Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mubabinge Bilolo

This article appears to be a non-notable vanity article, possibly created/maintained by the article's subject. The article does not assert that:

1) the subject "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources."

2) the subject "is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field."

3) the subject's "collective body of work is significant and well-known."

4) the subject "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."

5) the subject "is the originator of an idea or concept that is significant and important within its area."

Further, none of the publications are of general interest or are well-known, and many appear to be published by or in conjunction with the very institution the subject works for, namely the "African Institute for Future Sciences – INADEP"

Few (none?) of the "sources" and external links are independent of the subject. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--Crusio 10:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Dougie WII 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also: fails WP:PROF as not being a full professor, and not having published any textbooks in the English language. This is en.wikipedia.org. Bearian'sBooties 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No indication this person passes WP:PROF. Doctorfluffy 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Currently fails WP:NOT. No prejudice against creating a more encyclopedic article, a la List of bus routes in Manhattan. Please contact me if you require the deleted content. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Port Authority of Allegheny County bus routes

A list of bus routes. This must fail multiple parts of WP:NOT. Another article of where I"m not sure how to even start listing the problems with it. Ridernyc 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete If anyone's catching a bus in PAAC Bus in Pittsburgh, you can do it without consulting Wikipedia. Try www.portauthority.org Mandsford 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Blame me. I set up this page The page was originally created to shorten up the old Port Authority page. Some had felt it needed to stay, so rather then delete it, I moved it to its own page. At the time, the Port Authority's web page wasn't as user friendly as it is today. Incidentally, it has been somewhat useful as of late as the Port Authority has dropped and rearranged several bus routes and is considering dropping more. Anyway, I don't think it fails WP:NOT so that's why it gets the "Weak Keep" vote, but I can definitely agree that the article could be improved to add more substance. ClarkBHM 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, there was a WikiProject out there working on other bus routes such as this one. See Wikipedia:WikiProject buses and Wikipedia:WikiProject buses/Bus route list guide. I acknowledge that the group appears to be inactive now, but in context, there were obviously several Wikipedians who did not think that listing bus routes violated WP:NOT. ClarkBHM 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why we don't want bus routes and the like. Imagine you make the page, then move on and never update it. Bus routes change but the information is still on here. It's the same reason we don't have TV lists listings. Ridernyc 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I see no reason for bus schedules to be on Wikipedia when they are available from their respective transportation authority websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougie WII (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it is nothing but a route guide. An external link from the Port Authority's web site would be more than sufficient to cover this material. -- Whpq 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup. Remove timetables and add description of the administration and history of the system. See List of bus routes in Manhattan for a good example. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Once again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is being interpreted as "no lists allowed" which is not true. Lists are explicitly allowed per WP:NOT and specifically WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Per Poloaron, we don't need the timetables and the article should focus more on the the administration and history. --Oakshade 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: the basic idea of a list-type article is to give a list of notable topics. Is a bus route notable? Surely not: this is the same as a radio station, for which WP:NOT says "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules...". Nyttend 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. RobJ1981 01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep if history is added. It doesn't necessarily need to be kept up to date when the point is to describe how they evolved from streetcar lines. --NE2 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and the augmentation above. SorryGuy 07:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The power of color

Contested prod. Article is unencyclopedic, unreferenced and original research —Salmar ^(talk) 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

The article is a page representing the well know idea of the power of color which books have been written on. Seeing no page on wikipeidea with it i felt obliged to write it i will continue to edit and it will continue to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonut82 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — Jonut82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. The nom has it right - no referencing, it's orig research, and on top of that, it doesn't give much context. I hate to sound disparaging, but it's also not really well written - it sort of rings of a lot of new age philosophy (which there can be more theories than adherents, in my observation), and seemingly borrows from other articles (which brings us back to OR again). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

delete not a title anyone will put in the search of wikip, plus all the content is already at colour therapy-the correct name for this. (or could be added to there).Merkinsmum 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

do not delete colour tharapy has some of the ideas but not all and if this guy is going to keep working on it and add new ideas then what is the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamty (talk • contribs) — Shamty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not DeleteThe author is presenting ideas on a subject that differs from color therapy in a way that deserves a completely separate article and i am sure it will not be this small in a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerr (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC) — Soccerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Delete A surprisingly colorless article that hints at covering a wide range of things... auras, effect of color on personality, your personal color, etc.... and has a web source entitled "Red may increase blood pressure" Mandsford 01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete nonsense, and created by Jonut82 (talk · contribs), who is a duplicate account of Jonut80 (talk · contribs) who has a long list of nonsense articles that were also deleted. JuJube 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
comment note the WP:SPAs. Some of this content could go in aura, and the 'scientific' claims are already in 'colour therapy'. Ths is mainly one person's Original Research/synthesis.Merkinsmum 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A puff-piece of New Age thought without sources or facts. humblefool ® 04:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete. why are you guys so enraged about this article its not like its stopping you from putting up articles and even thou there is very little information at this time dosent mean we should delete the information it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.241.206 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to think we're enraged, go ahead and think this. Trust me, though, we're not. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete As the nomination has it spot on. Also, is it just me that thinks the various 'Do Not Delete' comments are coming from the same single source?Alberon 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Dougie WII 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research -- Whpq 15:47, 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 Merge and redirect to Honorverse. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deneb Accords

This fictional version of the Geneva Accords is unsourced, non-notable. Prod tag was removed by 132.205.99.122 who claims "major plot element in the fictional body, should be merged somewhere" Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Merge. I am quite familiar with the series, and it is not a major element of it. Clarityfiend 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Honorverse: There's not only an obvious parent article with notability established, there's even a merge proposal already in place. —Quasirandom 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Quasi Mandsford 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge not notable plot element of the Honorverse where it should be put. And I'm a big Honor fan! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the Honorverse. Not enough material to stand on its own but also nothing suggesting it is not referencing actual content of the novels. Dimadick 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:03, 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 Merge and redirect to Honorverse. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherwell Convention

This fictional treaty is unsourced, non-notable. Prod tag was removed by 132.205.99.122 who claims "major plot element in the fictional body, should be merged somewhere". Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge not a major plot element of the Honorverse Ealdgyth | Talk 03:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the Honorverse. Not enough material to stand on its own but also nothing suggesting it is not referencing actual content of the novels. Dimadick 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT. Secondary sources to establish notability do not exist. Doctorfluffy 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Honorverse. "Cherwell Convention" is not notable of itself. Axl 10:17, 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 keep

[edit] N987SA

Was speedy-delete-tagged {{db-nocontext}}, but seems to be fairly substantial and noteworthy, if it is true. Anthony Appleyard 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep Who owned drug plane that crashed in Mexico McClatchy. Other sources: [1], [2], [3]--victor falk 00:18, 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. DS 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Williams (journalist)

