates that I have an interest in the subject, and therefore may be better placed than some other editors to comment on whether this article should be kept or not. Indeed, if you read the article a bit more carefully, you would see that it is about an organization. Your nomination is based on the incorrect belief that it is about a website. Ground Zero | t 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - You have a very very large editing history and I'm not going to comb through at this point in time, however what is obvious is that she has not canvassed anyone who has disagreed with her views in the past on these types of issues (you can find these users in the Category:Canadian_far-right_figures) and she has canvassed many people who she has canvassed before and they have canvassed her and they have tag-teamed in the past on these AFD discussions. For example [56] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merle_Terlesky. Many of the users in that AFD are also in this one and they voted the same way. In terms of the subject being a group and not a website, there is no evidence of this whatsoever and the 2006 case the 'keep'ers are referring to said that it was not established that tri-city was a group. If it is a group, it is even far less notable than the website. Pocopocopocopoco 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - - Not true at all. In fact I asked for the input of user Dogmatic, a person with whom I've had numerous disagreements with concering articles on the Canadian far right. The individuals I contacted are ones I know have an interest in and knowledge of these groups and individuals. AnnieHall 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        One inactive user doesn't count. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        What are you talking about? The user in question isn't inactive. He might not have made any edits for some time but he is still someone who has a history with these articles. And who are you to determine what does and doesn't count? What arrogance! AnnieHall 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        He hasn't editted in over 5 months hence he is inactive. I would also advise you of the policy against personal attacks. Pocopocopocopoco 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Personal attacks? You've got to be kidding me! AnnieHall 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    - You have challenged the validity of my vote on the basis that she made me aware of the AfD even though you admit you haven't looked at how I have voted in the past. As I noted, I believe that she alerted me to this vote because I have edited articles on far-right groups before. I do not believe that there has been any previous occasion on which I have voted on article she was trying to defend. I did not vote on Merle Terlesky You are not assuming good faith here. Quite the opposite: you are assuming bad faith. Ground Zero | t 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Fine, see my edit above. I have not assumed any bad faith in your edit, the canvasser is at fault and not the canvassee. Pocopocopocopoco 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        But you did assume bad faith in my case. My message was open, non-biased, neutral, limited, and not limited to only editors whom I have agreed with in the past. I would ask this user to please assume good faith. Thank you. AnnieHall 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Please don't try to turn this back on me. You clearly canvassed and you admitted that you have a history of canvassing as well. [57] I reiterate that the closer of this AFD should take this into account. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        No, I did not admit to canvassing in the past though I did admit that I should have worded my comments more carefully because they could be interpreted as such even though that wasn't what I had intended. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of taking snipits to try and prove something. So then I can assume that you're not going to assume good faith? Nice. AnnieHall 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Rather than sparring with me about good faith. Why don't you assume the assumption of good faith and deal with my valid concerns I believe I have made about vote stacking in this AFD? Pocopocopocopoco 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        I am an editor of long standing at Wikipedia, and have been elected as an administrator. I resent having the validity of my opinion about an AfD challenged on the basis that the AfD was brought to my attention by another editor. You have not presented sufficient evidence of vote-stacking to make this claim stick. Ground Zero | t 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        How can I assume good faith when you continue to claim that I was vote stacking inspite of all the evidence to the contrary? I would much rather deal with the merits of your argument concerning the article than this dog and poney show but as long as you claim that I was canvassing I will continue to defend myself. AnnieHall 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team. This organisation is notable and backed by reliable sources, but since there seems to be so much crossover with the CECT group I think we would be better served by having one article to cover both. Terraxos 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Problem is that they are two distinct groups inspite of the links. AnnieHall 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Why not just add whatever sourced information there is from this article, if any, to the articles of Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson (if it already isn't there) and delete this article, as this article seems very coatish. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep this is certainly a notable group. Black as pitch 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe user:AnnieHall needs to explain the following: An AFD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Canada_for_Us occurred a month ago. This article is another article that user:AnnieHall created and it is also a white supremacist hate group. That group is more notable than this one. As mentioned, everyone voting 'Keep' in this AFD was canvassed by user:AnnieHall except user:Black as pitch and everyone voting 'keep' in this AFD except user:Ground Zero and user:Black as pitch voted 'keep' for the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD. user:Ground Zero and user:Black as pitch did not vote at all in the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD. Note also that one of the comments in that AFD criticized user:AnnieHall for canvassing.[58] My question is why did she not simply canvass the entire list of people who voted in that AFD since its a similar AFD and it occurred fairly recently? She choose instead a seemingly arbitrary list which seems to all have voted the way she wants. I ask this question in good faith to everyone involved. Pocopocopocopoco 02:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unbelieveable. I don't think that I need to explain anything, but since you asked. As I've said before, I contacted editors that I knew had an interest in and knowledge of the far right in Canada and who could offer informed input on the article. And yes I was admonished for canvassing however as I've already stated it was NOT my intent, though how I worded my request could have created the impression. As such when I contacted users regarding this and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team articles I was very careful about how I worded my request that they look at the article. And while you say you are asking this question in good faith, it strikes me as a bit passive aggressive. Since it doesn't look like an apology from you will be forthcoming regarding your accusation, then I think it best that I stop commenting directly or indirectly on your writing and focus solely on the merits of the article. You may have noticed that I made some changes to it (not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) so perhaps that will indicate notability more effectively for you. AnnieHall 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't need to apologize for trying to ensure fair AFD's. You said "I contacted editors that I knew had an interest in and knowledge of the far right in Canada and who could offer informed input on the article" but why wouldn't this simply be the users who had participated in the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD? Like I mentioned, the subject matter is similar and that AFD occurred recently. Pocopocopocopoco 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, obviously an article which speaks volumes on unfortunate acts of organized hate activity in southern Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Pais (talk • contribs) 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
KEEP This group was a very notable neo-Nazi group; those who follow and monitor this type of activity know that, and those who don't may have read about them in the newspaper. The Tri-City skins members who are no longer associated with this group have moved on to various other neo-Nazi groups. I highly recommend that we keep this article as it serves good purpose and they meet the notability guide. --Eternalsleeper 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a noted group unfortunately. Wikipedia is not an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. IZAK 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I thank user:Spylab, user:AnnieHall and others for their recent edits to the article. Despite still having some questionable sources, it looks much better now. However, I still believe it should be deleted for lack of notability (and I sympathize with the editors for there hard work). The reason is that the Warman v. Kulbashian Decision in paragraphs 125-132 clearly states that there is no evidence that Tri-City skins was anything more than a domain name. I believe this is the kiss of death in terms of notability. Pocopocopocopoco 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep this seems to be a well sourced article which proves notability.--Yahel Guhan 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- The sourcing has improved a lot since the start of the AFD but it is still far from being called well sourced. I already expressed my concerns with using NOW magazine. Secondly, the B'nai Brith article is written in an editorial style. Pocopocopocopoco 04:13, 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. CitiCat ^♫ 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystallization (love)

