Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 27

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

The result was keep. Carlosguitar 08:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cult and new religious movement researchers

List of cult and new religious movement researchers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is a list of an existing category "Category:Researchers of cults and new religious movements". Delete as duplicate information. Sfacets 23:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Since it's a category already, this doesn't add anything Mandsford 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A list can always exist parallel to a category: there is nothing in WP policies or guidelines that says otherwise. This list does have information the category does not have: it is not a duplicate. It organizes the people by their profession and it includes people for which no current article exists. Hmains 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. - The category seems to be used for a more inclusive definition, and by default we can always fall back on a more stringent definition here at the List, which already notes the need for sources from WP:RS cites for those articles that do not assert notability on the topic within their own articles. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
• Comment I have made some new suggestions at Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers, which, if followed and agreed to by consensus, will make the list version much more useful than its current version, and certainly much different and more useful than the category (Though I still believe we should keep the category as well.) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Categories and lists serve different purposes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is going to be a nightmare to maintain, but the talk page contains guidelines that should ensure that it remains useful--- if they are adhered to. (Two major issues with "cult" is that one man's religion is another man's belly laugh, and a cult is a denomination other than that into which one was born.)Things can be in the category, but not the list. Likewise, things can be in the list, but not the category. jonathon 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• We could hash that out in the talk page, essentially limiting it to mention of some kind in what we'd have to probably limit to an academic journal article. Thus, it would be the publications themselves making the distinctions between "cults", "destructive cults", and "new religious movements." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

• Strong keep - as noted above, a list can make textual additions to a name which a category cannot, which would often be useful in such subjects as this. Granted, the qualifications may be problematic, but they can also be better worked out on a list than a category. And, actually, I seem to remember reading we prefer lists to categories anyway. I really can't see any good reason to delete the list, although maybe the deletion of the category could make more sense. John Carter 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. → AA ^(talk) — 10:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The KNTV Show

The KNTV Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created this article. But not sure if it's notable, despite the fact that it's about a TV show that won a BAFTA award. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Expand and it'll be a good article. I like it Carter | Talk to me 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The BAFTA award is a clear assertion of notability. —gorgan_almighty 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. BAFTA assures notability in and of itself. Expand it the same way the Mythbusters, or other less deserving shows have been expanded. jonathon 17:22, 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 Delete. → AA ^(talk) — 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bergþór Smári

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

Being in a band which we don't have an article on is not evidence of notability. Having participated in a preliminary for the Eurovision Song Contest doesn't seem enough either. Haukur 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete no evidence provide to establish notability per WP:N or WP:MUSIC --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of nobility. Doctorfluffy 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was run over by a train (delete) Kwsn (Ni!) 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas and Friends - Season 14

Thomas and Friends - Season 14 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – View AfD)

Speculation - No verifiable information available until TV programme has actually been recorded. This (and similar) future-looking pages regularly attracts reams of fan fiction from (usually anon) editors regarding possible storylines, characters who may appear, etc. NB - Page was deleted at previous AfD. EdJogg 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- It is possible that this page has not been proposed for AfD before. I thought it had -- Season 12 and Season 13 have both been AfD'd previously: Season 12 was kept as 'the next season' (and it has supporting references); Season 13 was deleted as Crystal-ballery. EdJogg 23:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — This page has not previously been through the AFD process. It was deleted on 7 October 2007 as a result of an expired {{prod}} for concern of "crystalballery". — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• I was pondering speedy deleting it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas and Friends - Season 13, I'll let someone else make the call since I deleted the prod, but both articles share the same issues exactly. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystalballery. Crazysuit 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, because the actual season is most likely not to come out for another 3 years. Meitnerium109 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. This is only going to be a cruft magnet. Doctorfluffy 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To be aired in 2010? Crystal ball. Granted this is British TV which is somewhat less likely to pull the plug unexpected than US TV. Still, that does not mean that this is not a prediction of future events. jonathon 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Season 13 was deleted, a little hard to believe Season 14 was recreated... The things some editors will do... 144.138.23.27 05:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as repost of deleted material. Essentially same article that was deleted as a result of the first AFD. — ERcheck (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas and Friends - Season 13

Thomas and Friends - Season 13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speculation - No verifiable information available until TV programme has actually been recorded. This (and similar) future-looking pages regularly attracts reams of fan fiction from (usually anon) editors regarding possible storylines, characters who may appear, etc. NB - Page was deleted at previous AfD. EdJogg 23:01, 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. Thanks particularly to User:Ekna for his well organized keep argument. However the basis for inclusion seems to be a supposed novelty, the inclusion of favicons in search results. This seems somewhat trivial, the inclusion of that particular content being in no way an aspect of this particular search engine's algorithm. Moreover the claim that this is the first search engine to do so is unsourced. Verifiable material about this search engine may be obtained at some point in the future, at which point it is possible that a useful article on the subject might be written. The consensus at present seems to be that this is not that article. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alizée Search

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

Contested prod. Article presents no verifiable claim for notability of subject, and cites no sources other than the website it is about. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB hard. Just another keyword squatter. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable search engine.Obina 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm relaying this comment from the aticle's creator and primary author, copied from Talk:Alizée Search:

I have noticed that the article has been nominated for AFD. Please do not close the AFD discussion before I have been able to add my contribution within the next few days. Thanks. Ekna 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Schaefer (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no third party cites. Duplicates content from Search engine. jonathon 17:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia content is subject to the following four Wikipedia policies: (1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; (2) Wikipedia:Verifiability; (3) Wikipedia:No original research; and (4) Wikipedia:Copyrights. The article has been nominated for AFD with respect to point 2, Wikipedia:Verifiability. First of all I would like to thank you for starting this AFD discussion as I hope it will result in improvement of the article and clarification of a number of points of discussion concerning the article. I would like to comment my vote by raising the following 3 points:

• The article is not about a website.

WP:WEB describes guidelines which apply to articles about web-specific content, which is defined by WP:WEB as "the content of a website or the specific website itself". The article is neither about the website www.alizeesearch.com nor its contents. The article is about the search engine/web crawler Alizée Search, which is an algorithmic information retrieval system. This is a subtle although important difference.

• The subject is notable.

In accordance to WP:WEB, the article includes the significance of the Alizée Search web crawler: it was the first web crawler to retrieve favicons from web domains during its web crawl and display them on the web search results pages. This novelty makes the subject of the article notable in combination with the next point.

• The verifiability can be improved.

The addition of citations of independent reliable sources other than www.alizeesearch.com would improve the article's verifiability. I see actual possibilities to include these required additional citations into the article. A good example is the fact-tag that has been added by Pseudo daoist as of October 29. I will enquire about relevant sources, for which I need a short period of time.

In conclusion, I will continu to:

• Improve the article by bringing forward the first two points mentioned above more clearly and by including the points raised by the other contributors to this discussion within the next few days (at the latest by November 4).
• Improve the verifiability of uncited facts in the article as mentioned in the third point by performing a survey for reliable sources within the next month (at the latest by November 27).

Under these conditions the deletion of the article at this time is unfounded. Ekna 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The claim to notability is not verifiable, as the article does not cite any third-party source for the claim that it was the first web crawler to retrieve favicons. You said, "I see actual possibilities to include these required additional citations into the article." Please elaborate on this. What reliable third-party sources do you believe contain information on Alizée-Search that the article might cite? -- Schaefer (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will add my response tomorrow. Ekna 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you say that "the claim to notability is not verifiable". This statement is inaccurate. At most one could argue that in the current version of the article the claim to notability is not sufficiently supported by reliable third party references. The statement that the verifiability can not possibly be improved is truly unverifiable itself.

The Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires citations to published works written by reliable and independent third parties in many possible forms, e.g., websites, reports, books, and articles in magazines and newspapers. As I said, the article can be improved with respect to this point. Appropriate sources for the mentioned claim include in this case, for example, respected achives or similar documentation. I am looking forward to enquire about this type of sources, for which I need some time.

On this basis, rejection of a conditional keep is simply unreasonable. Ekna 20:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the claim to notability is not supported by reliable third-party sources is precisely why it's not verifiable. You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at least working with a very strange definition of verifiability. From WP:V:

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. 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.

As the article stands, the reader cannot do this. There is no link to a reliable third-party source a reader can follow to verify that Alizée-Search is, in fact, the first search engine to list favicons in the search results. Because this fact is unverifiable, and because it seems to be entirety of Alizée-Search's claim to notability (ignoring for now whether it would be sufficient even if it were verifiable), the article does not meet the inclusion standards of WP:N. The fact that you believe this situation can be changed at some unspecified point in the future does nothing to make the claim verifiable now, and thus the article should be deleted now. If, as you believe, situations change and reliable third-party sources can be found, then you can always use Wikipedia's deletion review process to restore the content and add proper references. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:10, 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 wasdeleted as non notable. Natalie 23:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battalion Wars 2 HQ

Battalion Wars 2 HQ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag was removed by a SPA without comment so I've brought it here -- undistinguished web-based gaming group with no references/citations, doesn't meet WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I believe that this article should not be deleted because it giving information, without advertising in any major way, about Battalion Wars 2 HQ. If Wikipedia is to be an online encyclopedia, it should contain as much information about as many things as possible.Mattimeo41 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This thesis is dealt with at WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, part of the "Arguments to avoid in AfD discussions" page, and won't stand up to scrutiny. Accounting4Taste 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per A7 Yourname 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Doctorfluffy 23:15, 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) — 10:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sverre eftestøl

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

Biography of a composer, was originally longer but a copyvio (see article history). Has won two awards, the importance of which is unclear so bringing to AfD. Did not speedy tag as the longer version asserted significance. CIreland 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete is only option as article exists. I suspect he is notable, but without someone writing the sourced article it can't stay. Good Samaritan needed. Springnuts 22:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I see nothing approaching WP:N in the original source. There is no indication that inclusion in the MIC is an indicator of notability, only of being an active composer. The MIC is a government program funded to promote Norwegian music.--Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete for the article as it is Neozoon 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, seemingly non-notable subject after perusing the copyvio version. Difficult to find sources via google since he is Norwegian, but I don't think extra time will do this article any good. Doctorfluffy 06:35, 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. Every article listed here is completely notable, as set out by the arguments below. I wouldn't be adverse to compiling the content into a single article, but reliable sources must be found. Anthøny 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Streets in Manchester

Dover Street, Manchester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -(View AfD)

Police Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Brazennose Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Barton Square (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aytoun Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Articles on a number of largely unnotable streets in streets in Manchester, England. To describe Dover Street as a side street is perhaps making it sound more notable than it really is. It is a street on the campus of the University of Manchester and notability extends to having a pretty dilapadated building known as the "Dover Street Building" together with the back entrances of the Michael Smith Building, the School of Engineering, the School of Chemistry and the Zochonis Building. Barton Square is a short side street of St Ann's Square - street is much less notable than the latter which doesnt have its own article. Whilst I dont think the street deserves an article, Barton Arcade (which sandwiched between the street and Deansgate(Grade II* Listed) may well be of merit for an article. Perhaps this article should be moved there? The article on Police Street even notes its lack of notability. Simarly, Aytoun Street and Brazennose Street are side streets and have little of notability. Pit-yacker 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete I think that streets itself are not notable, but the articles mentioned do not assert notablity and should be deleted from the wiki. Neozoon 23:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to Transport in Manchester or possibly combine to a single article called Streets in Manchester. There is nothing here to merit an individual article for any of these streets, but an omnibus article may be able to put enough together. Or not. I would not be averse to a complete deletion either. Either solution works. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be shown. None of these streets seem to be WP:50k notable. DO NOT combine them into one article on "Streets in Manchester" or merge them to "Transport in Manchester" - it will only encourage additions to it for every street in the city (of which there are several thousand), thus turning it into a travel guide and an indiscriminate collection of information, both of which Wikipedia is not. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - They deserve an entry in the A-to-Z, but not in Wikipedia. Totally non-notable. ---- WebHamster 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. there are several notable Mancunian streets but these are not among them. Espresso Addict 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge - its a fairly pretty little part of Manchester, but it doesn't really warrant an article of it's own. Merge it with St Ann's Square, or Barton Arcade. Parrot of Doom 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, at least Aytoun St and Brazenose St are notable in the Wikipedia sense of having been written about (see Parkinson-Bailey Manchester, or Hartwell et al, Manchester). Police Street was the site of the first arrest following CCTV surveillance in Manchester and the site of the first Emma Somerset store (upmarket women's wear). But do they need articles? Will anyone ever look up these streets in WP? Will any WP article ever gain from linking to these articles? Are these featured articles in the making? Will we miss them? Probably not. Mr Stephen 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Noor Aalam 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Notable Streets of Manchester or something like that. I think they ll be internal links to these streets. -- Magioladitis 16:33, 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 speedy kept, due to nom being made by a disruptive user. Any user with an objection to the article may recreate an AFD at any time, however, I ask that this AfD is not taken into consideration in the future. Will ^(talk) 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of shapeshifters in myth and fiction

List of shapeshifters in myth and fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't believe people devote entire articles to this. This is just a bunch of long-accumulated cruft (as in, worthless, do-nothing junk that accrues in places nobody looks at). Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a trivia collection. Anyone looking to learn about shapeshifters in myth is going to be sadly disappointed looking at this article (assuming they could get through the thousands of bytes of "This guy changes form in this comic book"). JohnEMcClure 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to List of shapeshifters in mythology, and then delete the non-mythological entries after tagging them with Category:Fictional shapeshifters. —Quasirandom 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Or maybe that should be List of shapeshifters in myth and folklore, since the main article shapeshifting doesn't seem to make the distinction. —Quasirandom 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't like it is not a valid reason to delete. Colonel Warden 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination is badly put, but even taking the nomination generously, it were nominated as being an indiscriminate or indistinct list, that's just not true. Fictional shape shifters (what other kind is there?) is a notable, interesting subject and I'm sure there are plenty of articles / sources about the subject broadly. However, it would make more sense to divide this up among myth/religion/superstition, television and film, and literary works. Consider renaming for that reason. Wikidemo 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as not entirely curft, but badly needs better cites than internal links. Stubify? Bearian'sBooties 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above three editors and possibly snowball keep too. Many of us do indeed find this kind of material encyclolpedic and especially with Halloween right around the corner our readers will be interested in learning more about this particular topic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is, and divide the article when there is more content. .This sort of material is encyclopedic, and the nomination amounts merely to IDONTLIKEIT. (not that ITINTERESTSME is much better as an argument). Since it can be limited to those with WP articles for the works or myths or characters, it is not indiscriminate. indiscriminate would be listing at random without concern for importance, or listing everything possible. Neither is the case here. There is not the least policy against articles on this sort of content, and no reason to call in trivia. the best part of wikipedia is the popular culture material, and the use of themes in notable works is an integral part. Lists are not necessarily expected to give complete information, but to link to the articles which justify them. Any inappropriate material is just a question for editing. DGG (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since this nomination was made by a now-banned sockpuppet JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --Steven J. Anderson 10:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - That it's a sockpuppet, there's now no doubt of. That it's a sockpuppet of a banned user, however, seems to be somewhat in question. Into The Fray ^T/C 10:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is Eyrian, who is still an administrator here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - there are numerous books on vampires/werewolves/horror movies et. Even by stricter standards of listcruft there is notable commentary, synthesis and essays on the subject. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as nonnotable. Natalie 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZiRC

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

Non-notable and defunct IRC network. Aside from one liners advertising #geekzone on the network, never covering the network proper, there are no Google news hits that can be used to back up a claim to note. Flagged for prod, but "contested" by Ascii-Art spam. Moving to Afd. MrZaius^talk 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete nearly all the references go to zirc.org and the links are not available any longer.(checked them all) Neozoon 23:14, 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. Kizor, if you want to userfy this to work on under a non-neologistical title, feel free. No prejudice against a subsequent new version of this article with a better title and set of references. Neil ☎ 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenofiction

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

Neologism. The entire article consists of original research. For all intents and purposes, no reliable source uses the term.