Apparent hoax. See Mike Evans (journalist). Stifle (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by hoax do you mean she doesn't exist? I found this article on her. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- That article describes someone with the same name, but no other details match the article.--NrDg 15:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I don't know if this is a hoax. I do know that I am unable to find any reliable sources. A search for "Mary Williams" combined with CBS3 and then with KYW doesn't turn up any results that seem to match the journalist in question. A look at the current anchor lineup at the CBS3 bios does not list her as an anchor although she may have left the position between the time this article was posted (June 2007) and now. -- Whpq 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - even though it looks good, it's definitely a hoax. Too bad this user wastes his/her talent creating hoaxes. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Evans (journalist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Rhodes. Jauerback 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I wonder if this guy is a journalism student making fake pages about his professors? That's the only thing I can think of...some weird hoaxes...but...nothing verifiable. She's not on the website at the station where she supposedly anchors the major newscast. Smashville 20:08, 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 — Caknuck 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Coalition for the Survivors of Torture

Original author claims notability, but has not provided sources requested by editor who removed prod. 13 non-wiki ghits, none of which (including the French and Spanish) show notability. Fabrictramp 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, anyone searching on the internet will find their webpage, and little else. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google news search shows no evidence of notability, and no WP:RS provided in article. JJL 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

recommend not deleting VCST -

re: third party coverage. 1) Carleton University's Research resource division for Refugees has asked VCST to organize articles for every issue of INSCAN since about 2005. INSCAN is a bilingual publication from the Research Resource Division for Refugees, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6 - The VCST organizes the ResCanNet Bulletin section within INSCAN. This publication is not on the web but is available by purchasing a copy. Carleton University is listed by wikipedia. 2) The VCST is listed by Wiser Earth (WiserEarth is a social networking site for people and organizations with a social purpose - wiser earth can be found through a wikipedia search. http://www.wiserearth.org/organization/view/6d4538bccce35fbec3cc69c3f30092da

Please take a minute to read through WP:Notability, especially the section entitled "General notability guideline". Merely being listed in a directory does not meet the requirements of WP:Notability, nor does being hired to complete a project for a notable institution.--Fabrictramp 14:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - lacks reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 16:28, 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. PeaceNT 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gates of Winter

This is an article on a band that has not yet had an official release, and is not on a label. There are no valid sources given in the article. The article has had overtly promotional content repeatedly deleted by registered Wikipedia editors, only to be replaced by numbered IPs. Therefore: non-notable and spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable publicity page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not meet criteria set out in WP:BAND, and no reliable sources found in searching -- Whpq 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I also failed to turn up reliable sources through searching. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 06:13, 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; if you want a copy to work on a merge, request one. --Haemo 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langano Sector

This fictional galactic sector is known only for its geeks, or its geckoes, depending on which is the vandalism and which is the "true" version. Non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nn. Why are we doing this one at a time? Nominate all the sectors at once and get it over with. Clarityfiend 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I need to convince the deprodder that if he cares about these articles, he should consolidate them. I don't want to do a mass nomination for fear of a train wreck outcome. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:FICT. Less than 70 ghits from fansites and the like, nothing resembling a reliable secondary source. Doctorfluffy 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect All. Merge all the "Administrative divisions of the Galactic Empire" into a listing page just like are done with the Minor Foundation Planets. The articles are all short enough that a mass merge is reasonable. (Would it be against Wiki-etiquette for me to just go ahead and do that while the AfD is still up?) Mdmkolbe 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely "geckoes", since Asimov wouldn't have written about "geeks". And I deprodded it because it wasn't a hoax. Aside from that, doesn't much matter to me. DS 19:02, 3 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. PeaceNT 08:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Ulrich

NN as an unelected local politician, substitute local broadcaster Toddst1 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Might justify a page if she wins as she will then be an elected public figure, otherwise Delete. The page will need a bit of rewrite if it is kept.Alberon 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete' - does not meet WP:BIO unelected politician. -- Whpq 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete as things stand but without prejudice to recreation if she wins the election. At the moment there doesn't seem to be enough to distinguish her from any other candidate for office (of which there are a lot). The radio career doesn't seem significant enough (no coverage in RS's that I can see) to warrant inclusion on those grounds. — iridescent 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The bot scores this story 145 points, far more than other stories that are not being challenged. She easily qualifies whether she wins the general election or not.

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule Category:[^\]]*politic 50 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule conservative 10 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule democra(t|c) 10 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule democratic\sparty 10 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule election 10 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule politician 25 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule regulation 10 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule republican 10 points

Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule republican\sparty 10 points

Total 145 points

Now note this:Article Dave Begg matched rule alumn 10 points

Article Dave Begg matched rule universit 10 points

Article Dave Begg matched rule category:[^\]]*universit 20 points

Total 40 points

No one is suggesting removing Dave Begg, and he scored 105 points lower than Ulrich.

In addition, there are 42 references to Ulrich on Google, but some are repeats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF? — iridescent 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for sure. 42 Ghits neither proves or disproves the notability of a living person, but it probably leans against her notability. Bearian'sBooties 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot/PoliticsLog This is the bot that gives her 145 points.

There are 50 references to Ulrich on Yahoo search engine in the first 13 blocks. Billy Hathorn 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The bot scores an article to provide some automation in categorizing articles and evaluating whether it looks like a politics related article to be included in the list of new articles for WP:PLT. It doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I think Ulrich would be recognized by 300,000 to 500,000 people, or whatever is the average weekly audience of the Griffon radio program. Anyone who listens semi-regularly would know who she it.

Billy Hathorn 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete nominator is correct, unelected and thus with few if any ongoing sources. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even if she were to win the election, the election is for members on the State School Board, not the legislature. We have never considered state school boards as sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 21:17, 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. Eluchil404 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irene Moon

Fails WP:MUSIC/WP:NOTE. Prod was declined in July with advice to take this to AfD. Malcolmxl5 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. TGreenburgPR 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - Google News results show a couple of articles from Lexington Herald Leader behind pay walls. There may be other sources out there and would favour keeping with a tag for more references. -- Whpq 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is it Art? I don't think it's Science... My appologies to Irene and her PowerPoint, but this one BUGS me. Tiptopper 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Anthøny 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Light Riot

This band does not appear to meet WP:NMG in that it has insufficient releases and its CDs appear to be self-released and do not appear to be on a major label. The article is also written like an advert and full of peacock terms. Finally, there is a lack of third-party sources.

Also standing nominated are the band's CD releases:

The Dark Is Light Enough
Out of Sight EP
Atomism LP

Delete all as nominator. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

delete all - The article issues tag says it all. No external sources, failing WP:V; written in promotional tone. If edited to remove unsourced weasely or peacock terms, it would lose 90% of its content. However, the article does assert (without source) that the record is being distributed by (I guess) a subsidiary of Sony BMG, which in itself doesn't seem to suggest any particular notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. -RiverHockey 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
comment - has someone else also put out an album titled "The Dark Is Light Enough"? I keep thinking I've seen this chart at some campus station somewhere, but I must be wrong as I only look at the band names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. The band definitely seems to have a strong local following in the Twin Cities. I've found articles from CityPages[4] and Pulse of the Twin Cities[5], and there's more coverage in paywalled newspapers where they're considered a "high profile established act." They're #5 on the current Roots Music Report radio chart for Minnesota.[6] That's probably not enough by itself, but this radio promotion site[7] claims that Atomism and The Dark Is Light Enough got onto CMJ's Top 200 and Top Adds charts, and while the CMJ site doesn't carry those charts, in this CMJ issue[8] they are on the Add chart on p. 29. Lastly, I found them on a Calgary radio station chart,[9] at #40, not impressive by itself, but an indicator that their appeal is spreading beyond the Twin Cities. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - Regional press, charting at a couple non-local stations, and being on CMJ's top adds and Top 200 charts together don't establish notability - if they do, I want my own article too! Evidence of press beyond the regional or website level, which is not just associated with tour promo, plus some hint of lasting notability, all footnoted to reliable sources, ought to do it though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - It also seems these articles were all added by a single-purpose account. Some of her other adds were speedied as blatant advertising. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:32, 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamtaros

I believe that this is a joke article. I found no sources on Hamtaros on a google search. I wasn't sure enought to PROD or Speedy tag though. Martijn Hoekstra 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete speedily if possible (whatever the code is for complete nonsense (A7?)) Man It's So Loud In Here 22:49, 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 merge to Cuba or Cubans. Sandstein 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Cuban

This article doesn't seem to have any info that isn't also in the article on Cubans. Also it doesn't spend any time explaining what sets white cubans apart from others. Maybe it could be improved, but as it is it serves no purpose. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Cubans. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Cuba. I think this one is limited to the Cubans who are on the island, as opposed to those in Florida and elsewhere. Despite use of colorful flags, doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know... it's no secret that many Cubans are of Spanish descent. Maybe some of this, like the 65% Caucasian population figure, isn't already in the article about Cuba. Mandsford 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Cubans. Don't see any scope for useful improvement as stand-alone article. --AliceJMarkham 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Cuba or Cubans. NHRHS2010 talk 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Lawyers in Karachi

Delete, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - which this article basically purports to be. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nothing to suggest even intent to be notable. --Sesameball^Talk 22:36, 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. PeaceNT 08:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon

Delete unsourced bio for a preacher and academic, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF Carlossuarez46 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I should add that "Mufti Muneer Ahmed Akhoon" returns more hits on google, but still nothing of secondary reference. --Sesameball^Talk 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Almost certainly a joke/hoax given the amount of extra names mentioned, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and the 5 days on AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --Crusio 10:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom et al. as it gives no clear proof of notability per WP:BIO if a preacher, and specifically WP:PROF if an academic. Violates WP:BLP as having insufficient cites. Bearian'sBooties 19:44, 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 delete per CSD:G12. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swirlnet

This article is non-encyclopedic and it provides little or no encyclopedic content. It just seems to promote a product. UserDoe 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as copyvio of [10]. Samuel 21:53, 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. John254 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantinos Tsakiris

This article lacks the reliable sources that would show notability for this person. I did my own google search and didn't come up with better sources. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you google his name in Greek or English? Can you read Greek? Do you think every Greek has articles in English explaining who he is for Wiki? Well luckily this man does! http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=1119293 . Check the article now. Reaper7 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Google Hits =/= notability. Just because you don't know the topic and can't find references on Google does not mean it should be deleted. If this is deleted we should also delete any and all articles that are about owners of sports teams, Mark Cuban, Tribune Company, George Steinbrenner or heck this entire article List of professional sports team owners. No doubt the article needs cleanup and I've added the tag thusly. Hansonc 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The very strange and strong lone opinion to delete is ridiculous. To base deletion on a Google result, about a man whose name should be typed in Greek anyway is very hardcore and close minded. Actually he does have a forbes entry. He is famous and is important, and I am not surprised that someone has decided to put it up for deletion after a 2 second google search. Talk about out of one's depth. Unfortunately just another example political correctness destroying wiki. What is interesting is I retraced the actions of the wiki editor in question, it was very telling indeed. Google Constantinos Tsakiros and one gets 690 results, Google Κωνσταντίνος Τσακίρης and one gets 51,900.. Reaper7 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Sporatic media coverage does not equal notability. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondar sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sporadic media coverage" does "equal notability" if it's substantive. "See WP:N". --A. B. ^(talk) 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. We have a good deal more than "sporadic" media coverage. Googling in Greek shows he is quite regularly in the news there, including articles in leading newspapers that have covered his role in the football business, and with the forbes factsheet we have enough reliable biographical information to hold an article together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Significant individual with good media coverage. Dimadick 07:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question -- if he's a big guy in Greece, why's there no Greek Wikipedia article about him?--A. B. ^(talk) 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps because the Greek Wikipedia is only 1% the size of the English one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep -- 14 news items in last 30 days alone found by the Greek Google News. As "sporadic" goes, that's pretty intense. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per A. B. Also, please be civil with the nominator, none is infallible. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note that this would never have come to AfD, if the creator hadn't removed my {prod} without giving any feedback about why she removed it or how he was notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

well shoot first ask questions later i spose this is a case of. I think what is important is when a article appears about a foreign person, one not from that country or knowing little about it should do a little more research than a 2 second Google search in English before nominating for deletion in the future so we don't all waste our time - even in the very violent situation of a 'prod' being removed with no immediate explanation. Can we remove this deletion tag now? Reaper7 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. henrik•talk 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceWorld

Speedied once (wrongly) as G11, once as A7, restored both times by Michael Hardy, first because of the user who speedy tagged it and second because the first reason should hold for all deletions, if I read his post to my talk correctly (it's a bit muddled on that score, I feel). His championship of this site, laudable though it is, has yet to extend to including either independent references or a claim of notability. As far as I can tell, this site is a wiki with around a thousand articles. Not big, then. According to Michael Hardy, I NEED to take this to AfD. Happy to oblige, althogh I'd probably have simply merged it to the notable MathWorld (same site owner) if I didn't think he'd instantly revert. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This should either be kept or merged into MathWorld for now. In the latter case it should be redirected and tagged with the "R with possibilities" template in anticipation that it will again become a separate article after it further evolves. MathWorld has for years been acclaimed as a highly successful web site---the primary source of information on its topic on the web, unless it's now starting to be challenged by Wikipedia.

For now, ScienceWorld is notable mainly because it's the same people attempting to do for for science what was so conspicuously thoroughly done for mathematics. Admittedly that may be unclear in the article as it stands, but I think it is a genuine claim of notability, just as a new novel by an author who's won a Nobel Prize in literature may be notable even before its publication because of who its author is.

The proper way to deal with the "linkfarm" complaint would have been to delete the links other than the one to the main ScienceWorld page, rather than deleting the "External links" section altogether and then deleting the article.