This article was created by User:Sadi Carnot as part of a concerted effort to introduce original research and pseudoscience into Wikipedia. There is no need for this article. All edits by User:Sadi Carnot should be carefully evaluated by experts. --JWSchmidt 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)This AFD was listed incorrectly. It is listed correctly now. GlassCobra 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This article contains useful information that supprt Love but is useful in its own right standing alone. Ex nihil 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it's fairly wacky, but it checks out as a real theory by Stendhal: see Google News and Google Books. It does, however, need sourcing and reduction of excessive quotation. Gordonofcartoon 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is not pseudoscience. Stendhal's crystallization concept does not pretend to be anything but literary. The article does not make it out to be anything more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.189.92 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 158.143.189.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Either keep, or merge back into Limerence article (from which it was originally split off), but don't delete. Contains relevant historical information. AnonMoos 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I go for the former. They are rather different in that Limerence is a psychological theory, while crystallization is a lay literary idea. Gordonofcartoon 14:38, 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 01:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of television series with voice-over commentary

WP:NOT#IINFO, just TV trivia. Masaruemoto 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as potentially boundless listcruft. Unverifiable, wp is not indiscriminate collection of information. meshach 02:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the voice-over in my head. Listcruft, non-notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete madness. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate. JJL 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A1Octopus waves all eight arms about in disbelief at this daft listcruft and meanwhile the voice-over commentary says "Delete."

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

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

The result was speedy delete as spam. --Core desat 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skydive westernport

Non notable organisation, no independent sources asserting notability have been provided and the article reads like a brochure.

The article was previously speedy deleted as spam. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete its spam! Yourname 02:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy - Spam, hopeless style for WP, too. Probably copyvio from this company's brochure. --Yeti Hunter 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Call Monty Python. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:07, 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 merge to Congregation B'nai Israel. - 'Krakatoa Katie 09:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Cohen Community House

There is no assertion of notability in this article. Of the two sources, one is not a reliable source, and one mentions this topic only in passing. Karanacs 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep this article is relevant to Jewish Texan history. Bhaktivinode 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Congregation B'nai Israel. The structure has a number of mentions in books on Jewish and/or Texas history but little notability beyond its association with the temple. --Dhartung | Talk 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Congregation B'nai Israel as suggested above. There might be some architectural notability about the building, but it isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places or anything. Outright deletion of this article would go too far, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Congregation B'nai Israel. As of now, there doesn't seem to be enough subject specific content about the buildings and the Congregation B'nai Israel doesn't seem overly long for the transfer of content. --Oakshade 21:52, 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 Article provides reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability. Alansohn 04:40, 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)
Merge as above. The article does not testify to its having significance independent of Congregation B'nai Israel. --11:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyak (talk • contribs)
Merge/redirect into History of the Galveston Jewish Community and Congregation B'nai Israel. At this time, with the available information currently on hand, the Henry Cohen Community House article should be merged into the Congregation B'nai Israel article and History of the Galveston Jewish Community article. If in the future, more information is gathered, then a stand alone article may be warranted. Nsaum75 23:06, 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 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge as this is sourced. It seems to be an ofset of the Congregation B'nai Israel article. Yahel Guhan 00:58, 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. → AA ^(talk) — 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of drummers who also sing lead vocals

WP:NOT#IINFO; they're all drummers and they all sing. Not an encyclopedic topic, and a bad precedent for many similar List of X who also sing lead vocals lists. Masaruemoto 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, loose criteria. Fred Young of the Kentucky Headhunters sang lead on one song in the band's whole career, does that mean he qualifies? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, trivial, pointless listcruft. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Peter Fleet 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Singing drummers, whoopididdlydo! Straight failure of WP:UNENC. A1octopus 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Concur. --Gwern (contribs) 16:15 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information SkierRMH 03:51, 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. No point in redirecting from a dabbed title with a capitalization error. Nothing to merge since all of the relevant content has already been included in the proposed merge target by the original author (if you have a problem with having a mention of this person there, go edit it). - Bobet 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Levin (Businessman)