In order for the works listed to be valid wikipedia entries, each item should reference to at least one source that refers to it as "Xenofiction". Otherwise, it is entirely original research. George100 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as Neologism. George100's argument seems unanswerable. Springnuts 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Google Book search gives two unrelated hits plus a thesis. Google News did not return anything. Google search "xenofiction -wikipedia" gives 1300 hits. Some of the items talk about Xenosaga fan fiction and most of the sites that describe the term are not reliable (blogs, forums etc.)--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. That seems like an odd definition of "OR". To the best of my knowledge, a primary source is an acceptable one - they're vital with works of fiction, in fact - by itself if the casual reader of the work can be reasonably expected to agree with the statements in the article in question. Surely that applies here? --Kizor 00:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's OR for the works to be labeled as Xenofiction by wikipeida editors. For example, a novel or film is not labeled "Romance" or "Science Fiction" because you, I, or any casual reader thinks that label applies; it's because reliable sources, such as critics, professional writers, or journalists have done so. --George100 07:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Must we then require a critic's explicit confirmation before we can describe a light-hearted work full of jokes as a comedy? OR (which was originally for defense against crackpot theories, insofar as that's meaningful) allows Wikipedians' descriptions when a layman reader "should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." We can do that by describing works that diverge significantly from humanity's perspective, without "novel interpretation."
  There was previously a similar concern about our coverage of joke political parties and the grounds on which we should be allowed to determine what qualifies as one or doesn't. It was settled as it became clear that there are two distinct groups of parties, one of which deals with political issues while the other nominates farm animals as leaders and seeks to repeal the law of gravity, and that there's no ambiguity about what counts. There's little here, and if that's not enough, inclusion criteria (again) can reasonably be erected and the entries evaluated case-by-case. Many articles, such as This featured list, have cut-off points that are fairly arbitrary but explicit and produce very few false positives. --Kizor 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Must we then require a critic's explicit confirmation before we can describe a light-hearted work full of jokes as a comedy?

I can't imagine any notable comedy not being described as such by some reliable source. It's possible there are exceptions, but they're not the rule. Meanwhile to my knowledge there's not so much as a single source referring to any of these entries as Xenofiction.

Furthermore, the definition of comedy is very clear and has been established for centuries. As far as I can tell, the definition of Xenofiction was created by the originator of the article.

This article was created 4 years ago [1]. I added a tag requesting sources 2 months ago. None has been added, most likely because there are none. --George100 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Two months isn't much, especially on a

2 months isn't all that much. I recently referenced and rewrote parts of an article that had needed it for 18. I found what I'd consider a non-trivial mention in The Stranger (newspaper), which says: Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land established a high-water mark in the realm of xenofiction, or science fiction that tells of aliens to sentient animals and how their societies differ from humanity. It goes on to describe Stranger in more detail. And this forum message shows the term in use in 2000, before Wikipedia's founding blah blah blah blah blah I'd love to stay and discuss but I've unsurprisingly pushed myself way past my endurance with schoolwork and am not very capable of coherent thought right now. I will endeavour to form the argument once I get up. I ask that this remain unclosed if it has a risk of being closed, as a vital new part of the issue is still not properly addressed, much like fundamental changes in AfD'd articles must be addressed in the AfDs. Also, geez. --Kizor 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As RLetson mentions below, the Stranger article is from July 2007, most likely the author found the term on wikipedia. The firedrake.org posting is from 2000, but it's the only use of that term to be found on that Mailing list. It's not like an entire thread of people discussing the term.

Searching google newsgroups for the term, there are a total of only 18 uses of "Xenofiction" [2], almost all of which refer to a defunct subdomain of an ISP (xenofiction.f2s.com). --George100 08:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kizor asked in a message whether I object to the term or the concept. My problem is with the term, which is not part of any critical discussion I'm aware of. It's a classic example of a term that someone invented and inserted in Wikipedia. There is a whole vocabulary of literary taxonomy, and "xenofiction" isn't part of it at this time. Which is not to say that it might not be in the future--but it's not the function of WP to establish such terms but to document them once they are in use and can be sourced. The concept may represent a valid logical category and maybe even an interesting topic of discussion, but I don't think WP is a venue for such discussions (outside the talk pages, anyway). If you want an example of an emergent term, look at "mundane science fiction," which really is in the process of moving from an in-group phrase to more general use in the SF community. As for the idea that a category (which is what "xenofiction" is) by itself is suitable for inclusion here: what about the category "three legged dogs"? "Ill-fitting shoes"? RLetson 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Later: There are a couple applicable points at WP:NEO, particularly in the section "Reliable sources for neologisms." The term does not appear in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy or [Science Fiction Citations for the OED]. A side note on the term's appearance in The Stranger: I suspect that particular example was influenced by the WP article, as are some of examples that pop up via Google. The rewrite/improvement that Kizor and DGG propose amounts to OR on an idea rather than an account of living terminology. RLetson 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite This is an important topic, but about half of SF deals with this class of theme, so i think the list of examples needs little work--I'm not sure there is any purpose in trying to enumerate all the examples from notable works in WP (as distinct from SF dealing only with extrapolated or postulated human behavior). It would be better to give an analysis of a few instance in an organized manner. DGG (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply The topic is important in what way? Wikipedia has guidelines for what is considered notable. I agree it's an interesting concept, but that's not enough.-George100 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--A neologism not part of the critical/descriptive vocabulary I'm aware of. It might be someday, but not now. RLetson 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an oddity. The name is an invention, but the concept is extant, significant and important for us to cover. My arguments about OR and sourcing are above. My "to-do" list is unfortunately full and I can't take on a rewrite at the time, but do have some ideas fore improving it. More data on the concept should be found in books, most easily by someone living in the States, and as DGG says the instances can use some organization; to start with, I'd like to see a clear differentiation between those with massively different circumstances (Redwall, Warriors? Haven't read them) and those with definitely foreign thought processes (Watership Down would not work at all with protagonists that acted like humans). Extra sources can certainly be found about the perspectives of these works. A tricky, but doable job... I think. --Kizor 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no article on Alien cultures, although that may be covered by Extraterrestrial life in popular culture. An alien cultures article would likely be sufficiently notable.

There is an article on Alien invasion, which strikes me as imbalanced as this shows aliens in a negative light. -George100 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 04:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Can you comment on the argument immediately above that the problem is the name, not the subject? --Kizor 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources linking these books with this neogolism.--Gavin Collins 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Can you comment on the argument immediately above that the problem is the name, not the subject? --Kizor 00:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment lack of primary & secondary sources is a key concern; even for you. If the subject matter is "extant, significant and important", then what are the sources that are evidience of this? --Gavin Collins 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's OR and a neologism. SolidPlaid 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• And I found only one use of the term in the peer-reviewed literature: "Minor Angels: Toward an Aesthetics of Conflict" by Jean-Louis Hippolyte SubStance, Vol. 32, No. 2, Issue 101: Contemporary Novelist Antoine Volodine. (2003), pp. 67-78. [3] which uses it to refer to fiction about a human culture that is not one's own. So it seems unlikely that any sources will ever be found. SolidPlaid 00:22, 5 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 KeepJForget 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Several reasons:

• Unreliable or self-interested sources dominate the media coverage of the controversy
• The possibility of a conclusion based new information from sources regarded as reliable by the consensus of WP editors seems remote
• The event ultimately is not notable since reliable sources do not regard the original atrocity stories to have had independent corroboration
• Edit-warring over too little reliable information from independent sources with asymmetry of credulity and skepticism on the part of editors towards sources which support/oppose the Iraq War
• Doubt that Scott Thomas Beauchamp (the original author) stands behind the stories
• No consensus yet that this is a bona fide journalistic hoax which would support its notability patsw 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the WP:Notability guideline is that there should be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is met in spades. A few 'POV' or 'Disputed' tags needed I guess. Springnuts 22:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment That there are reliable sources independent of the subject is exactly what's in dispute on the talk page. If you believe that such sources exist in spades, please share them on the talk page. patsw 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Easily meets WP:NOTE. Some editors' protests not withstanding, there are reliable sources. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because there is edit warring does not mean an article should be deleted; dispute resolution exists for that. The reliability of sources is cause for concern but not for deletion. And whether the "original atrocity stories" have merit is wholly irrelevant to whether the controversy is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is meant by merit means in this context? Nearly every fact is a matter of dispute. The "original atrocity stories are true" side have their own set of facts and are contradicted by the facts of the "original atrocity stories were a hoax" side. I don't believe there are any facts of significance reported in the original atrocity stories which are not is dispute. patsw 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment If we deleted all articles in which facts are in dispute, we would have a pretty short encyclopedia. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS to see how to handle attribution of differences of opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The ostensible reason for nomination is because it's so controversial, which is no reason for an article to get deleted. Patsw clearly thinks this is notable because he's contributed to both the article and the talk page, though the former revisions were reverted. Most of us aren't happy about the way this article has been edited, but that's no reason to delete it, just to improve it. There are enough reliable sources about the controversy to write an accurate article. Some people would like to include every source the minute it becomes available, unreliable or not, while others would like to leave everything out that doesn't support their conspiratorial viewpoint. But right now we know the following: These stories got published. TNR stands by them, excepting one change of venue and admitting that STB refused to stand by the stories while being interviewed with an Army representative present. The Army found the stories to be lies after a thorough investigation, while TNR says it hasn't finished (or shared the methods of) its investigation, blaming the Army for being unable to do so. These are facts with reliable sources that aren't under dispute. I'm sure there are many things patsw and I agree on — after all, his edits to the article were done to properly source the article and were only reverted due to some imagined slight to TNR; I could understand why their being reverted would be frustrating. But nominating this article for deletion seems to me to be akin to taking your ball and going home when the game doesn't go the way you like it. Just play by the rules and illegitimi non carborundum. Calbaer 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep easily meets notability with 20 references Neozoon 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously notable. The editors should try to realize that this is an article about the controversy - not about the truth or falsehood of the original allegations. They should document the controversy - who said what when - and let readers draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia cannot and should not try to determine which side is true. Editors can and should summarize the elements of the controversy. Sbowers3 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - has received coverage in major media enough to be obviously notable, and the reference list is fairly solid. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are several reliable sources mentioned in the article and this is a significant event. Ronnotel 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This entire AfD is a puerile violation of WP:POINT. --Eleemosynary 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Arkon 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd never heard of this event before, but one look at the article shows it easily passes Wikipedia's requirements of reliable sources and notability. Just because the facts of the case are disputed does not mean the case is not notable - whether the reports were a hoax or not, the story about them has become sufficiently well-known to deserve an article on Wikipedia. It looks like almost everyone else here agrees, and if no one makes a decent argument for deletion within the next few hours I think this AfD should be closed early as an obvious Keep. Terraxos 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I too had never heard of this until I read the AfD and the article - and I agree close early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, obviously. The usual cabal seems at it again. DBrnstn 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I realized this would not be a popular AfD, but the disconnect for me is that assertion made in many of the above votes that the were many reliable sources without self-interest in this story. What are they? Even Ronnotel mentioned on the talk page that both TNR and the Army are sources but self-interested ones. I ask again for people to cite those other sources without a self-interest in the controversy on the talk page. I have been persuaded that even if there is no conclusive evidence to prove the original atrocities stories were true, or to prove them to be a hoax, the controversy has gone on long enough for it to be permanently cemented into the pages of history as notable. patsw 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. That this is controversial is the reason that there's an article. If he had written privately there would be little or no controversy, but he didn't, and now it is. htom 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. When soldiers relay their stories, they are restricted as to the content of what they can say. However this soldier does not defamate the US or his leadership, he merely tells a story of events that have affected him. These boys fight for freedom of speech, and they are putting their lives on the line every day. The contraversy is a result of someone taking offense in the details, while it speaks volumes, because the writer gives a candid raw emotional story supported by his comrads. The fact that it is a contraversy is the reason it is here and should remain, the contraversy is not whether the events happened but whether the soldiers have the right to speak about it. The issue of free press and freedom of speech should not be buried when the issues are like open sores screaming to be addressed, to be debated by future generations who can do nothing to change the direction of our nation. — Linz1works 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is about how Beauchamp fabricated stories, you understand that, correct? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Linz1works, please ignore the above taunt by Steven Andrew Miller. His usual attempt to "frame the debate" has, once again, failed. --Eleemosynary 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Again, controversy is actually an argument for inclusion, not deletion. Kayobee 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE: Unreliable or self-interested sources dominate the media coverage of the controversy, mostly opinion blogs. I see very little journalistic coverage and mostly op-ed commentaries from opinion journals zines like The Weekly Standard, NRO, and The New Republic. Also, Kurtz with the Post is not a journalist but an opinion writer. Serious NPOV article. Luigibob —Preceding comment was added at 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid grounds for deleting an article.
• Keep - Certainly meets WP:NOTE and the sources cited do meet WP:RS. I don't think this AfD proposal was well founded. Edit warring should be handled using WP:DR procedures, not AfD. - Neparis 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly move/redirect to Scott Thomas Beauchamp. The controversy is certainly notable enough, and there are reliable sources to verify sufficient factual material to keep the article. Argyriou (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Cooper (striker)

Kevin Cooper (striker) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

By the article's own admission, the subject is a semi-professional footballer, and there is no evidence that he ever played fully professional football, thus failing WP:BIO. PeeJay 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article says he played for Charlton and Brentford, but neither club has ever had a Kevin Cooper play for their first team (Charlton in fact, have never had a player with the surname Cooper at all). All other clubs listed are not professional therefore fails WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 20:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. PeeJay 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ChrisTheDude. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom There is a different Kevin Cooper at [[4]] which confuses things. Springnuts 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the other Kevin Cooper already has an article at Kevin Cooper (midfielder). Coincidentally, the two were born within 10 days of each other, and both have played for a team from Wimbledon (Kevin Cooper (midfielder) played for Wimbledon F.C., while Kevin Cooper (striker) played for A.F.C. Wimbledon). - PeeJay 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Neozoon 23:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not played fully professional football. TerriersFan 20:34, 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. east.718 at 18:48, 11/3/2007

[edit] WxJavaScript

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

Prod was contested, without adding any information. No third-party references to show notability. Project's web site says it is a one-person project. Article does not state the name of the creator, or what organization could be involved. No evidence provided that it has any users at all. EdJohnston 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - 50,000 ghits for wxJavaScript. seems like a notable project. Beging short on details isn't a reason for deletion. MarsRover 23:01, 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. Natalie 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 74181