The nominator, user:JzG, known as "Guy", wrote a comment that said "can you say 'linkfarm', children?", on his edit that entirely deleted the "External links" section. Then he deleted the article altogether. The question of whether this article ought to be deleted had been discussed on several talk pages including this article's own talk page. "Guy" did not answer those comments except by sarcastically calling "children" those who had opposed speedy deletion, before he deleted it again. "Speedy" is clearly inappropriate for cases in which people are already debating whether the article should be kept. Calling those he disagrees with "children" and then deleting the article without comment is abusive and falls far short of reasoned discussion. Michael Hardy 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable, was very useful internet encyclopedia in pre-Wikipedia days. Samohyl Jan 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. Just because MathWorld is notable does certainly not mean ScienceWorld is. If ScienceWorld takes off and there are multiple reliable sources establishing notability then it can be looked at again, but at present, there aren't any in the article and I can't find any from a G-search (although I must admit this is hard with such a generic name). The articles currently an A7 candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into MathWorld, only notable within that context. humblefool ® 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. As far as I can tell, nobody has put forward any sensible reason for deleting the ScienceWorld page here at Wikipedia. Weisstein's efforts have been long-standing and well noted in the math community. His non-math pages have been available for almost as long as his MathWorld pages. I was one of the early contributors to his MathWorld page, shortly after he had put it up... ugh, was that 1997? Hard to remember. I got a free t-shirt out of the deal. Anyhow, I've always appreciated Eric's efforts. I stopped contributing to his website when it went commercial. Wikipedia has a much larger role than Eric's pages, and citing Eric's efforts for what they are is the responsible thing to do. Rybu —Preceding comment was added at 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The sensible reason is that it's not notable. Whilst you seem concerned with Eric getting credit for his creations, this is not what wikipedia is here for and does not answer the concerns raised in the nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I explained, the non-math pages have been around essentially as long as the math pages. I've known about them for years and have had the odd occasion where I look things up, especially on his astronomy pages. So it seems to me like your not notable argument is dead in the water. Secondly, this vote may not be well advertised. You really ought to get the people that are most concerned with this page to address your vote. Such as the people that edit astronomy wiki pages. As is it looks like you're getting math people to vote on the removal of a non-math page, which seems not right. Rybu

And to address your point about Google, how long has the Scienceworld website been up? It looks like it's a pretty new "front" for Eric's pages on physics and astronomy. That, combined with the webpage having the same name as another popular webpage in BC would explain why it doesn't have much Google connectivity yet. Rybu —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll rephrase, how does it satisfy the notability guidlines for web pages? There is no current ascertation of notability in the article. Whether you've heard of them or not, or how long they've been around does not affect the notability of the subject. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say criterion (1) is satisfied. Go to the astronomy page, stars -> stellar types -> brown dwarf, for example. It states what a brown dwarf is and gives multiple examples and references. Rybu 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not notability, there needs to be numerous reliable sources written about ScienceWorld for it to satisfy criteria 1 - such as independant newspapers writing articles about ScienceWorld. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please!! It's not "criteria 1"; it's "criterion 1". "Criteria" is plural! Michael Hardy 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to Google, type in "weisstein world of astronomy", click SEARCH. You find a variety of links from the standard sources like ask.com and goodle, to high school astronomy pages, to math forums to spacetoday.org, various libraries, astronomer blogs, the Internet Guide to Engineering Mathematics and Computing, it's used as a reference for the "OneLook" on-line dictionary, a detailed description at the Charlottesville Astronomical Society webpage for use as a reference, it is referred to at the "Planetary Science" magazine... the list goes on and on. Rybu 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. No reason to delete outright, no reason to merge. Why don't we just do Yahoo! Answers → Yahoo!, Google Video → Google, etc? Obviously, argument by analogy extends only so far, but there's no precedent or reason to support an argument that a related or derivative website need necessarily be merged into its parent site. --Cheeser1 06:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to explain how this site is notable. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

God forbid I refute only one of the points in the AfD. I guess I'm not allowed to contribute to the AfD unless I provide enough evidence to settle the matter entirely? Let's just dredge up a few references off the top of my head (ie Google):

news article by library of the Boulder Labs (ie the NTIA / NIST)
Cited in a report on the LIGO etc. (ie physicists)
Coverage in the Washington Times: Mar 13, 2003. The world, atoms to Z particles, all cross-referenced. Joseph Szadkowski. Excerpt available here and verifiable here.

Need I go on? --Cheeser1 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you have good links of this kind, and they're not password-accessible-only, you should put them in the "external links" section of the article. That would be an assertion of notability. Michael Hardy 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

z:If they are article about the organisation, they are usable references in the reference section whether or not they require a password or payment. There is no prejudice against paid sources if they are the best ones. DGG (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Established well-known website, referenced by many many WP articles. (Just look at "What links here"). It's a good thing to have an article which explains the nature of the site that such citations are going to, just as we do for eg Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or 1911 Britannica. -- Jheald 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge. If this hasn't been been mentioned in numerous indepentend sources (which I doubt) it would at least be notable by association. This should probably also be mentioned in the artilce on MathWorld, so I'd merge it there for editorial reasons, but because of this reason outrightr deleting it would be silly. —Ruud 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable web-site and project, so do not delete. Distinct site from MathWorld so do not merge. Gandalf61 08:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Gandalf61. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as frequently referenced source. As for notability, we don't have a policy on that, but for those who think it important, see Cheeser1's remarks above, Internet Scout Project, vol. 3 (2004), #15, or the American Scientist Online. Spacepotato 23:13, 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jericho cast members

Poorly written list of minor characters. The show was canceled after one season. I don't think we need list with entries like "# Musashi Alexander - Roy Hinkley (1 episode) and Townsperson #2 (1 episodes)" not one single edit has been made to the page since the author created it on Aug 13th 2007. Ridernyc 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Note that the show was put back on the air. I don't know if that will sway votes one way or the other...but...just to correct that. Smashville 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself, picked back up for 8 episodes. Dont think it will affect anything I doubt townsperson #3 will be making a come back. I have also noticed that the format of this article is messed up, it's a project that was started and abandoned. The author of all these lists has since left wikipedia according there userpage. Ridernyc 22:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay...I think it should be deleted, but I'm not going to make an official vote because I can't think of a policy reason... Smashville 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; If this were a list of the (major) characters, it would be more conventional, but lists of cast members have no purpose. Masaruemoto 02:49, 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. CitiCat ^♫ 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cue cards used in Subterranean Homesick Blues Video

Cruft of an extremely trivial kind. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Subterranean Homesick Blues. Transwiki to Wikisource, I think, is another way to ~~vandal~~ handle this. It isn't notable by itself but it's part of something notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Dont Look Back, the film that featured the music video. Definitely a merge (either the one suggested by Dhartung or mine) before a delete please. Hult041956 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, exceedingly trivial. Doctorfluffy 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Although I understand both of the merger proposals, when I look at the respective articles I do not see how this information would improve the article at any real level. SorryGuy 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Don't see how merging would add value anywhere. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not worth keeping. Bad precedent. - Richfife 15:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of one-time characters and guest stars on Desperate Housewives

List of characters that appeared one time on Desperate housewives. I could list go into detail about how this violates WP:Plot and other policies and guideline but I think this clearly something that is in no way encyclopedic. I fell bad because a ton of work has been put into it, but it really should not be on wikipedia Ridernyc 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was going to give fans the benefit of the doubt before AfD'ing this list myself because most one-time character list AfDs end up in no consensus. But since this AfD is open now, I repeat what I've said in similar AfDs: These characters have almost no in-universe notability, and except for rare cases, have no real-world notability (which is all what Wikipedia cares about). This list likely cannot be expanded except for plot summaries (which would violate WP:PLOT), and as it is now, has WP:NOTABILITY, WP:TRIVIA and WP:DIRECTORY problems. There is no need to keep a list of important one-timers as they are already mentioned in their respective episode articles; "unimportant" characters shouldn't be listed anyway in a separate list. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete oer sgeureka. A article for characters who have appeared only ONCE? TJ Spyke 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR, for a start. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters on Ugly Betty. Even the title of this article seems to highlight its non-notability! •97198 talk 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per sgeureka's analysis. Doctorfluffy 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. -RiverHockey 13:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary, non-notable listcruft, and over-coverage of a fictional subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyLegsKC (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Chambers (actor)