The subject of this article does not meet the criteria in WP:BIO for notability. Of the four sources listed, 2 are not reliable sources, while a third mentions Levin only in passing. I do not have access to a copy of the 4th source, but I suspect that it also mentions him only in passing. Karanacs 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Strong Keep~~ this article is relevant to Jewish Texan history. Bhaktivinode 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please explain how you feel this person meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO? Karanacs 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Does not seem notable -- founded a synagogue in a small town. 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdedeo (talk • contribs)
Delete, below WP:BIO standards. We've encountered articles from this editor before, haven't we? --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Being one of the founders of a single religious congregation is not an inherent claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Is "this article is relevant to Jewish Texan history" sort of a catch-all argument to keep? I've seen it three times on this page so far and I'm not to the bottom yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is utterly commonplace for people to found new churches and synagogues if they arrive in a new place and their needs aren't met. At least 15 of my ancestors founded churches or Quaker meetings. It's only slightly more notable than building a house or enlisting in the army. Studerby 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ancestry doesn't confer notability, nor does anything else mentioned here. A search for "Joe Levin" reveals multiple instances of individuals with this name, some of whom have more claim to notability than this entry. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:Notable. And, yeah, I have to agree, "important to Jewish Texan history" doesn't seem like a good reason for a dozen articles in Wikipedia about non-notable people. Isn't there a Judaism in Texas article that needs work? Accounting4Taste 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community 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 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- While some of these people might reasonably be mentioned collectively in an article about the History of the Jews in Texas, alone, they do not meet the notability criteria. By all means, create a larger article that merges all of this together in a History of the Brenham Jewish Community, but you must then cite reliable sources, and geocities (or other random websites) and self-published sources don't count as reliable. Karanacs 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Hi Karanacs: So then the correct thing would have been for you to look for the Jewish Texans article and either asked for the articles to be put into it or asked for a "merge" but not a blanket deletion of all the information that have come with enough reliable sources to be kept. IZAK 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    - If they had reliable sources, we wouldn't have an issue here. Personal websites and passing mentions in other articles don't qualify as reliable sources. Karanacs 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Karanacs: The correct thing would still have been for you to look for the Jewish Texans article and either asked for the articles to be put into History of the Brenham Jewish Community and History of the Galveston Jewish Community or asked for a "merge" but not a blanket deletion of all the information which you could have requested to be upgraded from the "personal websites and passing mentions in other articles" -- and the "passing mentions" may be quite significant. There should have been a better way to deal with this as it's a non-controversial topic and the articles could be consolidated and merged as mentioned above. IZAK 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        To a certain extent, IZAK, the onus is on you to do the kind of work you are assigning to Karanacs. One thing you can do is work on articles in your userspace, and port them to mainspace when they are ready. I suggest if you are keen to keep this information, you do that (moving information into the History articles) now before deletion. Remember that you have to rely only on reliable sources. Sdedeo (tips) 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Hi Sdedo, while I do appreciate what you are saying, please understand that I am not the creator of these articles, they are outside the scope of my current work on Wikipedia. However as a neutral third party between the folks in Texas who are fighting this out, I am reluctant to come down hard on such articles, because in my years on Wikipedia I have seen many articles start out like these, even smaller as stubs, and then they can grow or be combined into larger articles, which happens all the time. So in my view, these are good "starter" articles, which could have been tagged as such or with requests for better citations and sources. Seems that the nominator was not considering WP:BITE and that User Bhaktivinode (talk · contribs), whose first edit was on 21 March 2007 [59] and who happens to know a lot about Texas' history and is willing to write it up for Wikipedia, should have been given more mentoring and time to get his/her act together instead of being hit over the head with multiple AfDs to "teach him/her a lesson". There is a lesson for all of us here, I hope. IZAK 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Izak, I believe you need to assume good faith—it is utterly improper of you to assign such a motive to me. The editor in question has been through AFDs before (in June, I think; I was not involved) and should by now understand the notability criteria. (S)he was asked several times (not just by me) to provide more information about the notability of the article(s) in question and refused. I also made a good-faith effort to improve the article(s) on my own and was unable to find reliable sources or any assertion of notability. Only after having made both those efforts did I nominate the article(s) for deletion. Karanacs 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge any relevant info to History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Eliyak T·C 11:02, 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 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. In the current state of the article, it looks like the sources are essentially primary, which would mean that Wikipedia would be the first place that a comprehensive biography on this individual would be published. Understanding and appreciating the effort involved in bringing this material together, the difficulty is that Wikipedia is intended only to republish material whose significance and accuracy has been previously vetted by other sources; a first biography would be prohibited by the no original research policy and biography guideline. I would suggest merging this material with an article on a broader topic such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community, since the policy for stand-alone biographies is stricter than the requirements for brief mention in a broader article. As a stand-alone article there currently isn't enough sourcing to meet policy requirements. If additional sourcing is found please let me know and I'd be happy to reconsider. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Bhaktivinode 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community. --Brewcrewer 04:44, 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. What should be mentioned in the iPhone article is probably already in the history. This split has led to an excessively-detailed quasi-ad, a clear violation of WP:NOT according to consensus below. Xoloz 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone availability, sales, and pricing