74181 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. This article makes grand claims of notability, but references none of them. Mikeblas 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. _TheIslander 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it is notable (though probably very dull) - can be googled and is not just referred to by its own data sheet and peripherally, but is extensively discussed (apparently) in "Digital Electronics with VHDL (Quartus II Version)" - see here: [[5]]. According to this ref [[6]] the 74181 is a "classic chip". I feel sleepy. Springnuts 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This chip is an important part of computer technology history. There's dozens (if not hundreds) of shift registers, encoders, and so on which were useful but not particularly noteworthy. The bit-slice chips (such as the '181) enabled the construction of whole new generations of machines. If the article is lacking references, the fix to that is to add references, not to delete the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs more referencing, but it seems to meet notability, as an historically important IC chip, in spades. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article, I don't know if I get a vote but here it is. Several other WP articles mention the 74181, I have wikilinked some but there are probably others. The subject may be boring to many but the '181 is notable, it is a pre-microprocessor - processor, the heart of historically significant computers like the DG NOVA, DEC VAX, Xerox Alto. All these claims are true, just need time to find and add WP:RS - compliant references. Also possibly significant, I have seen several web pages that claim the '181 inspired Wayne Pickette to invent the microprocessor, but need to find something that meets WP:RS. 74s181 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note that there is a spillover discussion of this topic at User_talk:Mikeblas#74181. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note I've gone through and added a half-dozen references for use of the 74181 in various significant machines of early minicomputer era. The article still needs copyediting, but I think we've put the bed the "no references" issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 05:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note I've re-worked the lead to clarify why the '181 is notable. 74s181 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• This article talks about system design in the 1970's. While it mentions standard product 7400-series multiplexors, decoders, registers, counters, adders, ALUs, and register files in a general way, it also calls out the 74181 specifically, as the best solution, was an off-the-shelf, standard product, 74181 series TTL device. Notice how, of all the various 7400-series chips, the '181 is the only one that he mentions specifically by part number? That's because it's the key element. That's why the 74181 is notable and the other ones aren't. Same with this article; of all the chips of the day, the 74181 is the one which is mentioned by part number. And again here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article itself proves the 74181 to be notable in computer history. I was very satisfied to find it. This article describes not some obscure irrelevant barbecue event you had with the neighbors but a relevant and documented part of technical history. There is no reason to stop it from getting documented in an encyclopedia. -- Michael Korntheuer 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a type of information that I like to have access too, and which WikiPedia can easily support. Just look at all those classic machines based on this part. It's clearly notable. (Plus, I'll note that I'm offended by the deletionist bias exposed by having this proposed for deletion on the very same day the article was created.) --69.226.243.232 10:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A nice comprehensive article on an important topic. Don't let it fall in the memory hole. 86.27.178.187 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realise I wasn't logged in when I posted this comment. Weierstrass 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notability is well established, and the article appears well enough referenced now. Laïka 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep More reliable sources (textbooks) establish this chip's notability: Fundamentals of Digital Electronics and Microprocessors by Anohk Singh, page 434: "The most famous ALU-chip is TTL/MST-9341/54181, 74181, ..."; and Computer Structures: Principles and Examples by C. Gordon Bell, page 63: "The earliest and most famous chip, the 74181 arithmetic logic unit (ALU), provided up to 32 functions of two 4-bit variables." DHowell 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Following is a copy of the discussion on deletion at User talk:Mikeblas. 74s181 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 74181

Hi. I'm curious why you put the prod template on 74181. If the article needs references and cats, fine, that's a perfectly legitimate critisism of the article. But do you really think it should be deleted? This was one of the most ground-breaking chip designs of its time, and led directly to the design of some of the most commercially important computers of the 1970's. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

By consensus, the 7400 series chips aren't notable^{[citation needed]}. If you can reference your essay and reduce the peacock words, it would make a good addition to the 7400 series article. I've prodded it because it's completely unreferenced, and content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Original research is not welcomed here. -- Mikeblas 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the discussion where such consensus was obtained. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It'll take a while to find, since Wikipedia has such poor searching. But it took place around the same time as an AFD for one of the CMOS 4000-series chips. Perhaps we'll find it faster if you help in the search. -- Mikeblas 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help search, but I don't know what I'm searching for. Still, my guess is there was consensus along the lines of, Individual chips of the 7400 series are not inherently notable enough to deserve an article about them. If that's the case, then I agree with it. It would be silly to create 7401 and 7402 and so on because most of those simply aren't exciting by themselves. There's only so much one can say about a hex inverter. But, something like the 74181 stands out as noteworthy. Yes, I agree that the article needs references. But, let's not confuse insufficiently referenced article with non-notable topic -- RoySmith (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're searching for the discussion about the notability of individual integrated circuits -- it's what you asked for above, so I'm surprised to hear that you don't know what you're looking for. I don't think there's any confusion about notability and references. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you've found the right link, but I'm afraid that doesn't really help your case. I read the whole AFD discussion and it seems to me that the biggest concern of most people was copyvio. In fact, the consensus, The 7400 and 4000 series parts were revolutionary, not just notable; the individual chips, though are hard to say anything about, was written by you and I don't see a whole lot in the rest of the discussion to support that. It seems disingenuous to cite your own opinion as a consensus which must be followed in another discussion. But, even if we get past that and look at the consensus as you wrote it, it basicly says, Being a member of the 7400 family does not make you notable. That's not that same as, There are no notable members of the 7400 family. I agree with you that not all 74xx chips are notable in their own right, but some are. And the 74181 is one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the right link. I think I wrote above that the consensus conversation was about that same time as that AFD, not that the AFD was the consensus conversation. At the time, the individual chip articles were largely copy-and-paste from some manufacturer data sheets, which are protected by copyright, and that's why copyvio comes up in that AFD. If you think the 74181 is notable, that's great -- let's talk about why you thikn it's notable, so I can come to understand your opinion. Accusing me of being disingenuous is inappropriate, and off-topic. -- Mikeblas 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the 'right link', or whatever links you're talking about that discuss notability. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I created the article. I read your user page and understand that you have concerns about articles about non-notable subjects, and articles that contain no references. I agree with the reference concern, that could have been addressed by adding an appropriate tag to the article. I disagree with your concern regarding non-notability, a) the 74181 is historically significant, more so than some long-standing articles, b) the article already has more edit history than some articles that have been on WP for months, c) Wikipedia is not paper, d) do you understand that the 74181 is not just another quad NAND gate? 74s181 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the 74181 is; I've used it in my own designs. The notability of the product is not established, and that other articles exist is not relevant. Indeed, I added a {{unreferenced}} tag to the article, but in my experience this is hardly an effective way of getting material referenced here. -- Mikeblas 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like what you really want is for references to be added, but you don't have faith that {{unreferenced}} will have the desired effect so you've brought it to AFD to force the references to get added? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Even if references are added, I don't think the subject of the article is notable. 74s181 has made no valid argument; a) is an assertion backed by nothing more than otherstuff; b) is about edit count, and edit count doesn't make an article notable; c) is carries no weight as WP:N overrdies WP:PAPER; and d) is an irrelevant personal attack. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now there are references. 74s181 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

a) The 74181 is at least as notable as the 4004 and 8008, and much more notable than the TMS9900, CDP1802.

d) was not meant as a personal attack. Based on your statement "By consensus, the 7400 series chips aren't notable..." I was questioning whether you had the knowledge to recognize that the 74181 was something substantially different from other 7400-series chips. But since you've "...used it in [your] own designs", it really surprises me that you would think it non-notable. 74s181 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is it about this product that makes you think it is notable? I'm also interested to learn what basis you use for comparing notability. Is the 74181 less notable than the 8080? Is the 8086 more notable than the 8080? Is the 68000 more notable than the 74181? How about the 68030? You've made plenty of assertions about your belief that it is notable, but have done absolutely nothing to substantiate those assertions--or even explain them. -- Mikeblas 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now there is a reference that states notability. My opinion? Maybe less notable than 8080 and 680x0, but notable because it inspired the 4004 microprocessor, in that sense it is in the ancestral tree of the 8008, 8080, 8086, 80286, 80386, and Pentium, despite its warts the most popular CPU architecture of all time. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• 4004 is notable because it is arguably the first microprocessor. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 8008 is notable because it is the first 8 bit microprocessor. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 8080 is notable because it is the microprocessor used in the first commodity-style computer, the Altair 8800, with the S-100 bus. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 680x0 is notable because it was used in the Lisa and Mac, first commercially successful GUI platform, also early Cisco routers. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 8086 is notable because it is the architecture of the IBM PC, really the 8088 chip, but it is the 8086 architecture. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 1802 is notable because its regular architecture and instruction set made it possible to write programs directly in machine code, without an assembler. Also for its use in satellites and space probes. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• TMS9900 also had an interesting architecture for the time, was a personal favorite of mine. Not sure why it is otherwise notable but the article is there and I would support keeping it. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't think it is interesting that the DG NOVA and the DEC PDP-11, the two major 16 bit minicomputers, bitter rivals, both used the same ALU? And that the VAX used the same ALU? 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When I get time, or if someone else has time, a section will be added illustrating how the 74181 directly inspired the microprocessor or CPU on a chip. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, but that's because I'm an electronics hobbyist. What we're trying to determine is if it's notable or not. What reference do you have that states notability? -- Mikeblas 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"I think it's interesting, but that's because I'm an electronics hobbyist." Are you the only electronic hobbyist that looks at Wikipedia? Don't you think it might be interesting to other electronic hobbyists? Or is electronics history one of the topics that is excluded from Wikipedia? Is there a list of excluded topics somewhere that I haven't seen? And like I said above, I'd like to see a link to the discussion about notability that you referred to. 74s181 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to admit that in your zeal to maintain the purity of Wikipedia you were perhaps a bit hasty in this case? 74s181 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My interest level -- and the interest level of other Wikipedians, in fact -- has no bearing on the part being considered notable in Wikipedia's guidelines. I wasn't hasty at all; listing the article for AfD to get consensus on it for this specific case was precisely the right thing to do. -- Mikeblas 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide a reference, I tried to figure out why nominating 74181 for deletion the same day it was created was "...precisely the right thing to do." This is what I found. 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Notability - General notability guideline I can see that the article has some weaknesses. 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also learned that your response was absolutely not "...precisely the right thing to do." From Notability - Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

• Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
• Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Bottom line, we need to find a reliable source that says the 74181 is historically significant, and you need to allow time for us to do this. Otherwise, maybe you are referring to some other policy, if so, please identify the policy under which immediately deleting 74181 is "...precisely the right thing to do." 74s181 01:23, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Hiberniantears. Non-admin closure. JuJube 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)}}

[edit] Kelly Mallon

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

Non-notable for anything except high school drama; speedy tag removed by creator. No sources offered, no real notability asserted, no verifiability. Accounting4Taste 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and I'm tagging this as such.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Islamic Courts Union. Natalie 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muqaawama

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

Prod removed last month without explanation. Violates WP:NOT#DICT. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DrFluffy 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Islamic Courts Union, as a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 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. Natalie 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cafezinho

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

Article asserts no notibility whatsoever. It has been orphaned since July 2006, and is written in a very poor style. _TheIslander 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and the fact that article is just a recipe for coffee. DrFluffy 21:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If anyone can provide a properly sourced rewrite or recreation, then fine, but as it stands this is worthless.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:57, 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. Natalie 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scoobie Davis

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

Does not appear to be notable. I did a cursory google search, and this is the only thing that gives him more than a passing mention. The article isn't about him, and what it does say about him is more of something used as an introduction, not granting him notability. In addition, it appears that he was the one who created the article. i ^(talk) 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, NN blogger with no attribution of notability to independent sources. Not even well known among the major lefty blogs, from what I can tell, although some of his Coulter critique got circulated. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dhartung. Doctorfluffy 03:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood gatherer

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

Yet another highly dubious piece of apparent nonsense and probable hoax. I can't quite see enough to justify the {{db-band}} my gut says it deserves - there are a few ghits [7], [8] but not enough IMO to warrant keeping. — iridescent 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The only sources are MySpace and similar, so the band certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSIC and I can't help thinking that "Hawk McLanaster, Esquire" doesn't sound like a particularly Romanian name, which leads me to think that this just may be a hoax. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Tssk, surely you're not doubting the good faith of the creator here? (When I see articles like this staying live for a whole month, it makes me feel all warm inside.) — iridescent 19:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- "Hawk McLanaster" returns precisely zero Google hits and "Blood gatherer" is impossible to discern from a host of other dark fantasy stuff... fails WP:BAND, doesn't meet WP:Notable. Although I'm sure he's from a fine old Transylvanian family... the MySpace page lists two upcoming Romanian gigs, with entry prices quoted in lek, unless they're a hoax too. Accounting4Taste 20:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Typo. My fault, it's "Hawk McLancaster." I'm sure those reliable sources will show up on google with the correct spelling... no, not so much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. LOL I was fooled by FisherQueen!! That'll teach me not to Google from the AfD but to use the article itself. And yes, the correct spelling yields nothing except MySpace and blogs with content surprisingly similar to the article here. Still nothing notable. But now I know there's room in the music world for a Hawk McLanaster... Accounting4Taste 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. DrFluffy 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete most likly a hoax and even if they're not they still fail WP:MUSIC TonyBallioni 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - could probably be a speedy, really, as there's no real notability expressed in the article itself. As it is, I can't see any indication they pass WP:MUSIC unless the Transylvanian media is just not online yet... Tony Fox (arf!) 07:11, 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, and thanks to User:Gorgan almighty for researching the subject and improving the article a little. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House Auction

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

Appears to be a non-notable television programme. I created the article myself a long time ago. I have raised the issue of a notability guideline for television programmes at WT:N. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because of this reliable secondary source, which I have just added to the article. —gorgan_almighty 14:34, 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. Carlosguitar 08:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rate Your Music

Rate Your Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm back on Wikipedia after a long period away, and while I was away it occurred to me that this article may actually be about a non-notable website. It's the sort of thing I used to dogmatically assume was notable, but is it really, just because it's a popular site? No Google News results for it, and nothing that looks like a third-party reliable source mentions this website as far as I can see from a standard Google search. What do you think? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, for now, because it is a very popular webiste. I'm sure you'll find third party sources if you look for them. 96T 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you can provide adequate sources, I'll withdraw the nomination.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • For a start, I found this, from something called Exposure Magazine. I also saw a list from Rate Your Music once in an issue of the Norwegian news weekly Ny tid. 96T 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still not totally convinced. Are all the other websites in that Exposure Magazine list notable? I doubt it. Trivial news coverage isn't substantial either. But feel free to help find sources for this.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, since it is a popular, heavily trafficked website. I mean, YTMD has a page, RateYourMusic shoud too Doc Strange 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• You mean YTMND? It seems like you're just using wikiality to determine this site's notability than any objective measure. See also WP:WAX.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm kind of torn at the moment. There's got to be sources out there for a site that's got an Alexa traffic ranking of 3,953 - it's obviously a quite popular site. But I can't see anything that classifies as a solid reliable source so at the moment, I don't think WP:WEB is really met... I'm going to watch and see if anyone else turns up sources, but if not, weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• As the founder/owner of RYM, I can give you some journalistic references. Obviously I can't do so in the actual article due to conflict of interest, but you are welcome to check out the info below:

1) I was interviewed for the Brazilian economic journal "Jornal do Commercio" (both in print and online). The article was published on Aug 1, 2007. The online version is behind a paywall, but the text is here: http://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/S%C3%B3%20para%20quem%20gosta%20de%20m%C3%BAsica

2) RYM was briefly profiled in the "PLUG IN BABY" of Q magazine, March 2005, edition Issue 224 page 30"

'RATE YOUR MUSIC' 'What is it? A place for music lovers to rate their own record collections and chat to others with similar tastes. Best Bit? Punch in your details and the site will point you towards other albums it thinks you will like.'