Another hoax created by Rozrozroz (talk · contribs); this person doesn't seem to exist, nor does the show he was allegedly best known for - unless my Google-fu is completely broken this afternoon. The creator has a major pattern of hoaxes, several of which are up for deletion right now. Delete as soon as possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. No such actor on IMDB, which has oodles of nn actors... Smashville 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I was unable to substantiate ANY of the claims Arthur 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no IMDB entry and purported HBO show doesn't appear to exist. -- Whpq 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janssen-Cilag

Appears to fail WP:CORP. No coverage from reliable secondary sources. Ghits appear to be entirely press releases, promotional items, and corporate directory listings. Doctorfluffy 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge Google news gives 3,710 hits on the merged entity. [11] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo? That link you provided yields 32 hits for me. Doctorfluffy 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just click on "All dates" I left it displaying just the past years entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. Doctorfluffy 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, has 330 employees just in Australia. Many google hits. I think it is a notable company. THE KING 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep the major national subsidiaries of the really most important international companies are notable. DGG (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Suprised at the current lack of secondary sources. This is pretty much J&J's drug and health products subsidary outside of the USA and Canada. If there is still is a lack of secondary sources, I would probably write an item up in J&J's article and redirect there. Spryde 17:15, 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 Merge to The Rules of Attraction. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Bateman

Non-notable fictional character, per WP:FICT, no secondary sources available AndalusianNaugahyde 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

?I don't think you can say this character is non-notable, as it is one of the leading characters in a well-known film and book. But I can see why a merge to The Rules of Attraction might be in order, because there's not much notability of this character independently of the film.Merkinsmum 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge (after heavy trimming) to The Rules of Attraction; there's no sign the character has notability independent of the book/film. —Quasirandom 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: When a fictive thing is not independently notable and a parent article exists (such as one for the fiction in which it exists) the obvious solution is MERGE. This really should have been handled as a proposed merge, not AfD. —Quasirandom 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, per WP:FICT merge is a preferred solution over deleting. —Quasirandom 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Quasirandom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Quasirandom. Benjiboi 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge assuming there is considerable trimming. SorryGuy 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge I can see arguments that the character has been in enough books to warrant a centralized article, but I don't think he quite rises to that level overall. - Richfife 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of DuckTales characters. This seems to be a more appropriate target since there is already mention of the character there. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gandra Dee

Non-notable, in-universe only fictional character. Fails WP:FICT requirement for reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject matter. Ghits appear to be confined to fansites and cartoon forums. Article itself states this character is largely non-notable within the universe. Doctorfluffy 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article has almost no reliable ghits and fails the fiction policy. STORMTRACKER 94 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Fenton Crackshell. Gizmoduck was a pretty major character, his girlfriend really wasn't, but should still be mentioned/described on that page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to some Duck Tales related articles as it is information that someone might want to know.--E tac 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."--Masterzora 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this stub has no content, real-world context, primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability, which are very good reasons for deletion.--Gavin Collins 08:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge a sentence or two to Fenton Crackshell per above. - Richfife 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kondreman

A webcomic whose sole claim to fame is being published in a newspaper in a country whose population is less than 5% of London's. And not Greater London either. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article is not notable, and has no reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Managed to get published in a major national newspaper. --Carnildo 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Carnildo. Publication in a national newspaper seems to meet WP:N, even if it's a small country. Surely there's a source somewhere? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The first link in the external links section indicates that the comic is copyright by the newspaper. That should be enough to indicate that it is published by them as well. John Carter 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Carnildo. Edward321 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete publication in a single small-circulation newspapers does not meet the "significant coverage" or "reliable sources" portion of Wikipedia:Notability. De Ware Tijd appears to have a circulation of only 10,000, which is college newspaper-like, not anything close to "major newspaper." [12] Are they any other sources discussing this comic? --Dragonfiend 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced 70.116.31.203 23:38, 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 Speedy delete as definite hoax and general waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses f. stevens

This looks like a hoax to me. As original PROD notes, this 1909 baseball player does not seem to exist. • Gene93k 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It's a hoax - the links for the 1909 lineup for the Pirates shows no evidence of anyone named Moses or Stevens. In short, the article links to its own damnation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I originally looked into this article when I couldn't find any sources that mentioned him anywhere, including the team rosters that I added to the article. I just now listed this in the list of Baseball-related deletions. Eóin 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article's external links show no evidence of this person existing. STORMTRACKER 94 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons above, and baseball-reference.com hasn't heard of him, either, nor do they list anyone with a remotely similar name playing in 1909 for the Pirates.--Fabrictramp 20:05, 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. DS 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Evans (journalist)

This is a declined CSD. Tagging editor says it is a piece of complete fiction. A hoax is not a reason for CSD so I bring it here for a decision. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep There are some reliable sources from google searching. The article may need to be cleaned up, though. STORMTRACKER 94 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're voting to keep an apparent hoax article just because a Google search for "Mike Evans (journalist)" gets a lot of hits? Mike Evans is an extremely common name, a bit more research would have shown you this is a hoax. Crazysuit 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're voting keep based on google hits and completely ignoring the hoax aspect? Smashville 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Hoax. A specific Google search only gives 11 results, none of them are this person. If this TV news journalist existed there would be at least one reference to him on the internet. Crazysuit 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I have just noticed that this article has been speedily deleted before as a hoax. Crazysuit 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax, and we might want to take a look at Mary Williams (journalist), his erstwhile partner at the anchor desk, as well - she doesn't turn up any Google results either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per KYW website no such person is an anchor. Smashville 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm the original tagger, and as I said (and others have verified) it's complete fiction (as is the Patrick Clark article next to it on the list). JTRH 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOAX. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - even though it looks good, it's definitely a hoax. Too bad this user wastes his/her talent creating hoaxes. Jauerback 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not listed as part of the news team on the station site bios. No results matching this Mike Evans in googling. -- Whpq 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was with respect to JodyB, speedy delete as hoax and creations of a banned user. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Clark (journalist)

I am moving this to AfD after declining the CSD request. The editor who tagged the article as speedy says it is complete fiction. The community will know and decide appropriately JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. Hoax created by a regular hoaxer. There is no one working at WPVI-TV called Patrick Clark. This article mentions "Jordan Maxferres". User:Jordan Maxferres is a banned sockpuppet of User:Botaylor456. User:Botaylor456 created hoax articles of TV news journalists. Rozrozroz's other contributions need to be looked at, and the user should be banned. Crazysuit 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - yep, another one. This could get ugly, digging through his contribs. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There's a Sockpuppetry case about this user at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rozrozroz. I've added some suspected sockpuppets to it. Crazysuit 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. See the Mike Evans case next on the list. JTRH 21:15, 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 — Caknuck 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Anderson (urinator)