I really can't see how this highly ephemeral information is encyclopedic in any sense, including "wiki is not paper". It lists the current deals offered by Apple on the iPhone, and quotes a few articles in the tech media that speculate on pricing. If you want to know what The Carphone Warehouse is asking for an 18 month contract, you will probably go to their website -- not to a wikipedia article. I can't tell if this is fanboyism at its finest, or just someone who misunderstands wikipedia trying to be helpful. Sdedeo (tips) 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a catalog. --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to this point, I've nominated Template:IPhone Data Plan for TFD and removed the template from the article. Paul^C/_T+ 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Some of this information can be merged into Iphone, but most of this can be considered advertisement or spam info. Useight 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, more or less an advert. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not suitable for an encyclopedia ff m 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. JJL 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This was a section in the main iPhone article that was moved to its own article for length reasons. I didn't really think the move was needed in the first place and as a result of the move I think the page has been expanded too much, but much of the information on the page is relevant to an encyclopedia including the sales information (see iPod#Sales), country and carrier availability (see iTunes Store#Availability), and release information (see Apple Store (retail)#Store openings). Some areas that merit some expansion in the current article is Apple accounting for iPhone revenue as deferred income over 24 months, which has a large effect on revenue growth and their balance sheet (specifically cash), and Apple's revenue sharing agreements with the cell phone carriers which will significantly add to their profits going forward. Paul^C/_T+ 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect back to iPhone per my above comment, unless the section can be greatly expanded with information around deferred revenue and Apple's revenue sharing agreements with the carriers. In which case expand and keep. Paul^C/_T+ 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - the information on the pricing controversy is certainly notable as is the spectacle of people camping out for days to buy one. A simple list of release dates by country or region is sufficient to cover that information and it can reside in the main iPhone article. Otto4711 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I hesitate to merge with the iPhone article because that article has too much within it already. Some of the information about the initial sale of the phone and the price drop controversy might be worth keeping and merged back into the main iPhone article if trimmed down quite a bit, but there was a good reason this was taken out. We really don't need to know when the phone was released or will be in each country; it's not notable and even if it's "useful" to some people Wikipedia should not be a sales guide. -- Atama sama 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep It - Haven't any of you heard of the pricing controversies regarding said iPhone? While I believe more than just a catalogue-style section is necessary, it might be best to merely add to the information already presented in the section instead of completely erasing it. What other section could that information go in otherwise? -- SirTristanCA 2:50 PM PMT, 25 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.151.211 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What encyclopedic information my be available on the pricing controversy in the US can be (if it isn't already) integrated into the iPhone article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you're suggesting that information be taken from this article and put into another article, that means merge, not delete. Otto4711 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm suggesting this article be deleted, as what encyclopedic content it has can be duly reported upon in another, more applicable article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to main iPhone article. The gigantic amount of public enthusiasm, interest and hype regarding iPhone availibility and sales are an integral part of the entry on iPhone. If for nothing else, atleast for history sake, this information should be kept. This section might be trimmed for length considerations, but should not be deleted. Abhiag 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete with minor Merge into iPhone - Some of the information is relatively useful, regarding the commotion and huge amount of anticipation and hype around the release. On the other hand it doesn't warrant its own page, especially not one listing prices etc from around the world... Nachmore 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't think this is an essay, but rather as I agree with Paul that this is a legitimate extension of the iPhone article, as the marketing effort has notability in its own right on account of its scale and complexity. This article is neither spam nor Apple fancruft, as there are primary and secondary sources that are reliable, and make a clear case that the availability, sales, and pricing of this new entrant to the global mobile phone market is notable.--Gavin Collins 10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per User:Otto4711's comments. -Mardus 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The sales/reception and pricing controversy issues must stay. In addition, the article should be expanded on the other notable topic of Apple's linking the phone with buyers' credit/debit cards and what it means wrt privacy. -Mardus 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is to be expanded at all (which I think it should be), I'm not sure merging back into the main iPhone article is the way to go due to length considerations. Perhaps a more neutral name change to iPhone sales, iPhone marketing, or iPhone availability and sales without having "pricing" explicitly in the name would be more conducive to an article around these issues of privacy and carrier revenue sharing agreements (which I mentioned earlier in the AFD discussion and is the reason behind Apple not allowing users to buy iPhones with cash) in addition to the existing topics of sales, pricing controversy, availability, and the launch reception. Paul^C/_T+ 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is not an encyclopedic entry. It's a blend of a catalog and original research. -- Magioladitis 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep (or Merge and Redirect to iPhone) - This is relevant, notable, well-researched, fully-documented information about iPhone availability, sales, and pricing. The info was spun off into its own article originally and should be kept. If an editor wants to take the time to do a good job re-integrating the info into the iPhone article, I am not against that. iPhone, btw, was just announced invention of the year by Time magazine. The importance of including information about these topics, even in their own directed articles, cannot be understated. See Gavin Collins's comment above. 198.88.216.101 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment This may be a very good article for a newspaper but not for an Encyclopedia. -- Magioladitis 18:39, 2 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: Closing without prejudice; open to creation of a well supported article in the future. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tovo - Unified Communications

This reads entirely too much like an advert. Is there something notable under all the promotional cant? I don't know. The lack of WP:RS is a flag for me. Pig^man 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Original editor was Martin Heath. One of the shareholders is ... Martin Heath. Looks like an advertisement to me. Marjaliisa 18 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. If there is any notability it isn't asserted in the article. Cosmo0 11:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I stripped the article down to a stub to save it from speedy deletion because, in its nominated form, it seemed to be a primarily a combination of spam and original research. But I don't think it passes WP:CORP, and the conflict of interest of its creator is not a good sign. —David Eppstein 02:57, 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete, obvious conflict of interest, company not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:13, 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'd be willing to userify the content upon request if someone wants to flesh it out more and make it into a proper article... — Scientizzle 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lighter tricks

Thinly disguised advert for Lightertricks.com (confirmed by the first edit to the article). As an article about a website, it fails WP:WEB. If the advertizing was removed, it would be original research about lighter tricks. Masaruemoto 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP is not an advertising service. meshach 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OR and Advert ff m 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (Duane543 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Strong Delete, WP is not for advertising. GlassCobra 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Weak keep Article seems to have been improved significantly. GlassCobra 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep/Comment Is it not the point of wikipedia to help others learn? The article is informative and the only reference related to lighter tricks on the web besides that of the lightertricks website. If there were more websites related to the interest then it would no doubt be a broader page, but seeing as there is not it seems fitting for those interested in the topic to learn about the one place that holds the information they seek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.108.250 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only problem here is that we are not about everything that can be found. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Interesting and pretty, but not a notable site necessarily. A little coatrackish - the article purports to be about the hobby of performing tricks with a Zippo lighter, but is thinly disguised spam for the site in question. If the above anon poster can prove me wrong, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I have removed the information (advertising) regarding the lightertricks.com website except for the appropriate references. Also begun work on expanding the information available. Combat Fetus 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was never my intention to advertise the lightertricks website but to inform people of what lightertricks themselves are. The art of performing lightertricks is deeply rooted in the lightertricks website, and seeing as the website played/plays a major role I thought it deserved recognition. I don't want to be violating any wikipedia regulations so I would appreciate suggestions (I am not a seasoned wiki editor) for fixing the article so it may remain online. Combat Fetus 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CF, you might want to review our information on notability, and in this case a readthrough on WP:WEB would do well. These are in short what we're looking for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Dennis, I read through those pages and I must admit to finding them wordy and not fully understanding everything that was covered, but I do see your point of view. If I were to remove what is being considered advertising then the page would no doubt get to stay, correct? Does that mean that all mention of the lightertricks website should be removed or is it the wording that needs to be changed? There have been numerous newspaper articles about the past and present versions of the website, press releases, and outside parties reviewing the website (none of which have actually been included in the page) but I'm unsure whether they meet the credentials. Some further help would be appreciated. Combat Fetus 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't appear to meet notability of cultural topics. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's interesting and has some sources. I don't think it's just an ad, there are quite a few other websites on this topic. futurebird 21:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "How To" part of article has been removed. Combat Fetus 23:51, 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 Keep. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but allegations of canvassing here and more detailed here are somewhat troubling. — Scientizzle 15:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