3) RYM was profiled in the January 2007 issue of the Russian magazine "Play":

"Другие важные проявления "Web 2.0" Rate Your Music (http://rateyourmusic.com) Что это: в перспективе ярчайшее выражение народной воли в отношении музыки. Приходя на этот сайт, оставьте у входа опостылевшие аргументы "рецензия необъективна", "журналисты такого понапишут" и т.д. На "Rate Your Music" есть только оценки и рецензии рядовых меломанов, из которых складываются чарты и средние баллы. Плюсы: самая простая возможность упорядоточить свои пристрастия. В любой момент можно сравнить свои оценки с мнением большинства или конкретного пользователя - вам наглядно покажут, где вы совпадаете, а где нет. Минусы: в настоящий момент на сайте доминирует весьма странная группа людей, которая ставит высшие баллы исполнителям, являющимися загадкой для остального мира. Русских пользователей (а следовательно, и релизов) крайне мало. Меломанам: помимо легальной возможности утолить свою графоманию (а также листоманию), здесь можно вести учет своей музыкальной коллекции и списка желаемых приобретений. К тому же сайт является довольно серьезной энциклопедией релизов (в отличие от того же "Allmusic.com", Россия здесь хоть как-то представлена"

Play, январь 2007

4) RYM was mentioned in the "Music" section of the Russian periodical Afisha in January 2007:

Текст статьи Rate Your Music www.rateyourmusic.com Десятки тысяч пользователей со всего света пишут рецензии, выставляют оценки альбомам и добавляют пластинки в базу данных. Представительный срез слушательских мнений: если на Metacritic имеет смысл узнавать, как пресса отреагировала на новый диск Боба Дилана, то на Rate Your Music - как его творческое наследие оценивает нынешняя широкая общественность. Отдельный интерес представляют списки лучших альбомов50 последних лет (по 1000 пластинок за каждый год): примерно так сейчас выглядит история мейнстрима.

There are some other press mentions on the following page: http://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/Presskit - particularly the last three entries.

I could provide more references if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.220.69 (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP Its a popular website, why shouldnt it have an article? Its my favourite music database website but thats just my opinion. Portillo 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Popular and well-known, even disregarding previously-mentioned press references; RYM is well-known enough to google/alexa well, with numerous references to it from blogs and the like (yes, I know they are often disregarded, but the number of them is worth noting), has been used as reference links on wikipedia, and its reviews are considered credible enough to find mention on individual bands' websites (here, for example). In the interest of full disclosure, I am a moderator and frequent contributor to RYM. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 18:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Creep

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

Tagged for speedy delete A7. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Carlosguitar 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. -- Sander Säde 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect - band lacking notability placed in a place which should be a redirect as it previously was [9]. If they ever become notable then they can have a stab at it at The Creep (band). (Emperor 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
• Delete per nom and per Sander. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. DrFluffy 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Notability not stated in article Neozoon 23:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and restore the redirect to Creep that was here before. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and restore reditrect per above. Absolutely no notability under WP:Music proven here. 91.106.28.172 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blockwork Road

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

No assertion of notability. THE KING 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not assert notability, has no context. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability not visible yet Neozoon 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete - as much as I hate to delete road articles, this one is a mishmash and the Author/Editor is willing to let it go (as per Talk:Blockwork Road). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:44, 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 this is an obvious redirect to telephony. --Tony Sidaway 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Systems

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

Thoroughly covered by other articles, misnamed (capitalization?), no new content. Reads like a big ad for Nortel, which is is- check out the one editor's other contribs. The only other contribution is a copyvio from Nortel's website. Sounds like a corporate peon.. ffroth 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete No references to state Notability. The article in its current state seems to be a candidate for deletion. The article was created on 25.10. I think the AfD was put in place to early. It should have been flagged for improvement and sourcing instead. Neozoon 23:55, 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. → AA ^(talk) — 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maplestory Guide to a Theif

Maplestory Guide to a Theif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• DELETE - This is instruction creep! Also, no notability, no references. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia's not a game guide --ffroth 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, no guides please, also smells of Maplefan socks. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What the heck is this? Does this user think Wikipedia is their own personal website? Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and close, a simple case of mistaking WP for GameFAQs, WP is not a how-to guide. Someone another 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As Someone other stated, WP is not a how to guide. Icestorm815 19:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly pointless, break numerous policies. DrFluffy 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete GameFAQs would be a better host for this type of article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be part of an FAQ for a specific game. Neozoon 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Lol, snowball tgies 01:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Floren MacDonald

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

I know the subject of this article personally and would not be surprised if the entire content was written by her boyfriend or their friends. She is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Joowwww 16:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is as wholly invalid an argument as I have ever seen here--admitted negative COI. I'm not saying she's notable--I don't attempt to judge in this subject. . DGG (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability asserted beyond the band. Everything listed in the article's References section is directly lifted from the band's references, indicating no notability beyond that of the band. (See similar comments at Philip Burley's AfD) JFlav 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, as they have been interviewed on BBC, but there is no ASSERTION of notability per WP:MUSIC. Bearian'sBooties 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. 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. east.718 at 18:59, 11/3/2007

[edit] Philip Burley

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

I know the subject of this article personally and would not be surprised if the entire content was written by himself or his friends. He is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Joowwww 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability asserted beyond the band. Everything listed in the article's References section is directly lifted from the band's references, indicating no notability beyond that of the band. There is mention of the article's subject in a Times article; however, this is not enough to meet notability, as a specific biographical notability example reads "Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources" (emphasis mine). There is a tiny mention of the subject made in the media; hardly enough to qualify for notability. (See similar comments at Floren MacDonald's AfD) JFlav 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't want him to have another seizure, but NN. Tiptopper 01:15, 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. @pple complain 16:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DMTI Spatial

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

This is an article that has been deleted twice[10], both times as a non-notable company (and also as spam on the first occasion). It has been recreated twice, the last by an SPA. Effectively, both the speedy and then the prod have been contested so I'm bringing it here. It seems to me that the subject, a company that provides GIS services, is still not notable and fails WP:CORP; the article says nothing much more than it exists and what it does. Malcolmxl5 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, nn company. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Doctorfluffy 08:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sysorb

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

Not notable article started by User:Tbf@evalesco.com (Evalesco is the seller of Sysorb). See Talk:Sysorb#notability for details. A. B. ^(talk) 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I got just 8 hits through Google before it omitted similar results. None of the eight "sources" explains why this system should be notable above all others. This may also explain why the article suffers from a lack of published references. Network and server monitoring systems, which Sysorb may typify, could well be eligible for an article on the grounds of notability, exclusive of named examples. But the article in question fails notability on its own. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question about the deletion process: this article was proposed for deletion previously and then PROD tag was subsequently removed. Is it still eligible for speedy deletion? I thought a failed PROD precluded speedy deletion but I'm not seeing anything to that effect in the current version of the deletion procedures. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - An article is eligible for speedy deletion after the PROD tag was removed (just not for PROD anymore). Nevertheless, I've removed the Speedy tag, because the article isn't as bad as the typical spam and we may now use this ongoing discussion to determine if Wikipedia should have an article on this topic at all. --Tikiwont 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- there are more articles about other companies that are somewhat like this listed at Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. Some are obvious deletion candidates, others less clearly so. Other editors' help in assessing which to keep and which to delete would be appreciated. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant advert/spam. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy 06:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, ad. Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 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. @pple complain 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffany Rayne

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

Non-notable actress. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:BIO per award nomination. Epbr123 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep XRCO award nomination means she passes bio. Article has room for improvement, but that's not reason for deletion. Horrorshowj 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all other nominees have WP entries...it's a precedent. JJL 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable XRCO Award nomination satisfies WP:BIO. • Gene93k 12:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per XRCO Award. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:39, 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 redirect to Tommy (rock opera). Suggest doing the same for the other song stubs from the album. Neil ☎ 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smash the Mirror

Smash the Mirror (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability issues Marlith ^T/C 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It provides auxiliary information for Tommy. Though it might be worth while mergeing all of the song-on-the-Tommy-album articles into one article (they are too long to directly merge into Tommy). Mdmkolbe 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. DrFluffy 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - Redirect all links to the Tommy page. Hagan jared 02:35, 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. east.718 at 19:01, 11/3/2007

[edit] The Crossroads Church

The Crossroads Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability and poorly written Marlith ^T/C 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, there are many churches called crossroads and this one is not notable. meshach 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability; no reliable sources. Bearian'sBooties 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per meshach Carter | Talk to me 05:41, 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. east.718 at 19:02, 11/3/2007

[edit] Euphepun

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable neologism. John254 15:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete The lamest neologism ever.--victor falk 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow - there are so many things wrong with this article. Dicdef of a neologism that was, according to the article, born into the English language on June 31, 2007 by the 'esteem linguist' Ryan Russell who i can't find on google, and we don't have an article on. THE KING 17:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others. DrFluffy 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NFT. Deor 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Wiktionary entry at best... if it is for real? I hope not.Hagan jared 02:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete This word has validity in everyday language, despite its lack of appearance in a dictionary. It will be useful for people who hear the word and need to search for its definition. It should remain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.216.191 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I too searched for “Ryan Russell” on Google and had trouble finding any information about this ‘Esteemed Linguist.” I found it difficult because of the fact that both his given name and his surname are very common. As far as grounds for deletion? I find it hard to judge a linguist. Such a person is challenged to be creative in his/her speech. All words have an origin. Wikipedia might just be this words birthplace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.140.99 (talk) 03:46, 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. east.718 at 22:30, 11/3/2007

[edit] James Hjuka Coulter

James Hjuka Coulter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person does not seem to pass WP:BIO. There is a lot of controversial discussion on the talk page, but in the end his claim towards notability seems to be that he wrote one or two books. This doesn't suffice. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete as unnotable. the present article is the result of much to-and-fro under the title of Irminenschaft before it became clear that this is a case of WP:VANITY. Coulter's book could possibly be is mentioned at Germanic neopaganism, which is fair enough, but there are no grounds for an independent article. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to fail WP:BIO for me as well. DrFluffy 22:03, 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. Sandstein 15:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hay (company)

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

This company, judging by the article, does not seem notable - only primary sources are cited. Google gives references to some (apparently unrelated) companies of this name, but I did not find any compelling secondary source. But since the article has been created from the "Requested articles" list, it may warrant a wider discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it has been there for the last 6-7 months and nobody has really contributed to the article, as the creator of the article I personally think there isn't really going to be any other addtional stuff that will be gathered on the company and added to the page, but I will try my best to gather some more info on 'HAY'.

mickyfitz13 ^Talk 16:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A note to Micky, above, the problem here is WP:CORP I think - so if you can satisfy that, it'd be worth a shot. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment i have too much work (school wise) on at the moment, so i don't think i can contribute much to the article, i will be happy to see it slip, but if there is any other information on the company it should be added. So far i have found little to none, there is too many Hay companies out there. I personally think it should be Deleted, but it should be left for a month before the final decision should be made. mickyfitz13 ^Talk 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I nominated this for speedy, as it consisted essentially of a list of the services they offered. Another ed. removed it--and I may have been wrong-- for there seems to be some potential, judging by a list of their clients at [11]. But somebody has to work on it.DGG (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Seems to be a solid enough company, but notability is limited, and Wikipedia is not a business directory. There are very few sources out there that I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, page can always be recreated if outside sources for notability are found. SolidPlaid 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. east.718 at 19:07, 11/3/2007

[edit] Konquest

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

The game seems to fail WP:N, since no reliable secondary sources are known. Only one review from a user-generated content site is given. Relisting from a mass nomination in January. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable game; inclusion in linux distributions does not confer notability.Chardish 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the article states it, "ships with the KDE desktop environment." That makes it on par with Hearts and Minesweeper which ship with Windows. The topic is notable; the article needs improvement (not deletion). Mdmkolbe 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - In no way on par with Minesweeper et al, given the scarcity of mention by secondary/tertiary sources. Keep and rewrite if adequate sources found to back up case for note. Reads like a guide rather than an encyclopedic article. MrZaius^talk 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP its a game that ships with KDE so it is notable. It is a game, why does a game need to have secondary citations? Go download it and you can see for your self that it is all true, and the parts that you can't see are in the source code that is available. For example do you expect an article on wikipedia on how to edit to need citations when it is only an explanation. Anyone can see it is true very quickly. Where would you cite it? wikipedia edit page? --Adam1213 Talk 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: This is not a question of verifiability but of notability. As with any other topic, an article on the game is only warranted if there has been coverage in independent sources, per the WP:N guideline. Among other reasons, only these allow to write a NPOV article. Inclusion in a distribution / program package does not imply independent coverage - there are thousands of programs shipping with any Linux distribution, most of which are non notable. If the topic is relevant enough in the context of KDE it might be mentioned in that article - for covering it in a separate article, independent sources have to be found per WP:N. --B. Wolterding 13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • REPLY': The article contains mainly facts that any one could see as correct by playing the game / reading the source. It is hard for an article containing only facts to contain much POV. Most of the games that ship with Linux distributions have articles. Having a game included with Linux distributions means that there is a high chance that someone will find the game and want to know more about it. Konquest is part of KDE games --Adam1213 Talk 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's the point - the article is written only from primary sources. In its current form, it just iterates the rules of the game etc.; it's not so much an encyclopedia article, but an entry for a software catalog. And since secondary sources are missing, the article cannot be expanded beyond that. Wikipedia is not a software catalog - that would also be unnecessary, since dozens of good software catalogs already exist. For an encyclopedia, only notable topic qualify - those with secondary coverage. --B. Wolterding 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Chardish. Doctorfluffy 07:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even Minesweeper cites no reference, but still needs improvement Nunting 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• question are the various parts of kde considered all notable, or if not, what are the distinctions?DGG (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer KDE in itself is notable, as would be any mostly integral part of the KDE environment (such as Konqueror or KHelpcenter), but as it is, Konquest is just a minor game that coincidentally gets shipped with KDE distributions. It just doesn't count as a part of KDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.243.3 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems to be a victim of operation system bias. I looked at the packaged Windows games and most only state their website rather than independent sources and also have a game guidish flavor. Should I nominate any of them I'm pretty sure that Keepers will say: "are you sure?", "keep and improve", "sources are easy to find" and even "bad faith nom". Anyways, I saw some books in a Google Book search that do mention the game but only in passing. With those references alone one can only merge the article as a section in the kdegames article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Operating system bias? Just for the case it is of any relevance, typing "uname -o" on my computer returns "GNU/Linux", but typing "uname -bias" results in an error message. --B. Wolterding 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. Tis a good game. KDE is big, this game is fun. If we delete this article we should then delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Pinball by the same token. Both are notable. Please can we not kill off open source on an open source based site and provide some balance. Dbmoodb 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This software is included in many distros with KDE. Admittedly, the source in the external links isn't so great (there are many factual errors in the review), but I remember the game being included in a roundup of "best Linux games" some months back in one of the Linux magazines - maybe Linux Format. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:00, 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.