Constested prod. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete anybody whose claim-to-fame is peeing is pretty clearly outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename This guy got quite alot of coverage in the media for this (IE notable), but this article should be renamed as Anthony Anderson (criminal). Lugnuts 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more than one criminal with that name. Wikipedia already has an article for Anthony Anderson (murderer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.49.188 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom who is exactly right. --Malcolmxl5 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It makes for great copy, but it doesn't appear to have been significant. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a news source. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
delete - in the article's favour, he did achieve temporary notability as demonstrated in the sources, and the article can indeed be re-written in a way to avoid BLP problems. However, notability is not temporary, and unless there's any proof out there that this fellow's going to remain notable for having once peed on a dying woman, there's not much reason to keep this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Wikipedia jargon "notability is not temporary" means something different. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Has gotten extensive international news coverage, and will likely be the subject of sociological study and writing for some time to come. Is certainly notable as the first man to be convicted of urinating on a dying person. Has also been of interest to feminists as an example of patriarchy in action... Helvetica 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete due to WP:BLP1E. However, I agree that the event might be notable in UK (if the article's maintainers can provide reliable references to prove that there is an extended reaction or news coverage) and a new article describing it might pass notability --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
delete No one will remember this is a few weeks time. This is not encyclopedia material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiehnm (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Disgusting cruft and nonsense. 216.194.2.111 13:10, 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 Speedied. Some bored people hosting their silliness on Wikipedia. Fang Aili ^talk 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Lamin

I declined this as a speedy because I think some assertion of notability is made. However the article may be a hoax and does not seem supported by proper attribution to reliable sources. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Claiming you are the best exponent of a soccer x-box game in your university dorm is not a claim to notability. Nuttah68 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete even assuming it's true, it's not notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valas Hune

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} deleted, so taking it to AfD. Mikeblas 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT. No secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as plot summary is not evidience of notability. --Gavin Collins 23:23, 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 Delete — Caknuck 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. Wyatt Mann

Fails notability. The reference is simply a cartoon and not a reliable source. Along those lines, this article does not include 3rd party sources. Inferences and words like 'obviously' lead me to believe this is original research as well. So notability issues, no RS, OR. the_undertow ^talk 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd love to include more sources, i.e. the uncyclopedia and encyclopedia dramatica pages, but it seems those links are being banned on wikipedia. Anyway, the main source of notability for this person outside the Far right scene is essentially his use as an internet meme. He is some sort of symbolic image of the racist fringe of the extreme right. Wedineinheck 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There aren't enough WP:RS to write a balanced article; this is about all I found that even comes close. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Dhartung. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. Secondary sources do not appear to exist. Doctorfluffy 08:26, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smeg (vulgarism)

Dicdef, neologism, trivia, appears to fail WP:RS WP:TRIVIA and WP:FICT. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Even if notable (and I make no contention that it IS), this belongs at Wiktionary and not Wikipedia per WP:DICDEF. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Subdolous 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete References are pathetic (urban dictionary for instance, hardly a solid reference) and quite frankly inadaquate to suffice inclusion within wikipedia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This word is well known in the Liverpool and the Geordie community. As the article says it was used extensively in Red Dwarf, and this was the most popular science fiction program on British TV in the 90's. Everybody in my computer science class, at uni, used to use it. I would say it is clearly notable. scope_creep 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And that makes it not a dicdef how? JuJube 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Very notable, both in and outside the RD universe. Lugnuts 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Regardless of how notable it is, it will need stronger references. Killjoy966 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete belongs in wkt. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep

Passes WP:RS: Googling "Red Dwarf smeg" returns 86,000 hits. There are literally thousands of red dwarf websites, fan groups, conventions, books, and paraphernalia of all kinds. Its not going got hard to find sources for this.

Passes WP:Trivia: This isn't a list or made up or inconsequential fact.

Passes WP:FICT. A highly notable show, and a term used in every episode which has passed into every day language, this term was used in Liverpool long before the show aswell.Operating 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[

If you add reliable sources to the article, I may change my mind.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

- Comment - WP:BIG is not a valid argument. Google hits are not necessarily reliable secondary sources, and the majority of them are not. WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections for existing notable articles, not stand-alone articles based on trivia. WP:FICT applies to Red Dwarf, not this entry. Recommendation stands. Subdolous 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. Ghits aren't reliable, they point to notability tho. You've assumed the article is based on trivia but it isn't, there is plenty of material to fill this page some of it non RD related. You say WP:FICT applies to RD but not this article, so why do you want to delete the only article with material that has passed into popular culture? Operating 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment - I'll say it as many times as I have to: WP:BIG is not a valid argument. Ghits are not an indicator of notability, period. The key criteria for notabilty is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, for the subject itself. Just because you think it's notable doesn't mean it is, because you are not a reliable secondary source. Sorry, those are the rules. Subdolous 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment. Ok forget WP:Big/ghits, i already conceeded that point. Answer my question, why is Smeg which is used in popular culture less noteworthy than other RD concepts like Computer senility, Dollarpound, Felis sapiens, Fuchal, GELF, Silicon Heaven and Space Corps Directives which aren't used in popular culture? Operating 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment' There are two aspects to this: one is notability; "used in popular culture" doesn't indicate notability either, because it's not a verifiable statement by itself (remember that you are not a reliable source) and is not driven by reliable secondary sources. The second is the fact that it's a definition of a word, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT#DICT. Subdolous 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Coment. Can i interest you in a smeg T shirt or [www.cafepress.com/buy/tv/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_14972496/opt_/fpt_/c_666/ smeg poster] or smeg patch. This is popular culture. I could go and buy a fair number of RD books which would reference Smeg and its use and put those in the article to source it correctly. As for dicdef because its used in popular culture its more than that. Operating 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment - T-shirts, posters, and patches are not sources at all. RD books would count as primary sources, which should not be used to establish notability. Once again, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources on the word itself is what counts, and wikipedia is still not a dictionary. Subdolous 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is clearly just an overglorified dicdef. It bears a mention in the dab page, but that's it. JuJube 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per Lugnuts. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment added ref from BBC for Smeg-head. Lugnuts 08:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Operating, assuming enough reliable sources are available. I've never seen Red Dwarf, but I've heard this term often enough that it ought to be easy to expand. There should be more that can be added to the article to avoid being a dicdef. -Phoenixrod 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment On second thought, this article isn't substantially different from Red_Dwarf#Invented_words. -Phoenixrod 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Dicdef of a made up from a TV show.17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

Comment. Looks like this might be heading for no consensus...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is clearly not a dictionary definition. It's talking about the origin, history, and popularity of a term, not just the meaning. Thus it's covered as a neologism / cultural phenomenon, something that is a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This one appears real, sourceable, and relatively notable. No problem. The article needs improvement, but they all do. Wikidemo 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Add sources and keep. Artw 22:47, 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, nothing here to merge that isn't already in her mother's article — Caknuck 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tatiana Iuel