Non notable website run by two individuals of questionable notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, two out of the five reference do not work in this poorly written article and the three references that do work, this website is not the subject of the article. Morover, the website is now defunct. We should also be very careful about WP:BLP as this article makes many serious unsourced claims about two individuals. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to involve several court cases that may be notable, involving 'firsts'. Are we so sure that this should be deleted? Hmains 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep A signficant group and a landmark court case which focused on the limits of speech on the Internet. AnnieHall 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The group easily meets WP:WEB, having been the subject of multiple newspaper articles:
- Racists ordered to stop spreading hate over Web: Landmark decision Natalie Alcoba. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.11
- Web-hosting service found guilty COLIN PERKEL. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.13
- Web messages hate, tribunal rules Richard Blackwell. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.18
- CANADA RIGHT-WING GROUP CUT AS ROAD SPONSOR BARRY BROWN. Buffalo News. Buffalo, N.Y.: Apr 22, 2001. p. B.7
BLP issues can be handled by editing the article. Note that BLP does not prohibit properly sourced information about individuals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment In all the sources above, the subject matter is Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson and not the website, the website gets minor mention. BLP issues can be dealt better by deleting the article as it is of questionable notability and if the unsource claims were to be removed, there wouldn't be much left in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that articles with titles like "Web-hosting service found guilty" can be said to barely mention the web hosting service. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Web hosting service != Web site Pocopocopocopoco 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - You've got to be kidding me. There's no question this is notable enough. --Mista-X 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. J 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A notable group, without question. CJCurrie 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable group that set a notable precedent. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the sources found by Will Beback. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. WP:WEB applies to websites. CETC is not about a website, but an organization. Ground Zero | t 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Most users in this AFD indicating that we should keep this article have been canvassed by user:AnnieHall. Eventhough she has not explicity directed the users how to vote, she has only canvassed users who agree with her. This should be taken into account by the closer of this AFD. I also believe that WP:COAT applies to this article as this article attempts to give excessive focus to the articles Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson which are of nominal notability. Pocopocopocopoco 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- - I commented on this claim in the Tri-City Skins deletion nomination. I have no idea how people will vote and I don't want to. If the article is garbage and should be deleted, so be it (though I personally don't agree). If it should stay but be improved, it would be nice to have input from people who are knowledgeable about the individuals and groups in question. It should also be mentioned that I did ask for input from a user who has disagreed with many of my edits. I think I'm being fair and would ask Pocopocopocopoco to please assume good faith. AnnieHall 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- See my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-City Skins Ground Zero | t 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got that from, but I defiantly wasn't canvassed. I found it on WP:CWNB. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but merge Tri-City Skins into this article - they seem to be practically the same organisation, we don't need a separate article for each. Terraxos 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- - As I mentioned for the AFD for Tri-City Skins, why not just move whatever sourced information there is from this article, if any, to the articles of Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson (if it's not already there) and delete this article, as this article seems very coatish. Pocopocopocopoco 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep a notable group. Black as pitch 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The group is clearly notable, and saying "their website doesn't achieve the website notability criteria" is irrelevant. I found that three of the references worked, and all talked substantially about this group. 199.71.183.2 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, obviously an article which speaks volumes on unfortunate acts of organized hate activity in southern Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Pais (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, although it's as defunct as the Third Reich it should be kept just as the records of the Nuremberg Laws are kept. IZAK 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notability of the organization appears to be established in the article, although there is much room for improvement. Karanacs 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep it is not well sourced, but is sourced enough were it could be improved. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I did work to improve the Tri-City Skins article and I would like to do the same for this one when I get the time. AnnieHall 05:28, 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 merge and redirect; a clear view and the merge has already been carried out. TerriersFan 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boesen School (District 28)

This article contains historical information about a school in a US village. However, all sources (including images) seem to be from a private collection, not published in a reliable source; I do not see the notability criteria fulfilled here.

The page was PRODded in last October and undeleted in February. See also: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/MonteBoesen -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Boelus, Nebraska since it appears to be a historically notable school from that locality. Yamaguchi先生 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- But without any proper (published) secondary sources, this would at best amount to original research. --B. Wolterding 11:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 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) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Boelus, Nebraska, would improve and encyclopedify ;) both. Chris 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and re-direct to Howard City, Nebraska - Does have some historical notability, so a merge and clean sounds sensible. Camaron1 | Chris 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge: Per the above comments. -Rjd0060 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
comment added all useful info into Howard City, Nebraska in anticipation of WP:SNOWBALL. Chris 06:48, 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. → AA ^(talk) — 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jettison (Steady Ground album)

Non-notable album by an almost-non-notable band. No sources or formatting, no release date or any further info. - eo 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Might be noteable when the album actualy comes out. ff m 13:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with the above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:CRYSTAL along with notability issues... maybe when it comes out... SkierRMH 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 22:55, 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. I know it's a little presumptuous to do a snow closing with a single keep vote, but the fact that this "list" contains no items and has not contained any items in its nearly full year of existence makes it borderline speediable in any case. —Verrai 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of dubious and uncertain giant squid sightings