[edit] Michael Scibor

The result was Speedy Deleted via normal admin channels. Non-admin closure for AfD..Horrorshowj 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Article is about somebody in the future with no indication as to which fictional work this may be referring to. If not fiction, then this is a hoax. If it is fiction, then there is absolutely no sources that I could find in searching. Originally PRODed as a hoax by another editor. PROD was removed with no explanation by an IP editor. Whpq 14:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. At this point, it doesn't really matter if it's fiction or a hoax; it's not WP:Verifiable. If it's part of some fictional backdrop, it should be merged into a larger article, whatever that might be. Accounting4Taste 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as non-notable nonsense.Horrorshowj 19:04, 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. east.718 at 19:08, 11/3/2007

[edit] Outcast (Warriors)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. It has been announced that it will be published by the author, but that doesn't automatically confer notability on it. No information exists outside of the author. Metros 12:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DrFluffy 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete it will surely need to be recreated. JJL 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why delete when their is an article of every other book in the [Warriors (novel series)|series]]? The book will come out, so deleting it is pointless. Noor Aalam 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The book's going to come out, so it will be easier if we don't delete it. Besides, deleting it would have no meaning, as the book will come out later.Iceberg2229 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:CRYSTAL. We can't predict that when the book comes out that it will be in any way notable. Metros 19:18, 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. east.718 at 22:29, 11/3/2007

[edit] Imrana

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

Single event biography, in that the subject was a crime victim. No evidence of notability otherwise. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MER-C 12:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Imrana rape case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Imrana rape case. Bearian'sBooties 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. It seems to be a neologism using self-references and unreliable sources with unverifiable claims, causing original research. I appreciate the enthusiasm of Mezmerized, but I hope Mezmerized read our policies and guidelines and rewrite a better article. Carlosguitar 10:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melodic metalcore

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

Article is a mash of WP:OR and lack of verifiability. The article did have the appearance of having citations but the vast majority turned out to be dead end links to Wikipedia articles and/or Urban Dictionary quotes (Which my raised suspicions about whether or not this article belongs on Wikipedia). In my opinion, it just seems like someone has dreamt this article up one day and stuck it on Wikipedia, there is so much rambling prose it does actually seem like a daydream. One example of WP:OR: "Melodic metalcore is oftentimes more melodic than "normal" metalcore..." - That sentence is particularly amusing. Scarian^Talk 12:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Bollocks. Colonel Warden 12:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:BOLLOCKS. LOL @ all the refs coming from other WP pages too! Lugnuts 12:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I got one hard laugh. Definitely WP:BULLSHIT. Maybe keep it for five days so we can all laugh about it. Mindraker 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it's articles like these that make me want to drop what I'm doing on Wikipedia and go straight to Unencyclopedia and start all over again... Scarian^Talk 12:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - just another one of those "make-believe" genres that someone made up during school recess. Peter Fleet 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's not melodic metalcore, it's speed bollocks life grindcore with a dash of twist and lemon Will ^(talk) 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I feel kind of bad for the well-meaning bloke who took the trouble to add all those "citations"; all of them are either internal links to wiki pages (most of them already deleted!) or external links to unreliable garbage like Urban Dictionary. Sigh.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Jeez. Maybe you could just say delete and give a reason, but NOOO, you have to go "This is bullshit", "This is so bad, its funny", and even going out of your way to call me a "bloke". I got the SAME CRAP over at the "List of metalcore bands". Jeez. Whatever happened to WP:CIVIL? If I become the target of this complete lack of civility again, Ill quit. Jesus F*****g Christ. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other voters, but I believe you misunderstand me. I find you a charming, industrious editor with good intentions but a poor understanding of citation/verifiability standards. Bloke is not an insult, at least anywhere that I've traveled. Isn't it just like "dude" or "mate" or "guy?"--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bloke is not an insult, at least anywhere that I've traveled. Isn't it just like 'dude' or 'mate' or 'guy?'" Yeah. But I didnt know that until my brother told me at dinnertime. Sorry about that.

"...a poor understanding of citation/verifiability standards" That is unfortunately true. But also unfortunately...

"I can't speak for the other voters". Understandably. But here are some comments...

"I got one hard laugh. Definitely WP:BULLSHIT. Maybe keep it for five days so we can all laugh about it." or "it's articles like these that make me want to drop what I'm doing on Wikipedia and go straight to Unencyclopedia and start all over again..." (more particular, the complete lack of civility) that pissed me off. I mean, the article is not that bad, is it? I probably overreacted on the quitting part, though.

Oh, and to the scarian guy, this article was made more than once. So obviously, its not some random daydream. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it was cool for them to laugh at you like that; it's not like you're a deliberate vandal or troublemaker. Here's what I would suggest.... familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Then go look on really mainstream websites and magazines like the All Music Guide and Rolling Stone and see if you can find any mention of "melodic metalcore" as a genre or style. If you can find it a reference, put it in the article. The closest thing I found on your references to a reliable source was a link to a page from rockdetector.com; but even that's probably not reliable enough to satisfy most of these editors. And, you know, if the article gets deleted again, don't give up. Just find some quality references and start over, either in a subsection of the metalcore article, or have a friendly admin userfy the page for a while, until your citations are solid and deletionist-proof.

Mostly, don't let other editors get you down with their snarky remarks. It sounds corny, but it's easy for them to forget that there are real people with actual feelings attached to these accounts; I know I'm guilty of this myself sometime. Let me know if I can help in any way.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the encouragement, by the way. It really helps. :D Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now for my opinion: Keep. First off, to some of the responders: WP:BOLLOCKS (thus WP:BULLSHIT) isnt a policy, its an essay, so it cant be used to argue deletion. Anyway, maybe it needs cleanup, but its WP:NOTABLE^[1] ([12]), and it is a term that is in use^[2] ([13]). So cleanup and keep. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment pulled over from User:Mezmerizer's talk page: "...to the scarian guy, this article was made more than once. So obviously, its not some random daydream." - Yeah, that may be the case but the way it was written this time (I'm assuming that neither were written the exact same) made it seem like a dream. There were some sentences in there that gave that impression. I didn't mean to come off uncivil and I never once laughed at you... One of my motto's on Wikipedia is "Comment on content, not the contributor" and I stuck to that. Apologies if it seemed as though I was being a prick, but I honestly did not mean to offend you. I was attacking the content of the article, nothing and/or no one else. Is that alright? I appreciate your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. Scarian^Talk 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yeah, that may be the case but the way it was written this time (I'm assuming that neither were written the exact same) made it seem like a dream. There were some sentences in there that gave that impression." Yeah. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

"I didn't mean to come off uncivil..." Dont worry about it. I didnt mean to target you, anyway, because you did nothing wrong.

"...and I never once laughed at you..." True. That laughing thing was mainly aimed at Lugnuts and Mindraker.

"Apologies if it seemed as though I was being a prick, but I honestly did not mean to offend you." Understood. I did get a little offended by the "it's articles like these that make me want to drop what I'm doing on Wikipedia and go straight to Unencyclopedia and start all over again...", but at times, I can be hypersensitive, do dont sweat it.

"I was attacking the content of the article, nothing and/or no one else. Is that alright?" Yeah. That is. I just overreacted about the starting over thing.

"I appreciate your enthusiasm for Wikipedia." And I appreciate the apologys and your opinion (well, sort of, anyway ;]) Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I'm sorry but there's already a metalcore page, if you really believe this is an actual genre then try listing it on the metalcore page, but as far as I know there is melodic death metal (melodeath) and melodic forms of other typs of metal...but metalcore is already watered down melodic metal. See WP:Bullshit. 'Nuff said. Navnløs 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the article...wow. There is so much wrong in it I can't believe it's not deleted yet. Melodic metalcore is a mix of early melodeath and early metalcore??? WTF, PLEASE! Metalcore already is a mix of the early melodeath scene mixed in with watered down elements and punk. This article does not make sense and should be terminated and never brought up again. I know my metal and I know my bullshit. Navnløs 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ease up. Don't be that harsh. It's not just not fair to the guy. Read WP:NICE. Scarian^Talk 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Scarian!

Anyway, as I stated before, WP:BULLSHIT cant be used as a reason for deletion because it is an essay and not a policy. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per unreliable sources (using Wikipedia to cite a Wikipedia page? Seriously?) and WP:BOLLOCKS; also a neologism. Ours18 01:27, 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. Arguments to keep fail to address notability concerns (relevant guideline - WP:USRD/NT#City streets). Neil ☎ 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Street

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

Non-highway urban arterial in Pittsburgh. These sort of streets are not notable. I prodded it, but this was removed by User:NE2 with a quote from the article; this article doesn't really assert notability about the street, but rather about the buildings that are along it. (If kept, it should probably be disambiguated, there's a Grant Street about four blocks from my present location, and I'm sure it's a pretty common name.) —Scott5114↗ 11:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, as a suggestion, the article should be renamed if it does not get deleted. There are many Grant Streets. A suggestion would be Grant Street, Pittsburgh, 15219 as there are 3 other Grant Streets in the area. A street does become notable if it has notable buildings on it. Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC is a prime example. If evidence can be provided that shows the street has notability particularly amongst the residents of Pittsburgh and also to see whether that street is advertised as being of importance to the city then i see no reason why this article cant be kept. Seddon69 12:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd say Pennsylvania Ave. is more notable for historic events along it (often being used as sites of protest marches, parades, the Presidential inauguration route, and so on), which are of course caused by its connecting the Capitol to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. —Scott5114↗ 12:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • [14] if enough evidence like this can be provided then i see no reason why this article cannot be kept aalbeit be it under a differnt name Seddon69 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd like to know more about Grant Street, not just what's on it, otherwise it could just be a category. The Post-Gazette link is interesting and I think justifies this article's notability, but the article doesn't reflect that. (Like is the street still brick? Or was it paved?[15] I really don't know, but if it's brick, that's something that should be in the article.) User:NE2 somehow find all this interesting information and history; he might be able to help. --MPD ^{T / C} 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; as an extreme example, nobody cares about Wall Street itself, but about the buildings on it. That is, assuming it can be reliably sourced; [16] seems to do that adequately. --NE2 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, notability is not inheritable. Streets need external notability, e.g. "Grant Street, widely known as the heart of the Pittsburgh business community" or some such. Just having prominent businesses on the street is not enough. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean something like this: "The Pittsburgh Renaissance after World War II had continued to enhance the character of Grant Street as a corporate and governmental headquarters," as said by the City of Pittsburgh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPD01605 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yeah, pretty much something like that would be a good start. It's a little boosterish, though, so an independent source saying something similar would be more credible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've let WikiProject Pittsburgh know of this; hopefully they can say whether or not it's well-known. --NE2 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - One of the prominent streets in Downtown Pittsburgh. As NE2 pointed out, Wall Street is not notable because of the pavement on it or whatnot, but of the multiple notable addresses on it. --Oakshade 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But also because Wall Street has become synonymous with the stock market. —Scott5114↗ 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There other examples besides Wall Street that can apply; Michigan Avenue (Chicago), Market Street, San Francisco, California, Geary Boulevard, for examples. --Oakshade 01:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. No evidence it is of more than local importance, and the article arrogantly assumes it is the only "Grant Street" in the world of any interest to anyone, so renaming should be done in any event. Then there is the lack of referencing and content. Edison 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although this article in its current state is not of value. I believe it can definitely be worked into a better article. Even if it goes into some1's sandbox for rewriting Seddon69 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung. It also strikes me as odd that only the locations along the street and not the street itself are covered in the article. Maybe if it gets a complete rewrite, I'll have a different opinion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you should read Parliament Hill. Only 3 sentences are about the hill itself
• Delete notability is not inherited, unless if it's so painstakingly obvious that everyone knows about some part of it. That's not the case here. O₂ (息 • 吹) 23:03, 30 October 2007 (GMT)
• Keep - What is on it, is intrinsic to its meaning... just like Parliament Hill is known for whats on it ... not the hill itself. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But Parliament Hill is synonymous with that branch of government, isn't it? Grant Street is apparently not, and that's why comparisons to Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue don't really hold water. —Scott5114↗ 08:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To a person affected by what is on it, it becommes intrinsic to its meaning, yes. Thats the point. Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street have no intrinsic meaning to me, because I am not affected by whats on them, yet I do understand the streets themselves are notable for what is along them. (it's Bay Street and Wellington St. for me, but thoes possibly dont mean much if your American). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge somewhere or delete. Not notable enough for its own article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep About the only street I can think that is notable on its own is Lombard Street (San Francisco), you know, the twisty one. I am disturbed by the use of the "notability is not inherited" argument for streets. Why do major businesses have their headquarters on Grant Street? Because that particular street has a combination of features that entice important businesses to locate there. If a street only had a strip club, a scrap metal yard and a mobile home court, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. This Grant Street has the HQs of US Steel, Mellon Group, the Allegeny County Courthouse and Pittsburg's City Hall on it. SolidPlaid 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tang Ching Ho

Tang Ching Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. No sources cited, I can't find any, and the companies he chairs don't even have articles. Hut 8.5 11:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, this article does not meet the notability requirments and does not have reliable sources. The companies mentioned in the article are also non-notable. STORMTRACKER 94 11:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Tiddly-Tom 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete actually the companies and the individual are notable , however this article deserves a speedy delete as a blatant copyvio of Wang On's website. KTo288 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as not notable, period. Violates WP:BLP as missing ANY cites for verifiability. Bearian'sBooties 01:19, 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. Early closure per WP:SNOW. WjBscribe 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties

Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I strongly feel that the intention of creating this non-notable item, as a separate page (WP:NNC) meant for some other reason. The article may be redirected to any other Jehovah witness related pages under a special sub-category and also an expert may look into it. I therefore am suggesting this for deletion or re-directed in accordance. We don’t need this page anymore. Thank you. --Avinesh Jose 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• As for notability, Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."
• It is my intent to change the title of this article to Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties in the United Statess. However, it is considered bad form to rename an article while it is under AFD so I'm waiting for the AFD process to complete. However, it cannot complete because you haven't finished the startup process.--Richard 14:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comments are refactored from the article talk page. The nominator had difficulty with the listing process.--chaser - t 08:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The books in references and further reading and the many cases cited in the article itself sufficiently establish notability. This is a legitimate topic.--chaser - t 08:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A Google on the article's title will further establish the notability of the topic. --Richard 08:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • If chser approves this, I don’t have any problem. Because, he is the ultimate guy to say or judge. But listen when Richard started this article, he doesn’t give all these details. Check the history here, the article suddenly boomed to 14, 349 bytes from 680 bytes within two days.--Avinesh Jose 09:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Some people write entire articles and then upload them to Wikipedia. I start by creating stubs and then expanding them. Sometimes it takes days. Sometimes it takes weeks. Hopefully, other editors will come along and help expand the article. The trick is not to evaluate an article by its size but rather by how encyclopedic the scope is. In the future, you might ask the author what his intended scope is and not prejudge an article while it is still being written. If you look at the article's Talk Page under the heading "Question for the Author", you'll see that's what User:jonny-mt did. And, if you had re-read the expanded article when I suggested that you do so, you might have realized that your original assessment was off-the-mark. No matter. Just some lessons to take with you. Happy editing.
    • Also, technically, this AFD should run for 5 days although it can be closed early per WP:SNOW. It could also be closed early if you withdraw the nomination. Just say the word and Chaser can close it.
    • And, as an aside, Chaser is not the only person who can judge. Any admin other than myself can close this AFD. I can't because it would be a conflict of interest.
    • --Richard 09:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not the ultimate guy to say or judge. I'm not sure what gave you that impression.--chaser - t 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Chser affirmed in his user page that he has some “Extra set of buttons” which letting him to control everything as an admin. So I obviously thought that Chser can finally wish to take a wise decision during a dispute / controversy, (or the ultimate guy would have given those privileges to chaser)?...I may be flawed.--Avinesh Jose 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Any extended discussion of admin privileges should take place on a User Talk Page instead of on this AFD page. However, to answer your question briefly, Chaser's admin privileges are the same as mine unless he has more buttons than I do (e.g. if he has checkuser or Wikipedia:Checkuser). The admin privileges are granted by Wikipedia:Bureaucrats based on discussions at WP:RFA. Ultimately, all power at Wikipedia flows from the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation of which Jimbo is a member and Chair emeritus.
      • Any admin who is not involved in this discussion can close it. Technically, Chaser should not close this AFD because he has expressed an opinion. However, since the opinions seem to be going all one way, it probably wouldn't ruffle any feathers if he did close it. --Richard 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep In my civil rights/civil liberties course (a 400 level college political science course) the text dealt with at least two specific cases involving the Jehova's Witnesses, in the context of 'special rights' and under the general applicability doctrine of the courts. This leads me to believe the topic both has sufficient notability (being dealt with in undergrad-level general overview courses tends to imply an important topic I find) and depth (being suitable material for a Junior/Senior-level course) to form an article. Just take particular care to avoid PoV on this one... Wintermut3 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. "We don't need this page anymore"? While I don't agree with the beliefs of the Jehovah's witnesses, the legal precedent they set over the pledge of allegiance alone is worth this page. It's sourced, and although I don't see a lack of neutrality, any problems can be fixed. Maybe it should be renamed, but not deleted.72.151.55.27 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- The references provided in Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this topic per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The subjective assertion of non-notability advanced by the nominator is insufficient to outweigh this presumption. John254 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Well written, and provides good information I didn't know before, and am glad I know now. It's a very well written article except for the POV opening, and I agree with above about meeting WP:N Carter | Talk to me 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am amazed that this article would be nominated for deletion not 3 days from it's creation... Anyhow, if this article can achieve NPOV it would be a great, and worthy, addition to the sum of human knowledge. Duffer 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but I concur with the suggested rename to ...civil liberties in the United States, unless it can be shown that they have had similar impact in other countries. This is a notable religious minority that has been willing to go to the mat on its beliefs and has thereby created numerous precedential case law. That's definitely a notable topic. There are also some POV problems that could be fixed with sourcing and attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Merging and/or fixing NPOV do not require deletion and can be done at the editors' discretion. Sandstein 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health care prices