Wholly non-notable four or five year old, her article is a carbon copy of several others. Delete or merge (which seems to be unlikely). The subject has done nothing of note and her remote position in line of succession to the throne is noted on that article, but does not make her individually notable. Charles 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per my nomination. Charles 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, while I did decline to speedy this article, that was only because there is at least arguably an assertion of notability here, and was procedural rather than based on any belief that the article should remain. However, that assertion is quite thin, and I can find little to no source material on this person. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, and nobility is not notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per above, especially since this info is in another article. Jauerback 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this article merely repeats information contained in the article on Tatiana's mother; when, and if, Tatiana herself becomes notable, then we can add an article on her. Noel S McFerran 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep She is a Royal and that makes her notable. scope_creep 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

She is not a royal. Charles 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This person has not "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Killjoy966 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Killjoy. --Malcolmxl5 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe. Consensus is that non-notable relatives of notable people are mentioned in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Being in the line of succession to the British throne is not inherently a claim of notability, particularly when there are over 900 people ahead of the person (as there are for Tatiana), the person is only 5 years old, and no sources are provided to indicate any media coverage of her life. People much higher in the British line of succession have been deleted per WP:BIO; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt, and Christian Mowatt for a group of people in the top 40 of the succession line whose articles were deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I'm still at a loss as to why Marina Ogilvy's article deleted, as she was clearly notable and made the news with her pregnancy and marriage. However, I'd agree Delete Tatiana's article. Non-notable, non-royal. Morhange 17:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe. --Brewcrewer 13:49, 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. WjBscribe 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halueth Never

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} deleted by User:Addedtried without comment, so bringing it to AfD. Mikeblas 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Subdolous 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails to meet most of the criteria of WP:N. Jauerback 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep and Merge These characters in D&D need to be ordered into characters specific to each game. One page per character or race is a waste. scope_creep 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT. No coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 05:38, 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 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Will Be

Delete - Non-notable album track. ^anemone|_projectors 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per both of above. jj137 (Talk) 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to The Best Damn Thing. Tracks not released as singles very rarely deserve an article independent of the album. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect as Stifle suggested. -RiverHockey 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I considered a redirect but I wasn't sure where to, as although Lavigne recorded it originally, it's only a bonus track on some editions of her album, but Lewis's version is a proper album track on hers. ^anemone|_projectors 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The song isn't notable per WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't seem to me to be significant enough to require a redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harkle Harpell

{{orphan}}, {{inuniverse}}, {{primarysources}}, {{notability}}, and {{prod}} tags were removed by User:71.108.52.19 with the comment "reverting idiots". With the "disputed" prod, I'm bringing the issue to AfD. Mikeblas 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Put in character article for specific D & D game. scope_creep 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT requirement of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Google returns entirely fansites, so it's unlikely sources exist to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This character appears in several of R.A Salvatore's books and is a rather significant character in the The Hunter's Blades Trilogy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.88.9 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc 17:52, 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 Speedy delete as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priorian

This seems to be some sort of fringe hypothesis with a lack of sources or notability. Google search yields little. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Pure twaddle. scope_creep 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unless better references can be found than an email address and a URL which is a ... what? Awful vanity publisher? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:55, 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, I think it satisfies category a7, no assertion of notability, but we'll call it WP:SNOW to be safe. NawlinWiki 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cris P

(Sigh...) Contested prod, so here we go wasting everyone's time... Unsigned musician with no releases, no media coverage whatsoever and not even a myspace page let alone a single reliable source. — iridescent 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Isn't there a speed category for non-notable bands? -- Mikeblas 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
SPeedy Delete This should have gone under {{db-band}} and not even gotten here. Improbcat 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately doesn't fit A7 for a speedy as there's an assertion of notability, even if it's almost certainly bogus; "hoax" is (necessarily but annoyingly) specifically not a speedy criteria. — iridescent 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The speedy tag reads: [...]that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

Which as far as I can tell reads that it hasn't indicated that it meets those criteria. Being persued by two major labels and a rumor or signing a third, along with a few small shows and airtime on a tiny station is not any assertion of meeting the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. If the article said "He has signed to Virgin records and has been interviewed on MTV" when he hadn't then it would be a hoax. Improbcat 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to slap a {{db-bio}} on it, believe me I won't argue... I suspect it'll be turned down though. — iridescent 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete even if not speediable, and even if the claims to notability aren't a hoax, this article still provides no EVIDENCE in the form of reliable, third-party sources that indicate notability, and thus should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I declined the speedy, for two reasons: 1. Hoaxes can't fall under speedy, 2. Even if the Virgin deal is false (and the whole thing is a hoax), it still gives some impression of notability. Still doesn't mean it's safe from deletion mind you, just informing you of my logic here. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - for everything listed above. Jauerback 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of a signing other than with Virgin. No prejudice to recreation when Cris signs and releases an album - and hopefully doesn't flop. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. I can see the reasons for not making it a speedy, but do I see WP:SNOW outside? Stifle (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't complain about a snowball delete. I'll run it up the pole (good ol' generic {{db}}), see who salutes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep without consensus, but stubify to remove violations of copyright law, the rules on biographies of living persons, and the rule against a skewed point of view. The subject appears to be quite notable based on the verifiablity of some sources and the large number of Ghits. The Washington Times is not a reliable source, but there are others, including the New York Times and Washington Post, with more than trivial mentions of this person. There were about equal numbers of keeps, deletes, and comments.^[1] The default is to keep and stubify in such cases. This article should be watched carefully by admins. Bearian 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Emory