A list with no contents, which is just as well, because if it had "sightings" it would be original research to decide which ones were dubious and which were uncertain. I've just seen a giant squid walking past the window, it's a bit dubious and uncertain, can I add it to the list? Masaruemoto 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete you can't add your sighting because its obviously not real. The giant squid is right here in my bathroom toilet - I just saw it. - eo 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is lidicris. There are simply too many of these to document much less write a good article on them. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per everything said above — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Delete. List article that's lacked an actual list since its creation more than ten months ago. I don't see the point (or the squid). Deor 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Delete ridiculous and unencyclopedic article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete because giant squid are never dubious and always certain, so there can never be any entries. —Quasirandom 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, likely speedy for nonsense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I have to admit, I like the title, but this is nonsense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete "I opened up my frazzles and there 'ee was!" There's no list which kind of defeats the object, enough time has passed to assume that it's a dead project.Someone another 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, and only add the referenced, believable, and plausible sightings. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Almost anything addedd to this article would be OR. Listcruft. ff m 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge contents to List of dubious and uncertain Wikipedia articles. JJL 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an article with no content, although the title gave me a good laugh. The fact there is actually an article called List of Colossal Squid specimens and sightings and another called List of giant squid specimens and sightings actually gives me hope for civilization. If this article actually had the same sort of content a those two, it might be viable, but at the moment it doesn't say anything and only serves to direct people to those other articles. 23skidoo 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Immediate Delete Come on, just look at the title... Mindraker 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clearly. Part of me loves the title though... •CHILLDOUBT• 21:14, 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 a7, doesn't assert notability, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaotic Alliance

Does not affirm notability. The site that is used as a reference is just a listing, where apparently almost anyone can contribute to (judging by how many bands are listed, the criteria for inclusion isn't very strict). Their myspace group is inactive, as well, they haven't been playing since before the article was created.

Delete Notability not asserted. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, yet another band that isn't notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ALBUM. Bondegezou 14:37, 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sindhis

Unmaintainable listcruft. Full of red links of non notable people. Majorly (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DeleteUnmaintainable list. What exactly is the definition of "Famous" anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix 15 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - if there's a Category:Sindhis then the actually notable folks on this list could get added to that cat. --Orange Mike 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a Sindhi whose name is Cindy, that might be notable. Mandsford 20:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 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) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless someone can "part the Red Sea". —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete lists like this seem only useful as project pages. How is the average user served by a list of red links.Ridernyc 10:41, 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. --Core desat 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Air Brand

New (2007) clothing company. Previously speedied as advertising; the spammy text is now gone but I don't see an indication that this company is notable yet. The only external citation is to a French magazine called "Spray", which does not have an article here. NawlinWiki 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I nominated this page for CSD when it first appeared, and although the new version reads much more like a neutral, encyclopedic article, I agree with NawlinWiki's point about notability. That being said, I'm open to revising my opinion if the authors can come up with enough references to establish notability by the time this AfD closes. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE:

Hot Air is building hype quickly and is looking to make a major move in the exploding Los Angeles Street Wear scene. Here is some more info about the brand that I can't wait to rock.
Hot Air was featured in Hypebeast on September 2007 for their new collaboration with New Era and Grey One. They were also highlighted on The Hundreds feed The Hundreds on August 31, 2007 regarding the Holiday 2007 collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMUSE (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, articles require reliable sources indicating a subjects notoriety, and this has neither. meshach 02:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - Hot Air will be featured in COMPLEX MAGAZINE (on wikipedia), Antenna Magazine (harris publications - on wikipedia), Nylon magazine, and several others in the next 3 months... They are a VERY viable entity and have many reliable sources...

Hot Air Brand sells to stores on wikipedia
- Fred Segal
- Barney's New York
Same brand distribution as many pentland group (wikipedia) brands, LRG clothing (wikipedia), Billionaire boys club (wikipedia). These brands are in the same stores they sell and have entries:
Edwin
LRG
BBC/Ice cream
J. Lindenberg
nike
converse
reebok
puma
adidas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linollium (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) --Linollium 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A subject must be notable now, not in three months. The stores the company sells to are not indicators of notability. Hut 8.5 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I speedied this as advertising recently. The current page is better but I see no indication of them passing WP:CORP. Hut 8.5 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To quote from a contribution above: "Hot Air is building hype quickly". In other words, it's using WIkipedia for promotion and therefore I say delete. Emeraude 15:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability at this time. Deletion isn't prejudicial, so if/when in the future there is reliably-sourced notability, could write an article then. DMacks 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per DMacks. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per DMacks - not enough reliable sources to verify the claims in the article at this point. In the future, it's possible, but right now, no. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete For one, the article must be notable now, if it will be notable is irelivant and is violation of WP: CRYSTAL. Also its written like an add. Finally I have to say that all those DONT DELETE comments look pretty dubious. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, As a source for informative information, it is refreshing to find this article on Hot Air Brand as I am a stylist for a prominent fashion magazine and often find that new companies rely strictly on blogs and other personal websites to communicate the basic outline of the brand. I do not feel that this is ad related and know that there are plenty of people who already know and wear the clothes. Finding this article is the result of my looking for principle names in the company, which I found. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.192.234 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as Crystallized Spam SkierRMH 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:35, 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Silent War (The Asteroid Wars III)

WP:NOT#PLOT Treygdor 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete When we remove the plot summary, there is nothing left. For now a list of ben Bova books seems the best place for this.Obina 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 00:41, 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Obina is right, get rid of the summary, get rid of the article. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Obina and Kornfan71 Vancouver dreaming 00:47, 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 Keep. — Scientizzle 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bread Givers

This was previously deleted as a prod for being a book review. I think the same concern exists, the article consists mainly of plot summary, and what little criticism there is is unsourced. Article has been tagged for clean up for six months, with no clean up forthcoming. Hiding Talk 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Hiding Talk 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The author certainly seems important. I don't see why her books would be any less important. --Gwern (contribs) 16:17 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep I think every book summarized at Sparknotes has to pass WP:BK with ease. It does need cleanup, but that's not what AFD is for. Zagalejo^^^ 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep but clean up, plenty of sources in Google Books to start with. The Norton Anthology of Jewish-American Literature, basically the publication fo record for conventional wisdom, calls it her "most famous novel". --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 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 snowball delete. Acalamari 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circle Line Pub Crawl