Health care prices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Irreparable soapboxing for health-care deregulation and NPOV violation. Tagged cleanup since February 2006 (!). MER-C 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is very specific to the United States. Seems very politically oriented. I know, health care prices suck, but belongs more on a personal web page. Mindraker 13:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep So rename it, "Health care prices in the United States". It's a good concept for an article, better than the usual my-term-paper-on-Wikipedia type, refers to sources and is written by someone competent in economics; it definitely needs some polishing. 72.151.55.27 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe I was too hasty with the delete. It seems like a one-sided viewpoint from a free market economist's view. It is a good article if you are taking Economics. If I were looking for an article on "health care prices", I would expect a graph somewhere, and maybe less fingerpointing at America's policies. Did this come from an ECON 101 textbook? OK, maybe Weak Keep and/or rename. Mindraker 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Health care in the United States as a section. NO need for a specific article I feel Carter | Talk to me 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Although I suppose some of the information could be merged as Carter suggested. DrFluffy 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the NPOV bits into Health care in the United States, but it needs to be de-Sicko'ed first. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Recreate/Merge - This one needs a major rewrite at the least. Inclusion with a related article would be appropriate.Hagan jared 02:33, 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 redirect. east.718 at 19:12, 11/3/2007

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}}

[edit] Adam Schleichkorn

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

Notable only for a single internet meme (Fence Plowing) of questionable notability and encyclopedic significance. Fails WP:BLP, especially WP:BLP1E. MER-C 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd be inclined toward a speedy on db-bio, but they assert notability, so can't go there. What's so big about running into a fence? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DrFluffy 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete by opening the gate; maybe he won't stop. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. The usual thing to do with a notable cultural phenomenon arising from a non-notable person is to cover the phenomenon, not the event or the person. So this should be deleted unless anyone comes up with sourced information that establishes that the person is independently notable, which I doubt. But be sure to cull this for any useful information to add to the meme's article before deleting.Wikidemo 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and delete Fence plowing and Fence Plowing whilst we are at it. Non-notable person, non-notable activity. In 3 years' time no one will remember or care. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- Fails to meet BIO policy, definitely. Hagan jared 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Absolute rubbish. TGreenburgPR 05:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enola Cola

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

Fails WP:BIO. Contents are unverifiable, with 6 ghits. MER-C 10:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete mind-numbingly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Owns Bedrock Press; Bedrock Press has printed a book of his poetry; resides "in the bowels of southwestern Ontario"; no assertion of notability besides in his own world 72.151.55.27 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedy per G11 or A7. Clear failure of WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. TGreenburgPR 05:59, 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 hoax. --Haemo 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Estland

I am preserving this at my user page if anyone wishes to view the content in future- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JJJ999JJJ999 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Estland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

hoax Such state never existed, the article contains random statements from the era of Livonian War.--Termer 10:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- undecided until I do some research, but if this IS a hoax, it is BJAODN worthy... brilliant, and look how long it has lasted... very impressive.JJJ999 10:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, it's taken a while to clean up all this brilliant nonsense the guy has created and nobody knows how much is left of it. He/she should also get the first prize for sockpuppetry on WP :User:Tuulispask AKA User:Casesoccur [17] more than 10 accounts. --Termer 10:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • another one- I guess this means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaunia is also a hoax... both deserve considerable praise, that they lasted this long is nothing short of brillaint. I am astoundingly impressed, the Ugaunia one lasted 2 years easily... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Crusade must be one too, assuming the first is a hoax...JJJ999 10:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ugaunia has it's problems but it was an ancient county once, please see google books, the title is OK [18]--Termer 11:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Impressed comment 2- apparently this guy named Bloomsfield is responsible for sockpuppeteering, and he was blocked after being found to have dozens upon dozens of accounts. He has been able to leave lord knows how much in the way of articles, like this one for eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuriy_Trubetskoy, I wonder how long this took...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BloomfieldJJJ999 11:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment some of my favorites are Magnus of Livonia, Maria of Livonia, one I've done some clean up on is Kingdom of Livonia--Termer 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, are you suggesting that some of these are real? My feeling is all are fake, and I'm pretty impressed... it looks like this will take weeks upon weeks to clean up and delete them.JJJ999 11:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The people were real, the titles were nominal given by Ivan IV during Livonian War. The articles should be renamed and rewritten: "Magnus of Livonia" was known as Duke Magnus of Holstein. And the only one who was calling Maria a Queen was Magnus himself perhaps and Ivan IV. --Termer 11:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The History of the Baltic States, by Kevin O'Connor, can be viewed on Google books, and includes a timeline of historical events. During the years 1561-1578, there's no mention of Estonian independence, although Estland became a duchy within the Kingdom of Sweden in 1584. Mandsford 14:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's no Upper Peninsula War, but it's not bad. I found this on Google Books, though it's by far the best thing I've found so far. I'm not convinced it's a hoax, but that is what it's looking like. faithless (^speak) 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to this
  • Principality of Estland under Teutonic Order in the book refers to Teutonic Order's Baltic branch: Livonian Order p.60. The Livonian (Teutonic) Order bought the Principality of Estland = Danish Estonia from Denmark in 1346 p.64 and it existed within the Livonian Confederation under the rule of Livonian (Teutonic) Order until Livonian War when it became a part of Sweden in 1561:
  • Principality of Estland under the Swedish rule = Swedish Estonia; and then in 1721 it became a part of Imperial Russia.
  • Principality of Estland the Imperial Russian province of Estland = Reval Governorate renamed in 1796 Governorate of Estonia (Estland) (Russian: Estlyandskaya guberniya)--Termer 00:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree... the fact that it has been around this long, that the user is a sockpuppet, and we are still discussing whether it is real makes it far more sophisticated than the upper peninsula war.JJJ999 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the best jokes in the article about this "former country".
    • The Info box claims Capital Reval (occupied by Sweden).
    • From the article The analysis indicates that during the Livonian War a pro-independence wing emerged among the Livonian gentry and townspeople, forming the so-called "Peace Party". follow the link you'll find out that The Peace Party is a small political party in the United Kingdom founded in 1996.--Termer 07:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hot damn. At first read, it does look like a real article on a real state. But as noted by several people above, this is all gibberish. Nothing in the history section seems to be actually about "Estland", rather its all about random people and events of this geographic area, which gives it an air of legitimacy. However, its all total crap. This may be one of the best hoaxes ever at Wikipedia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, there is going to need to be a LOT of clean-up after this mess. This "Estland" bullshit seems to have leaked into other articles on REAL people and topics, such as: Magnus of Livonia, Bishopric of Reval, Livonia, Swedish Estonia, Duchy of Courland and Semigallia, hell there are probably many more, I got tired of searching for them. This link may help: [19]. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not so bad, it was just the ones you mention and a couple of others, half a dozen all in all. I've delinked anything from mainspace now [20]--victor falk 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Im estonian and even I did not mark it immediately as a Hoax unlike some others this person created and others ferociously fought for. But once you read it it is gibberish indeed. The terms he uses are valid in certain context, we have heard them in history classes. That makes it so difficult. --Alexia Death the Grey 09:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nice hoax. I hope all the talent and effort that went into creating it can be redirected toward writing and improving articles about real things, people and places. Edison 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sackalia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sackalia is ancient Sakala county, Ugaunia is Ugandi county. Both articles should be moved and kept, ie resp. Sakala (county) and Ugandi. I will move the latter. -- Sander Säde 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin help is needed with moving Ugandi. It seems that Bloomfeld's socks have been busy with that redirect as well. -- Sander Säde 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it--Termer 05:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What should be done about Ugaunians? Move to Ugalased? -- Sander Säde 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sander Säde Re: @ Talk:Ugaunians--Termer 06:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is no-one else going to nominate this for BJAODN? I am still stunned at how long and how much this guy did...JJJ999 05:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • BJAODN got MFD'ed about 2 months ago. It is only a memory... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Going through the creators contributions I found this: Baltic State another suspicious short lived country...--Alexia Death the Grey 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd slow down with this. It wasn't a country but it was an attempt to establish a formally independent Duchy by the Baltic Germans during the German Occupation of Estonia and Latvia in 1918. --Termer 08:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're thinking of the United Baltic Duchy aren't you? --victor falk 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

victor falk, correct, thats what I was talking about. The redirect from Baltic State should go to Baltic States instead perhaps.--Termer 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea. Ive done exactly that.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what seems to be wrong with these articles and is making cleanup so hard. There is a root of truth in them, but the presentation is anything but valid. This duchy is hardly a short lived country... It needs to be corrected. And the redirect deleted...--Alexia Death the Grey 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen some articles conserved before, like the Upper Peninsula war... why is this not kept with them by someone?JJJ999 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, perhaps we should something like The AfD Hoax Trophy Gallery...--victor falk 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Renata 00:12, 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. east.718 at 19:13, 11/3/2007

[edit] Amazing and Beautiful / My My (Whigfield song)

Amazing and Beautiful / My My (Whigfield song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed without any improvements to the article. Insufficient content, no prose; the only information offered strays off the main topic, which is the song. •97198 talk 09:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources cited to justify article notability. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar 11:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy Myopia

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

Non-notable book. Unverifiable, none of the 65 ghits constitutes 3rd party coverage. Vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete in the absence of reliable sources that claim notability. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources cited to prove notability. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability, no attempt to add sources even though article was started five months ago, and doesn't check out in google. So it's probably unsourceable. Wikidemo 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is substantial consensus, based on cited evidence, that this is an encyclopedic term. Moreover the article has been substantially improved from its state at nomination for deletion [21]. The nominator makes a good point about overcategorization, but the recognition of this phenomenon by bodies within the industry tips the balance here. --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directorial debut

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

Overcategorization, trivial intersection Wildhartlivie 08:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I am nominating this page for deletion based on the guideline WP:Overcategorization (trivial intersection). The information that this page would impart is easily and more appropriately covered in individual biographies as well as an article covering film directing. Furthermore, each and every person who has ever directed has made a directorial debut, therefore the article is arbitrary, unnecessary clutter. Wildhartlivie 09:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as creator. It is notable and verifiable, it meets all Wikipedia criteria. It is a well used term of art in film. The New York Times, has an article on it, stating the history of the concept. It also has its own category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: But that's not what it is. It's not an art term, it's just a notation. The NY Times article isn't about the concept of directorial debuts as a whole, it's about actors who become directors, which isn't necessarily the same thing. The problem is that while it may verifiable as a concept, it doesn't have the weight to carry a complete article. The term can and should be covered in each actor or director's biography page and the page for Film director which has plenty of room for that paragraph. This article can only end up being a brief paragraph and an arbitrary list of names & films. Already, the reference section is bigger than the article itself. Wildhartlivie 11:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I should have been more clear. A "term of art" is not a synonym for an "art term". "Term of art" is more the specialized language used by someone in any trade, not just the arts. I don't even think this one is that specialized, I think most people would figure it out as self evident, but it still deserves a article. There are 1,151 uses of the term in Wikipedia, which I am wikifying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In all fairness to Norton, this article has only been up since yesterday, October 27. Wildhart nominated this 10 hours later. Wild! Mandsford 15:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a familiar term, but it means only that a person has been a director. All directors have had a debut. I agree with Wildhartlivie -- rather than a term of art in film, it seems more like a catchphrase that writers use when describing a career. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if the intent is to write encyclopedically about the subject. The article is about the phenomenon, not the term. It's a notable distinct phenomenon that people write about, analyze, etc. People do talk a lot about the general issue of first time directors, beyond the context of a single director's biography. It's very useful. The article will be expanded in time no doubt. But caution that this makes much more sense as an article than a list. A list would be as long as the total number of directors who have directed more than one film. A few useful, especially notable, or illustrative examples are fine, though.Wikidemo 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable concept backed up with ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability. The clear intention is not to include every film director, but those notables who have made the transition to directing. Alansohn 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is notable. Chris! _ct 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I dedicate this article to Jon Stewart and the writers of the The Daily Show. They incorrectly said to Ben Affleck that he had directed other films. I suspect the bad information had come from Wikipedia, where it was stated the Gone, Baby, Gone was Affleck's third time directing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ellie Idol

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 08:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I will post a pornographic image of mine if this will be permitted. Delete per WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BIO. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as they all said. Looked for notability, couldn't find any. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 0 relevant returns on AVN, Xbiz, Porn Valley Dispatch and Gnews. No awards. Not even a particularly high ghit total, and nothing there looked useful. She's cute, but very much lacking in notability. Horrorshowj 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. This article doesn't present a good case of why it should be included in Wikipedia. Also, I think the article itself is borderline advertisement due to the links to one of her videos. Icestorm815 19:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability AndrewRT(Talk) 23:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't pass porn-bio requirements. SkierRMH 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough in the porn world. BTW I deleted the link advertising one of her website shoots as I believe such links violate Wikipedia policy. 23skidoo 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I'm a fan. Wanted to know more about her, so I came to Wikipedia. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The "delete" comments seem to all repeat that she's not notable enough to deserve an entry. I'm the fan - isn't that for me to say? Bootstrap 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.183.208 (talk)

We have guidelines for that. See reason above. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tabercil. TGreenburgPR 05:58, 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 Speedily deleted as copyright violation. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possessionless

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

Mere lyrics which are highly copyrighted and no info other than that. βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless. Punkmorten 08:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-nocontext. JuJube 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just the lyrics of a nonnotable song. Mindraker 10:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Tiddly-Tom 11:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a blatant copyvio. MER-C 11:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per MER-C, and Mindraker, plus there is no point to it. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 13:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as a notable actress per WP:HEY. Bearian 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jodi Thelen