This page is about a pub crawl. Wikipedia is not a place for articles on things people made up in school one day, or indeed University. This is not notable as it is not in any reliable third party references or sources. I would put it up for a speedy but i couldn't really think of a tag that is suitable. Woodym555 00:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, nonnotable event, Wikipedia is not a collection of every pub crawl anyone can think up. NawlinWiki 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nonnotable, non-usable information. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not an encyclopedic topic. Vancouver dreaming 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; Non notable. And the articles in Category:Pub crawls should also be deleted for the same reason. Masaruemoto 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per common sense. Suggest that the remainder or the category be deleted too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:N. Pub crawls aren't encyclopedic. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ff m 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nom. It would not be proper to say that there isn't a single notable pub crawl in existence, I'm sure there is one. Just not this one. Burntsauce 16:44, 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 via Snowball--JForget 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Camino

Appears to be a genealogical entry for what appears to be a very minor line of nobility. Aside from that, the article appears to be a POV original research essay, and all but one of the links given as sources don't work. The one that does doesn't appear to be relevant. Core desat 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

delete. Essayish biography on a non-notable family. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's reasoning. My goodness, look at all those redlinks! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per reasoning of nominator, too original researchy for my taste. Burntsauce 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, reads like a hoax to me. None of the references goes specifically to a page which mentions these people, just to a general index page where you'd have to figure out the Spanish text in order to do any searches, and the www.huanusco.gob.mx page has been suspended, with no explanation. There are zero Google hits for "Samuel del Camino". Corvus cornix 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, another fake nobility page. Mindraker 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - none of it checks out. The creator's bad-faith request for page protection [60] looks suspicious too. Gordonofcartoon 03:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sancho de Leόn, an article created by the same editor as this one. Corvus cornix 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete and call for SNOWBALL. Multiple 'sources' don't exist at all, looks like a hoax. ThuranX 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 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. John254 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A place to bury strangers

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, multiple reposts so now to AFD for discussion. Sandahl 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep pretty wide media coverage, multiple sources, some of them reliable, found by searching for the bands name on google. Also, i like the name. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep but fix the capitalization. Torc2 21:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this same article was previously moved to A Place to Bury Strangers and deleted as an NN-band--Sandahl 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Where are the previous AfDs then? The band might not have met WP:N before, but certainly does now. Torc2 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The afd for A Place to Bury Strangers [61]. The deleted history of csds can't be seen by non admins. It's here for discussion as to whether it meets notabiliy or not.--Sandahl 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. While it may not have met the criteria previously, it seems to meet criterion #1, coverage. If it's claim of a national tour were sourced, it would also meet #4. (So far, I've sourced that this is regional, but not national. I'm still looking.) Regardless of #4, though, #1 is sufficient. Pitchfork seems pretty fond of the band. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Coverage from Pitchfork, Brainwashed, NY Times, Washington Post, a national tour with a more-than-established band? No-brainer keep. tomasz. 13:04, 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 speedy delete, repost. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delyan Slavov

The same one as Delian Slavov, the article for who, has been already voted and deleted . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delian Slavov Self-promotion of non-notable person. His page at bulgarian wiki is protected for re-creation. bg:Делян Славов--Darsie 08:17, 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. John254 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tv-links.co.uk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk

Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk (2nd)