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

This article does not assert the importance of the subject and independent sources were not located. The subject appears non notable. prod contested i did not prod the areticle someone else did i am doing this for a friendOo7565 06:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. Simply holding a job, even a job like "actor", does not automatically make one notable. Her filmography seems a list of mostly bit parts. I can't see anything I would even call a supporting role in here. A google search turns up nothing more than a bunch of plain lists of her works, with not even a full sentance of a biography anywhere, nor a single review of any of her performances. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This almost empty article shows no evidence of notability. --Stormbay 16:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Checked on Google and in the article. No real biographic data available and references for her performance not yet available. Neozoon 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above - violates WP:BLP, WP:RS, etc. Bearian'sBooties 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others above. Doctorfluffy 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep Her IMDB score is in the 30,000s, which shows that she is somewhat notable. When she did an episode of Dawson's Creek, her score was even in the 10,000s. But, in order for this to be kept, I think it needs to be rewritten, expanded, and cite more sources. TGreenburgPR 06:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::Don't DeleteShe was the star of Arthur Penn's Four Friends, as well as of The Black Stallion Returns, both fairly notable films of the 1980s. She got a great deal of notice for the former film. I agree that the article needs beefing up with reliable data, but even though her career has diminished, she seems fairly notable for those early works. I'd be willing to do some work on the article. Monkeyzpop 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There does not appear to be reliable independent sources to provide the beefing up that this article requires. --Stormbay 01:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Her first movie, Four Friends, was also called Georgia or Georgia's Friends in some countries, and she played Georgia; co-star Craig Wasson was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role. In her second movie, Twilight Time, she gets second billing after Karl Malden. She appears to have peaked early in her career, instead of starting off with bit parts, so some of the commenters above may have been looking for her "major" parts in the wrong place in her filmography. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notable parts require reliable sources that discuss such parts in a non-trivial manner. Regardless of how many lines she has in a movie or how many minutes she is on screen, if NO ONE in reliable sources has ever commented on her work, she is non-notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I've found comment on one of her roles. Her role as Sandy in the play "A Body of Water" is reviewed by the New York Times[22] and Variety[23]. I've also found that her role on Starting Now, a failed TV series vehicle for Ricki Lake, was as one of Ricki's roommates. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The 2 references above mention the subject as part of a plot outline which does show that she was in the production. Neither speaks to the performance except in passing. --Stormbay 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will second that. These are both trivial mentions of the actress. They only note that she played the parts, but contain no review of her performance. The articles review the play itself, and no attention is given to the performances of the actress in question. All these sources do is confirm that she holds the job of actress, and again, simply having a job does not make one notable. Keep looking for sources though, if we can find SOME this may become keepable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[Monkeyzpop has beat me to the punch, but...] First off, she wasn't just "in" the production, she was the lead-billed actress. Second, I disagree with your interpretations of the reviews. Reviews typically contain plot descriptions, and these go no further in being "plot outlines" than normal. But it's not true that they "contain no review of her performance." Variety says, "Kava has drawn two wonderful performances out of her leading women... Thelen makes a stunning transformation from Sandy to Malka..." The other review has less to say about the performances, but does briefly single Thelen out. Also, these reviews give detailed descriptions of her characters, particularly Sandy, which may be determined largely by the playwright and director, but also reflects what the actress brings to the role. In any event, it can be misleading to measure notability by how much a reviewer says about a particular actor's performance. The reviewer may be entranced by something besides the acting (the writing, the directing, the costuming, the cinematography, the editing, etc.), or may form a general opinion of the cast, and only feel it necessary to single out those who stand out as particularly better or worse. For instance, Time's review of Four Friends[24] has only one sentence about the cast's performance, and the two who are specifically mentioned are not the ones with the largest parts, but the two he thought were better than the rest. Also, as I'm going through Google News Archive (on which she has 200 hits[25]), I'm finding more plays. She played Nora (a supporting character but not a bit part) in the original Broadway production of Brighton Beach Memoirs, for instance. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, look down... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: Examples of press which suggest WP-level notability: Syracuse Herald Journal, 2-12-82 (Review of Four Friends): "The showcase role of Georgia provides Jodi Thelen with a stunning screen debut as she runs the gamut of emotions. She is the constant thread that holds the four together...." Variety, 2-19-94 (Review of A Body of Water): "Thelen makes a stunning transformation from [the role of] Sandy to Malka, both willful women but in every other aspect--including looks--totally different." TV Guide (Review of Four Friends): "Outstanding performances from the underrated [Craig] Wasson, Thelen, and [Miklos] Simon." Newhouse News Service (in Syracuse Post-Standard), 2-12-84 (Richard Freedman review of Four Friends): "Director Arthur Penn has led his largely unknown cast to heights of acting eloquence that many old pros might envy.... Jodi Thelen is so believable as the archetypal prima donna date of the '50s who never quite grows up, that she runs the risk of being almost as tiresome as Georgia herself." Variety, 7-5-2000 (Review of The Square): "The women outshine the men...and Thelen [provides] a special comic flair." New York Times, 2-12-94 (Ben Brantley review of A Body of Water): "Ms. Thelen, as the rabbi's wife, provides a performance of welcome comic bite." New York Times, 8-2-85 (Mel Gussow review of Springtime for Henry): "As the secretary, Jodi Thelen widens her eyes (and never blinks) and affects a little girl lisp. The style, of course, has been patented by Carol Channing, but Miss Thelen manages to add a twist or two." These are samples of more substantial coverage of the actress's career and work, certainly not the trivial mentions commented on above. A worthwhile, if not outstanding, subject for WP, I believe. Monkeyzpop 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Sources have been provided, so I have struck through my prior vote. Many of these appear to be print sources, but there is NO preference given to print OR to online sources, and these are ALL to reliable sources. Well done, Monkeyzpop. Please add these sources to the article. I would recommend added a section to the article named "Critical reception" and providing these reviews, with appropriate inline citations to the various references you have provided. However, those are indeed multiple and non-trivial references, and all are reliable sources. I have been convinced, this actress is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Gnome Economics 20:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MathWorld

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

This article appears to exist simply as part of a comprehensive Wikipedia based commercial promotion by Wolfram Research intended to raise the profile of it's Mathematica and LiveGraphics3d products, including Wolfram Demonstrations Project and ScienceWorld (both speedied). However, as the CSD template has been removed, I'm AFDing instead (removal of CSD template suggests PROD would be contested). The information in the article could be summarised in either Wolfram Research or Mathematica if it needs to be kept. The website is in any event listed in the external links of the Wolfram Research article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article itself contains history and context for MathWorld demonstrating how it has been distinct from both Mathematica and Wolfram. In short the entry itself is notable. This can be shown by the, just under, five thousand returns on a direct (naive) Google Scholar search. However I do believe that the article could be much better referenced.
  The source, Mathworld, is also very extensively refernced by articles on Wikipedia. Over 999 results are returned when the "what links here" section above is examined. This additionally argues in favour of maintaining a specific entry. Asperal 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Absurd proposal. Article has little or nothing to do with other products and its notability is evident. Colonel Warden 11:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Maybe sprinkle a few more sources, but it's OK the way it is. Am I missing something? Funded by the NSF? Seems notable to me. Mindraker 13:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although needs better sourcing. MathWorld is definitely something with separate notability rather than just a product of Wolfram. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 'Tis harmless enough and presents a good first-hand source for information. If a strong argument is shown that this is not the case and the article merely advertises, I will reverse my position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnye (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Although I think it would be possible to argue for keeping purely on notability and sourcability grounds, I'm going to argue based on a different point of encyclopedic value. As an encyclopedic dictionary of mathematics, MathWorld makes a very useful source or target of external links for our parallel articles here, and as Asperal notes, there are around 1000 links to mathworld, many or most of them added via the {{mathworld}} template by editors such as myself who have no connection to Wolfram or Mathematica. As such, having an article on MathWorld helps our readers to find out what kind of site those 1000 links are pointing to and decide whether the information from it is trustworthy. —David Eppstein 07:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. To strengthen this argument, MathWorld is explicitly mentioned at WikiProject Numbers as a "respectable Web source" and the guideline for notability of numbers includes the existence of MathWorld articles as one criterion for judging notability. —David Eppstein 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable subject, NPOV article, range of different editors, and I can see no evidence of "commercial promotion" in this article. Gandalf61 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is one of several whose principle purpose seems to be to direct people towards Wolfram Research websites, and those are highly commercial, the website concerned appears to exist primarily to showcase Wolfram Research products Mathematica and LiveGraphics3d. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable site, famous among math interested people on the Internet. Nominated twice for Webby Awards in science [26][27] (didn't win among 5 nominees). Huge math resource often referenced inside and outside Wikipedia. Note: I'm a small volunteer contributor to MathWorld.[28] PrimeHunter 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep obviously. This proposal for deletion is assinine. Did the nominator not notice that:
  • Nearly 1500 Wikipedia pages link to this article?
  • MathWorld rivals Wikipedia as the main source of information on mathematics on the web (or did until very recently, and was the main source of information on mathematics on the web for years before Wikipedia expanded to the point of competing.
  • The article was created before Wikipedia was considered notable enough to be worth using as an advertising venue.
  • MathWorld is highly respected among mathematicians.

The nominator actually nominated this for "speedy deletion" (i.e. with no discussion) before someone objected to that. "Speedy deletion" is supposed to be used only for things that are obviously not disputable. Michael Hardy 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball Keep. per all the above. Jheald 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Wait, is this to delete MathWorld, or just the WP article? Oh. Too bad. Keep, then. --Trovatore 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Michael Hardy. As well, the nominator should be tutored with a trout. --KSmrq^T 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep JRSpriggs 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious keep: Look, I don't even like Wolfram, but MathWorld is an excellent resource and apparently a very popular Wikipedia article. It's one of the most notable math websites anywhere, possibly the single most notable. Michael Hardy has justified this better than I have, but this one's blindingly clear so I won't attempt to explain myself better. I don't want to speculate as to the motivations of the nominator, but this is pretty hard to believe. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep subject of article is notable.--Jersey Devil 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Slightly OT comment I want to get this in before the article is speedy kept. Yes, notwithstanding my snarky comment above, MathWorld is a valuble resource. However some of it has an idiosyncratic, slapdash quality that I would not be pleased to see at Wikipedia, and I don't want the outpouring of astonishment at this ill-conceived nomination to make contributors think they ought to just uncritically parrot anything that shows up at MathWorld. Cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radical_integer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regular_number , among others. One gets the impression that some of the articles are stuff that Weissstein made up in school one day. --Trovatore 19:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that MathWorld is sometimes idiosyncratic and shouldn't be blindly copied. I'd have thought those two points were too obvious to need to be mentioned. Michael Hardy 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep clear consensus. --Salix alba (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep--Filll 19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, I forgot to mention: There are probably thousands of external links to MathWorld in Wikipedia articles. Those were obviously not put there by people trying to advertise Wolfram. They were put there by many people like me. I've done lots of them; so has almost everybody else. Michael Hardy 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Someone please close this nomination; everything has been said. --Trovatore 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and salt the earth as repost and contribution by banned user. MaxSem 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David jason Silver

David jason Silver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment, so we'll go this direction. This is an article for a gentleman who has apparently had a few movie and TV roles, but none of them being substantial - things like "mafia boss" and "hardware store customer," for example. A Google search turns up under 200 hits, and nothing that really resembles a reliable source that I could see to provide notability to the claims made in the article. Perhaps the main point that is presented is participation in a new reality show; however, there doesn't seem to be a lot of press about the reality show at this point, and having this detailed an article for a contestant in an upcoming show is a bit iffy, I would suggest. It should also be noted that this name has appeared in the past, resulting in some blocks. Delete as failing WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that an article has been deleted four times at David Jason Silver as well. And five times at David J. Silver. Oy. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article, unless this or its siblings has never been through AFD before, then let it stand here so we can get one AFD under our belts. However, I see nothing to indicate real notability. Holding a job, even one like "actor", does not make one automatically notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No claim to notability. Being barely over an extra in <10 movies isn't worth much. Created by SPA account that's apparently related to articles subject. Also recreation of deleted material. Should probably be salted. Horrorshowj 06:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, SALT, and bring to an administrator's attention. I believe this gentleman has a long history with Wikipedia, summarized at this location. This article may have been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, or a user whose block has expired. I'll do what I can to bring this to an admin's attention who has dealt with him before. Accounting4Taste 14:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've left a note at this location and I'll bring this AfD to the attention of an administrator who knows the history, who I expect will know what is best to do. Accounting4Taste 15:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt. Does not meet WP:BIO, and is a recreation of a deleted article without going through a DRV. Since someone keeps relentlessly recreating the article under a variety of names (as noted above by Tony Fox), it may be necessary to salt all the names involved. In answer to the question, whether there had ever been a full-length AfD, there is one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jason Silver. (Note that all initials are in upper case, the present one has lower case 'jason'). But since the last AfD was over a year ago, no harm in letting this one run. The creator of the article in the last AfD, Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), was indefinitely blocked in October 2006. The complete lack of respect for WP policy shown at User talk:Harvardlaw suggests that a ban rather than a mere block might be considered. Checkuser probably wouldn't do any good because of the lapse of time. EdJohnston 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - In fact, this is a speedy delete as a receration of previsously deleted material. There's no doubt that this was created by a sock of Harvardlaw, who pops up every month or two to document his own glory and fame. He's already been blocked indefinitely under many names, but that doesn't stop him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew R Hutchison

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

Originally tagged for speedy deletion, this article does not make any claims as to the notability of the subject, and a Google search turns up nothing, either. In addition, the article is completely unreferenced, which means the vague and limited content is unverifiable. jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless sources can be added. Tiddly-Tom 11:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO artists' criteria; claims to national and international showing not sustainable. SkierRMH 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SkierRMH. Freshacconci | Talk 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above - violates WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Nothing I can add which hasn't already been stated. Doctorfluffy 08:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TGreenburgPR 05:39, 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 Nomination withdrawn; KEEP. Tomj 00:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelsen Middle School

Nelsen Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Prod was removed without addressing the major concern. There is no assertion or evidence of notability as provided by this article. notability guidelines give clear standards of notability as having multiple, non-trivial referencs in reliable sources. The main editor, in the edit summary where the prod was removed, claims that the highly trivial mention of this school in a guide that lists all local area schools somehow qualifies this school as notable. I contend that a single mention in this directory-like guide is not enough to establish notability as required by the WP:N guideline, namely that the source is not extensive enough, nor does it appear that multiple independant sources exist. Also, in the same edit summary, the main editor contends that other similar middle school articles exist, and thus this one should too. That has two problems, as outlined in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a bad arguement. First of all, the fact that a NOTABLE middle school may have an article does not mean that this apparently NON-NOTABLE one deserves one too. Secondly, the existance of another deletable article on Wikipedia does not excuse this one of its shortcomings. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - AfDing an article 25 minutes after creation? That really helps the project by allowing time for the page to find editors and get developed :-( TerriersFan 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following links to newspaper articles which note this school:

• Seattle Times March 20, 1996 : Nelsen students win math awards
• Seattle Times January 08, 1996: Gates Grant Will Put Renton Students Online --Bachcell 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV . DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - award winning school with the multiple references to easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan 20:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination Struck through above. In the state the article is in today, there is enough reliable sources to easily pass WP:N. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Comilla Old Cadets

Association of Comilla Old Cadets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn Organization. Written like an advertisement. No independent reference. Arman ^(Talk) 05:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable group, probably speediable as an A7. Theres lots of text in the article, but in all of it I can find not one single assertion of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete It should've speedied by A7--NAHID 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no independent references, no notability mentioned in article, reads like advert. SkierRMH 01:06, 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 no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Neil ☎ 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Jaygbay, Jr.

Jacob Jaygbay, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

speedy declined. Looking for Notability - not demonstrated yet. Toddstreat1 05:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I agree with you that notability has not yet been demonstrated in the article, but a Google search turns up a surprising number of sources indicating notability. While I understand that articles in AfD need to be judged based on their current quality, I'd prefer to see this article expanded beyond its current status rather than scrapped completely. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Once notability is established, the issue becomes a clean-up issue and not a deletion issue. The google search seems to indicate that he passes the basic notability tests for academics and professors, so I am inclined to vote keep on this one. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. With WP:CSB well in mind, I still feel an obligation to judge an academic by their output, and he has about two citations in Google Scholar both from the 1990s, neither with great citation although one has been republished a couple of times (Self-censorship in African scholarship and scholarly publishing). --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Since when have we determined that Google Scholar is the GO TO CITATION INDEX for any meaningful scholarship? How about reviewing the literature of a sample of the work in African scholarly publishing to begin your review. Some of 'my' work, for example, are being used as reading material for graduate coursework in Scientific Communications at the British Columbia University in Canada. Several dissertations have been based on the body of work that I have contributed. This is less about me, than it is about scholarship and access, and importantly the process of legitimizing 'Third World' scholarship. There are many more references and I will be the first to admit that a better job should have been done with the nomination.

--Jaygbay|Talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, Im leaning towards delete for the same reason as Dhartung. I have added some details to the article, but I cant find a single library that holds the periodical OCLC 40930368, nor can I find what else his publishing company has output. This says he is the Senior Assistant Editor with the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) but the councils site doesnt say that[29]. John Vandenberg 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep He is an important worker in an extremely small field. [30] There is very little work on the general topic of scholarly publishing in Africa, and he seems to be the leading figure. The amount of work would not really be enough for notability in most other subjects. DGG (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be good to have more Wikipedia coverage of scholarly activities in Africa. However, the fact that the series Jaygbay publishes is not found in any libraries known to Worldcat suggests that his influence is limited. A Google search can't even figure out for sure where he is currently located; my best guess is in Virginia, in a non-academic position. It will be difficult to expand this article, given the limitations of the sources. The African institution that John V. mentioned above, CODESRIA, may deserve an article. EdJohnston 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Ed Johnston's argument that the publications are not in libraries is bogus: Journal of Scholalrly Publishing by Univereity of Toronto, or LOGOS one of the major journals in the book world are widely distributed not only in the West but all across the world. Let's refrain from baseless valuations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.82.2 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I am stung by your use of the word bogus, which suggests that you didn't read carefully. My comment was about the series that Jaygbay publishes for which my statement is correct. Please see John Vandenberg's comment above about the Review of African Periodical Articles, which he notes that Worldcat does not show in any library catalogs in their system (click on the link to see the Worldcat search). If you are Jacob Jaygbay, please identify yourself so we can have a more focused conversation. Note that anonymous editors may not necessarily be as influential in AfD discussions as people who identify themselves in some way. Even anonymous editors ought to sign their comments using ~~~~ before pressing 'Save page'. EdJohnston 18:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, if you are Jaygbay, we will be more than willing to investigate any information you can provide, whether it be about yourself, organisations in your topical area, or journals you are involved in. I was only able to find Review of African Periodical Articles, but I couldnt verify when it started and if it is still being published. More information is required. If you have been a part of the establishment or running of other journals, that may not be indexed or that I and others have missed, we will be happy to take that on board in this evaluation process. Please do not feel like this discussion is an evaluation of the person Jaygbay -- it is an evaluation on how accurately we can write a biographical sketch of Jaygbay. So far, we havent been able to find a lot of facts that we can verify, but there are 100s of articles that are rushed through this deletion process per day and so often articles are deleted when perhaps an article should have existed if we had taken more time to research the subject. John Vandenberg 18:26, 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. east.718 at 22:27, 11/3/2007

[edit] Camp Cobbossee

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

Summer camp lacking notability Pilotbob 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no claim to notability whatsoever. I think that's speedable per A7--victor falk 06:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no G-news-hits probably A7 worthy. SkierRMH 01:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teemu Lehtinen

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

Non notable person Pilotbob 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a google search turns up very little in the way of sources that would support notability. If sources could be found, I would vote keep. I can't find anything but a few cursory one-off mentions here or there. There may be some Finnish language sources, but as I don't read Finnish, I cannot comment on anything found there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable per WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starhaven

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

Fancruft not notable outside of the DC Comics universe, cannot be cited per WP:RS Pilotbob 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question - What exactly is meant by "cannot be cited per WP:RS"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article has neither primary or secondary sources that are reliable WP:RS. Fansites are the only ghits; I am no comic expert, but I do not think this fictional planet has any fictional notability as would be evidenced by secondary sources.--Gavin Collins 08:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional Keep - it would be more accurate to say article isn't yet supported by reliable secondary sources, unless one knows absolutely that it isn't referenced anywhere, which I doubt. However, I can and do think that if it does not produce such sources shortly, the content should be merged to the Dawnstar article. Propose that the article be kept for a period, and that it be renominated in three months if sources are not placed in the interim. John Carter 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I propose it be deleted until sources are found. SolidPlaid 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Cell

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

non notable gamecruft Pilotbob 04:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Power cell probably needs to be a disambiguation anyway, I was absolutely stunned to find that it wasn't already, seeing as I can't count the number of sci-fi, game-universe and real world objects that are referred to by the term. Wintermut3 11:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Move the info into Jak and Daxter. Delete original article. Mdmkolbe 17:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Power cell with note there to Jak and Daxter. Relative material merged into J&D article. SkierRMH 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as has no primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 10:20, 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. east.718 at 22:26, 11/3/2007

[edit] Madame Sapphire

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

Extremely minor character that appeared in only issue of a limited series comic book Konczewski 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Character not worth her own article. Wryspy 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Doctorfluffy 01:26, 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. In addition to the consensus to delete arising from this discussion, a substantial part of the article is a word-or-word copy of part of "Visions of a Native science: Appreciation of Gregory Cajete" [31]. So it will be deleted as a copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Native science

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

Completion of incomplete AfD begun by User:99.231.89.235. Procedural... Personal opinion follows SkierRMH 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article's core is on "philosophy", very little substance relative to article title; list of articles not incorporated into article. SkierRMH 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I concur, the article comes across as gibberish. BTW thanks for finishing the process, I couldn't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.89.235 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like POV and original research. If it's going to be kept, it needs much better references to support the dubious claims made in the article. Terraxos 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It looks like it may be a notable topic (see [32], [33]). The article can be rewritten. --Alksub 00:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elara Distler

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

Not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL 03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet Entertainer notability criteria; voice in 4 video games. SkierRMH 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Mac OS X. Since it's been edited so heavily by anons and the AFD tag was removed twice by the same anon, it may need semi-protection for a while. I'll keep it on my watchlist to see if text is readded. - KrakatoaKatie 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X 10.6

Mac OS X 10.6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unannounced future product. WP:CRYSTAL. Prod removed without discussion. Dethme0w 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 02:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:CRYSTAL is not a criterion for speedy deletion. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mac OS X. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 15:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I think Mac OS X 10.5 just came out. It's much too early for this article to be around. Let's wait for some official statements about 10.6 first. --Kyoko 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirecting to Mac OS X sounds good too. I remember reading somewhere (maybe MacWorld magazine?) that Apple had an anticipated 12 to 18 month interval between OS releases, and maybe that info could be put in the main Mac OS X article, but I don't want to put that it without a firm citation. --Kyoko 03:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as crystalballery, or just redirect os OS X i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:V, and (for good measure) WP:NOR --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - this is extremely premature. The article is totally speculative, and likely to remain so for a long time - 10.5 was quite literally released in the last 24-48 hours, so any solid information on the next version is at least six months away. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mac OS X until it comes out & gets notable enough to warrant its own article. SkierRMH 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to Mac OS X 132.205.99.122 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect unless there is any proof - Apple never said there is going to be a 10.6. It is interesting, maybe since so many people are interested in it and many rumors have formed, there could be an article about the rumors? But it is probably just best if it redirects, at least until there is any real info on it. I really would like to have the article, but it's just not encyclopedia worthy right now. (And whoever made it, it should have been titled Mac OS X v10.6, not Mac OS X 10.6.) Althepal 18:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaya Prasad Singh

Gaya Prasad Singh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recreated after being deleted under {prod} tag. This person does not appear to meet the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. As a side note, I think we should extend G4 to include prods. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete need WP:RS indicating WP:N. JJL 03:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Being "involved in a bomb-throwing incident" makes you a "freedom fighter", huh? Methinks that's stretching the definition more than just a bit. But anyway, no reliable sources, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - may be notable to that locality (but given the length of the 'freedom fighter' list that is questionable); agreeing with Andrew Lenahan. SkierRMH 00:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theneworiginals001

Theneworiginals001 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as non-notable web content. Appears to be advertising and fails WP:WEB. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page as it was previously prodded[34]:

David Hurley-Hart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all crap Yourname 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable web content. Borderline speedy. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. If it's not even very popular on YouTube, it can't possibly have enough notability for Wikipedia. No sources/references. Accounting4Taste 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no claim of notability (indeed, they even go out of their way to point out non-notability: the article states "view count on Youtube is very low"). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• whats the point in deleting it, its not bothering anyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.147.22 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It doesn't do any harm. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no claim of notability on either article. SkierRMH 00:27, 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 - advertising, fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Faith Residential Reentry Center

City of Faith Residential Reentry Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an advertisement, uncertain notability Gwen Gale 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising. CitiCat ^♫ 04:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I'm a little unclear how an article on a halfway house qualifies as an advertisement (although I suppose there could be some seriously Wiki-savvy prisoners out there), but I believe a federally-subsidized outreach organization operating in several states throughout the south qualifies under WP:N, although there may be some problems under WP:V given the lack of detail about how exactly the organization operates. A little Googling turned up a handful of stories, but they're little more than passing references ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]). Rather than delete, I would suggest that this article be pared back to include only verifiable information. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of those fleeting references are in online court or bureaucratic docs, two are in local newspaper articles about other topics. I don't see any evidence at all of encyclopedic content. There are lots of these halfway houses in North America and Europe. Government subsidization doesn't confer any notability at all, governments print checks for all kinds of nn stuff. Either way, this article as written is an advertisement (for government grants and contracts, an attempt to build notability through Wikipedia) and the verifiable information would be no more than a stub. Gwen Gale 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's a halfway house... or rather, a few halfway houses. Unless there's some substantial notability that isn't in the article, I don't see how this could be brought up to standard. And the current text is far too advert-like for an encyclopedia anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above Carter | Talk to me 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as both G11 and A7, now that I've looked into this even more. Gwen Gale 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the links provided (and most ghits) don't prove notability. SkierRMH 00:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marijuana etiquette

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

It's not notable, it's unsourced and looks like it's made up by the author (to me, at least). At best, this should be merged into the article Marijuana. FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Complete orignal research; as such, don't merge. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. JJL 03:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although a merge to the unsourced article cannabis smoking would be possible as well. --Dhartung | Talk 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pure original research, this is some bad shit, man. The customs of sharing marijuana have been written up in various non-fiction and fiction works, and a word or two of that could be merged into the marijuana article. Mandsford 15:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but merging to cannabis smoking is a possibility. Whether or not it's notable is one factor, but the other one is that what's written here isn't about etiquette. It's just plain terminology. Wildhartlivie 18:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• It should not be merged, as it's unsourced original research. i ^(talk) 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OR - anything unsourced shouldn't be merged. SkierRMH 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• LOL CME94 02:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck This Shit!

Fuck This Shit! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball — unreleased album. — ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as vandalism. Already tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL; unreleased album. No comment about the vulgarity. Mindraker 01:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Or redirect to Joseph Utsler. The name follows a theme of 'fuck' in his previous albums, so it might be a real album. But as of yet, it's unverified and non-notable. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL 03:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vandalism. Wryspy 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as vandalism. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 13:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this shit! per nom Will ^(talk) 15:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Spunky, Yet Fresh Delete No references on Google or the like, falls under WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Carson 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this ...' per unverifiable Crystal ball. SkierRMH 00:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Do what the title of it says, fuck this shit make it go away!!!! Yourname 02:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above Carter | Talk to me 05:37, 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. KrakatoaKatie 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elegant Angel

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

Non-notable corporation. No coverage in reliable sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Valrith 01:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 01:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could stand some expansion, but it's a notable company that has produced films that have won a lot of awards. http://www.avnawards.com/index.php?content=pastwinners Just the 2007 page lists 4 awards, 2006 3 awards, and so forth. Here are 3 wins at the 2003 XRCO awards: http://www.bwdl.net/XRCO-2/2003win/index.html ... and that list was in the article, actually: http://www.elegantangel.com/awards.html It does get coverage in the trade papers, and while most of these are just coverage of their latest release, "Elegant Angel Turns it Around" is coverage of the company itself. It even gets mentioned in the New York Times. [40] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per awards and coverage. Epbr123 17:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standley Middle School

Standley Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable school article, which has had plenty of time to expand, but didn't. Rjd0060 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article has been around for more than a year, but still has nothing notable. Recent edits are unencyclopedic and have done nothing to improve the article. Arthur 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)
• Weak Keep I'll give schools a chance, no matter how hole-in-the-wall they are. But the article does need to be improved. Mindraker 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (should be Speedy Delete, but admins never have the cajones to speedy delete school articles). No assertion of notability or why this school deserves an article. TJ Spyke 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Appears to be non-notable school. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article's only reference pertains to the school's census report, which can be found on its own homepage. So, this is not an article fit for Wikipedia by any means, unless I can see some outside references that establish notability.--WaltCip 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Potential claim to notability: there was a fire that forced the evacuation of the art room [41]--victor falk 07:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete generally, many high schools are notable, but few middle schools are. Besides, this is a particularly awful article and would need a complete rewite to stay. Example quote: "If you cannot find uniforms you could always go to Mills our uniform provider [followed by a URL]" Somebody out there really thinks this is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to contain?! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability for middle school; doesn't appear to be to be much under Ghits that would support notability. SkierRMH 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ρх₥α 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Lake (Greyhawk)

Diamond Lake (Greyhawk) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fictional town, no notability outside of D&D universe, cannot be cited from reliable sources outside fanbooks, pure cruft Pilotbob 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing showing that this is notable in real-world context. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Soleil above. Law & Disorder 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Town plays large role in the Age of Worms adventure path.--Robbstrd 06:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this town's role in Age of Worms establishes real world notability. Pilotbob 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This proposal is cruftcruft. Colonel Warden 11:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this vote addresses the notability and WP:RS issues surrounding this proposal. Pilotbob 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article asserts notability and provides an adequate source - the article in Dungeon. Your supposed reason to delete is just empty abuse. Colonel Warden 15:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that we disagree here. I don't feel that an article in a fanzine establishes notability. I also disagree that my reasoning is "empty abuse". I simply brought this matter up for discussion. Pilotbob —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would an article in a musiczine help establish notability for a band? Yes? Then why can an article in a roleplaying magazine not establish notability for a location in a roleplaying universe? Are you telling me that Dungeon is not a reliable source? Dungeon is to D20 roleplaying as Kerrang! is to British rock music. J Milburn 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Dungeon was a professional magazine, not a fanzine. The proposer keeps trying to demean the topic with loaded and derogatory language. He is entitled to his low opinion of the topic but I don't like it is not an adequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden 19:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that D&D is notable, but notability is not inherited. My argument has nothing to do with whether I like this D&D or not, but whether the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. A notable music magazine mentioning a band is totally different than a magazine designed for D&D players mentioning a fictional place within the D&D universe. Pilotbob 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dungeon is notable, having had a comparable circulation to Kerrang!, say. It didn't just mention this place, it had a feature article upon it. So, this is not totally different. Hyperbolic assertions are no reason to delete. Colonel Warden 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• A fictional place should be held to different standards than things that actually exist. Pilotbob 21:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia less notable than the Encyclopaedia Britannica because it is virtual rather than being printed on paper and bound in leather? Notability is in our minds rather than being a matter of physicality. Colonel Warden 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia regardless of whether it is electronic or paper bound. However, Diamond Lake is not a real place. Pilotbob 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• ...How come? It's not in the rules, and things like the character of Harry Potter or the cast of The Bold and the Beautiful are known literally to hundreds of millions. --Kizor 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Diamond Lake surely does not have the notability of Harry Potter. Pilotbob 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes? I'm just using it to demonstrate that fictional things can still be significant. To reiterate, why should fictional places be held to different standards? --Kizor 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Books produced by professional authors for a commercial market are not fanbooks. As WP:CRUFT2 says, cruft is not a valid or useful reason for deleting something. The stated grounds for the AfD are false or irrelevant.--Prosfilaes 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• question I would appreciate some discussion here of whether it is a notable place within that fictional world--the article does not give enough information for an outsider to tell.DGG (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  A good question, and depressingly surprising in its rarity. Thanks for asking it. --Kizor 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)