Article deleted at AFD two weeks ago - the only thing different is that it was shut down, therefore it violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a news service. Will ^(talk) 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - once legal action has been taken then it may be of value if some precedence is set else it serves no purpose on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.179.184 (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - now that the owner has been arrested and is awaiting charges, this may turn into a bigger story than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatRedShark (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - if it was afd'd two weeks ago and the only thing to have happened is that it's closed then this qualifies for Speedy (as far as I can see). If it was deemed not to be notable when it was open then surely it can't be notable now that it isn't open. B1atv 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree, since both articles are pretty similar, but given the latest news, I think it's best to let this AfD run its course. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, its closure was reported worldwide, ergo notable. It was snowball kept a few hours ago. Speciate 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, this should be closed and maybe taken to AfD review. Speciate 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the closer's extended closing rationale? It wasn't snowball kept, it was speedy kept. There is nothing barring me (and I was even suggested) from opening a new AFD. Will ^(talk) 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for the last AfD was weak, and it did show any real failure to meet Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep as potentially important legal precedent under common law. Tag as a stub, improve, and find cites, but keep. Bearian 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Potentially" is in violation of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL :) Will ^(talk) 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This page contains information that people want to know about and so is useful information. may need improving but definatly not deleting Mikyt90 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - there are numerous legal ramifications surrounding this issue. Mindraker 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to cite WP:ATA#CRYSTAL as well. Perhaps it would have been best to start this AfD in a few weeks, when the legal details are all settled. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good, then we can close this AfD, and you can restart a new AfD in a few weeks, if necessary. Mindraker 10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to call keep here. It's not so much the potential issues surrounding it, it's that it's gained the notability from increased press. Yeah, I could be engaging in the much loathed crystalballery in that saying that there are probably more links coming, but considering the issues surrounding this, it's getting quite a bit of attention. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, to augment, I agree with Speciate - let's close this and take it to DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - The article has not been deleted. Why would you take it to DRV? Note that the previous AfD result (using a totally different rationale) was keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Good question. DRV is for review of AFDs. Not necessarily articles that have been deleted, but if one doesn't think that an article should have been kept, it really should wind up at WP:DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - In this particular case, though, a DRV overturning of the SNOW closure of the first AfD would simply return the issue to AfD, most probably, in view of subsequent developments on which an AfD discussion might be expected to focus, to this particular discussion. I love process as much as anyone, but the effect of overturning the SNOW closure would be essentially nil (it would, of course, relieve us of having to discuss process issues here, but I imagine that we might dismiss straightaway any concerns about the propriety of our revisiting the issue and focus on substantive concerns). Joe 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well put, I didn't consider that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
KEEP, This article was already nominated for deletion, and the result was speedy keep!!! THIS WAS YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.43.143 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone said "speedy keep" because the deletion rationale was invalid. This AfD was created under a different rationale. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Prior to its shutdown it was the 26th most popular site in the UK, beating Rightmove.co.uk and sky.com. Speciate 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexa rankings only sample a subset of the population, not the entire population. Will ^(talk) 00:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As does the Nielsen ratings. So? Speciate 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nielsen ratings have a much more rigid system than Alexa, allowing their extrapolation to be much more reliable. Nielsen randomly sample TV families. Alexa's is just a toolbar anyone can install. Will ^(talk) 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexa is quite limited. You can easily rig your site's ranking by getting a few dozen friends to access your site a number of times per day. You can't do that with Nielsen ratings. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do explain away the Guardian calling it a major piracy site, and its 423,000 ghits? Speciate 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP This site was one of the largest sources of free content provided by random links. If deleted, allow a future article after all court cases are settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.38.23 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. This recent wave of media from reliable sources at least cements the article as being able to satisfy the WP:V and WP:RS complaints that were leveled against the article last time. Argue with Alexa if you like, but it is a well-known site and, again, with the recent coverage, satisfies web notability criteria one. SorryGuy 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - This website was very well known and used regardless of Alexa's statistics. They've been trying to shut this thing down for a long time. Mynabird 07:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The main complaint from two weeks ago was lack of citation at notable sites. It is now all over the news. This is a landmark case (IMHO) in regards to the legal implications of just linking to copyrighted media. topher67 08:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - If 0.4% of global users were accessing this site, it's definately notable. Even the most skewed of alexa ratings wouldn't boost a site from "some people visit it" to "1 out of every 250 people online used it". This is ignoring the potential legal ramifications and ongoing nature of related newsworthy events. Prgrmr@wrk 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I specifically searched wikipedia for this. Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per SorryGuy. It is on par with The Pirate Bay and Napster for notability. Mdmkolbe 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Fufils notability in every way, and whilst this is a current event it is not a news article but an encyclopedia entry. --ASH1977LAW 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to a relevant article on piracy. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Question - people are referring to the last afd as "speedy keep" - what about this one? B1atv 06:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I stated above that WP:CSD#G4 could apply, but given that the previous form of the article did not include the legal issues and arrest of the owner, then this AfD should probably run its course. Most of the newfound notability on the website comes from the events of recent days. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - TV-Links was an amazing website that deserves to be on Wiki. People have a right to know about this website and how the government reacted to it. People sould also know how its creator was able to show TV related media without actually keeping any of it on the server. This fact should prevent the creator from being charged. Anyways, TV-Links was a very useful site since it allowed people to view missed TV shows or movies on other sites without having to google search for them. --Kamikaze 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  - If you are indeed Kamikaze (talk · contribs), could you please log in and confirm this by signing the page? Nishkid64 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It was deleted with a note that there's no reason not to recreate if suitable, available sourcing increases - which is the usual practice - and since then, it got stuff like articles in The Guardian. --Kizor 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This site has a lot of significance regarding the current copyright debate. Can the MPAA sue someone for linking? It's also very possible that the site will be restarted at a different URL or in a different country. Wikilost 05:13, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Henleaze Infant and Junior School

[edit] Marsworth Church of England Infant School

[edit] Kingswood Infant and Junior School

[edit] Izumicon

[edit] David Leggio

[edit] Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

[edit] Walter Kilner

[edit] Freddy and Jason universe timeline

[edit] Jujitsu Deer

[edit] Guitar Zero

[edit] Robinson Vil

[edit] Gonac

[edit] Chekism

[edit] Front Counter

[edit] KRFH

[edit] V.S.S.E.

[edit] The Gay Street (Rome, Italy)

[edit] Br55

[edit] Killertron

[edit] Ben Winsor

[edit] Rosetta primary school, newham

[edit] Japanese superstitions

[edit] William J Beggs

[edit] Brittany boxall

[edit] Patrick, Derek, and Andrew's Report on the Ethos of Wikipedia

[edit] Korean Wall

[edit] VolksWriter

[edit] Out to Lunch (video game)

[edit] Famous Buses

[edit] Carsick Cars

[edit] Jason M Burks

[edit] Ohio Valley Christian Music Association

[edit] Shepard Road/Warner Road

[edit] Funkmasonry

[edit] Child Support Policy

[edit] City of Shoulders and Noses

[edit] SMS language

[edit] Simon family

[edit] Father Vernard Poslusney

[edit] List of librarians

[edit] Dean Studios

[edit] Natalie Dee

[edit] Hee Sang Ro

[edit] Ronnie Duncan

[edit] Darren Friend

[edit] Erica Blaney

[edit] For The Record

[edit] Javier Gomez Durand

[edit] QLTM

[edit] Stephen Burnett

[edit] Varkon

[edit] EuropeanUnity

[edit] Joss Thompson

[edit] Sam Cook - Nyikina

[edit] Neurosphere (film)

[edit] Nic nolan

[edit] Barrow-in-Furness Gallery

[edit] St. George's Cathedral Chennai Booklet

[edit] Throttle (Biker Mice from Mars)

[edit] Hadji bey turkish delight

[edit] The Carpenter's Son

[edit] Monash University Malaysia Students Association

[edit] Open cuisine

[edit] James Simon (Businessman)

[edit] Ec es em

[edit] Deemsum

[edit] Chris Moss Acid

[edit] Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy

[edit] My Liverpool

[edit] Darren Kent

[edit] GENE CHIP ANALYSIS

[edit] Soviet Republic of Naissaar

[edit] Nathaniel Street-West

[edit] List of educational institutions in India which have Latin phrases as their mottoes

[edit] Ballahick

[edit] Downgrade your PSP to version 1.5 using your PSP battery

[edit] Scotsman guide