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

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

A radio talkshow host from California - and the article is nothing but an unsourced essay about his tinfoilhattery. Escaped Nazis are running the global economy, and along with the CIA conspired to kill Jews at the Munich Massacre, and now are in league with Al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Republican party.....please. -Doc^g 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The fact that he appears to be a fully paid-up whacko isn't a problem - we have plenty of pages on his fellow travellers; the fact that there does not seem to be a single mention of him anywhere is. — iridescent 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google news turns up [13] nothing, and neither does a straight-up [14] google search, which turns up this guy only in the form of resume's and programming announcements and a few blogs. No coverage by reliable sources. If he is notable in his field, than at least SOMEONE (such as maybe a local newspaper, or the like) would have interviewed him or reviewed his program. I have found no evidence of such, and thus he is wholly non-notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment google reports 34,100 hits on "dave emory" Peterhoneyman 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete A headcase. scope_creep 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:N -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep--This page epitomizes the flaws of Wikipedia. The first six "delete" posts occurred within a roughly six-hour period on Halloween. The other three on November 2. This appears to be an example of collaboration among members of a network of some kind, not a spontaneous occurrence. Furthermore, the posts are without merit. There is plenty of discussion of Emory--use any of the available search engines, including Google. The posters are suspect as a result. And as far as secondary sources, there have been over the years. We have listened to Dave for years, and we've seen articles about him in various publications, including the San Jose Metro and San Jose Mercury News. There is an audio file on his website recorded in response to an attack on him in a book about conspiracy theorists by Jonathan Vankin, who devoted much of a chapter to Emory. It seems that these are people who don't like Dave and don't believe in free speech. Jayron has pictures of the Austrian crown jewels on his website. Emory has written critically of the House of Hapsburg. Hmmmmm. Addendum to previous comment: There are a number of stations other than WFMU and WCBN that carry Emory's work. He's been featured for more than 20 years on KPFK, the Pacifica station in Los Angeles, as well as KFYI in Kansas City, two stations in the San Francisco Bay Area, KBOO in Portland Oregon and a station in Vancouver, B.C. After almost 30 years on the air, he's attracted quite a large following and a large number of enemies as well. A Lexis/Nexus search for Emory turns up a number of references. And as far as references being critical, well, that comes with the territory and is not a criterion for deletion by Wikipedia. ONE SHOULD NOT FAIL TO NOTE THE NUMBER OF DELETIONS OF FAVORABLE POSTS TO THIS PAGE. Sounds like somebody's playing dirty pool. Wonder who?! Be Seeing You, Farstriker—Preceding unsigned comment added by Farstriker (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC) — Farstriker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Open the revision history of this AFD. See the page size? Goes up with each post. No-one is "deleting favourable posts to this page". — iridescent 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- CommentYou're right, all those interested in Austria fondly remember the House of Habsburg and are always willing to take up the cudgels in their defence on WP, especially against those willing to speak truth to the awesome power of that Imperial House. That was sarcasm. Relata refero 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Subdolous. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Jayron32. Doctorfluffy 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Emory is mentioned elsewhere but he or his minions have repeatedly cleansed the article of links and information critical of him and which speaks to his wider influence. I have just today restored two external links[15][16] that set him in a larger context. One is by Chip Berlet although Emory gets only one mention in that piece. I know from personal experience that Emory has a significant following and his content is distributed via at least two independent, i.e. not owned or controlled by Emory, radio stations: WFMU and WCBN. --DieWeisseRose 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - We lack the reliable published sources needed to write a biography of a living person. WAS 4.250 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is largely a free speech issue. Emory has been documenting fascist connections for over 25 years. Emory sources all his material in a truly meticulous manner. He has made many enemies over the years with what he says. An old Turkish proverb that he often quotes says ”He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages”. Wikipedia should not be one of the villages that Emory is chased out from. Also, Emory is the subject of a documentary film currently under production [17]T.Ferrett 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)— T.Ferrett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Do Not Delete Wow, it must have been a slow Halloween, with suddenly 6 posters demanding that Emory be deleted 17:16 and 23:10 (just before the witching hour, on October 31). This seems like a concerted effort to stifle speech, or maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist. It is nothing short of character assassination for iridescent to compare Emory to the likes of David Icke or Michael Riconosciuto. It is rather insincere of Jayron32 to cite a Google search of “David Emory”, when in fact, he goes by “Dave Emory” professionally.[18]. Emory is cited in the book “The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time” by Jonathan & Whalen, John Vankin[19].Vanfield 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)— Vanfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, largely per Iridescent. There are no mainstream sources which cover David Emory, and the article can only find two sources which are truly independent of him (both of which are critical). Sam Blacketer 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. As has been already mentioned, numerous articles from mainstream publications reference him in LexisNexis (I found five separate articles in a matter of minutes) and hundreds of his shows have been broadcast over the public airwaves for decades. Also, even if wikipedia had a policy of deleting posts about public figures that lack credible sources in their work, that critique simply does not apply to Mr. Emory. His shows are filled with readings directly from major mainstream news sources or interviews of other public figures that appear in wikipedia (Lucy Komisar[20], Robert Parry [21], and John Loftus[22], for example). The fact that the validity of Mr. Emory's wiki entry is even up for debate is rather bewildering given the irrefutable facts involved. --Fiddlefaddlefoo 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) — Fiddlefaddlefoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment — I have removed some egregious biography of living person's allegations from this discussion. Being a member of no cabal, and having no special interest in this person or what-have you, I would just like to make some general comments:

Assume good faith about other editors; assume they are acting to their best of their knowledge.
Be civil to one another; assusing other people of "censorship" and being the member of shadowy cabal is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
Be civil to real people too; material which would probably be libel or slander in real life is not welcome, nor does it have any real relevance or bearing on the discussion here. Avoid it, and stop using it.
In addition, there is no cabal; no one is out to "get" this user, and accusations that there is some dark force at work to stifle dissent are ridiculous and totally at odds with expected behavior.
This is not a vote; accounts registered solely to comment on this discussion are not productive, and will not affect the outcome.
What will affect the outcome is someone actually producing multiple reliable verfiiable sources about the person in question which support his notability.

This should be normal behavior on Wikipedia, but since many of the editors here are unfamiliar with our guidelines, I thought a little refresher might be in order. Play nice. --Haemo 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete: The article is almost an exact lift from the Book of Thoth site [[23]] and thus, quite aside from its lack of verifiability in any medium except the extremes of conspiracy theorists and paranormal websites, it is a complete copyvio. Bielle 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Googling (and presumably other searches) will be more productive if you look for "Dave Emory" - it gets 4x as many hits as David. I've listened to him for years, but I don't know how notable he is outside the Bay Area. --Jamoche 09:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here is some coverage from a reputable source, Z Magazine. --ip editor, 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.61.192 (talk) — 131.216.61.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. No shit, Sherlock. That's why it was a comment and not a fucking vote. I just thought you motherfuckers would like to be apprised of the situation. I don't fucking care what you do with the goddamn article. I just tracked down a fucking source for you. Do what you will with it, but for fuck's fucking sake, quit treating every unregistered user like sludge shitcake with bad faith on top. 10:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep my opinion anyway--Zingostar 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- Dave Emory has been a notable resource for an alternative view of world events for as long as I can remember. I find it mind-boggling that the article is being considered for deletion, and am suspicious of this attempt at censorship. What is the real agenda? Peterhoneyman 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know what "the real agenda" is (or do I?), but I have a feeling you're about to tell us... It would be far more of a service to this article's chances of staying if the people saying "he's definitely notable" would add some reliable sources to the article to indicate this. — iridescent 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I have no idea what the hidden agenda might be! But I'm guessing someone is unhappy with his message. As for his notability, I don't know how to answer -- it's like asking what makes Walter Cronkite or Howard Stern notable -- I have been listening to Dave Emory's radio show for over a decade, and so have many of my acquaintances. Frankly, I sometimes find his message difficult to accept, and just plain incredible at times, but I find him to be a valuable alternative source. (I'm repeating myself; sorry.) Peterhoneyman 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep-I'm a longtime listener to the show and I've kept tabs on the wiki discussion and history for the fellow. That the page would be subject for deletion so suddenly is mystifying. I suspect there are enough people listening to content streamed from wfmu.org/daveemory or downloaded from spitfirelist.com that there is no just cause to delete Mr. Emory's wiki. The call for deletion is out of order.ChipdipkKill 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)— ChipdipkKill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Great! Could you link us to two or three articles about him in, say, newspapers or magazines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He is quoted in this NY Times magazine article.

The Clinton Haters; Clinton Crazy. The New York TImes (1997-02-23). Retrieved on 2007-11-04.

The Washington Times suggested he was the inspiration for Mel Gibson's movie Conspiracy Theory

Head, Tony. "Real life conspiracy theories that inspired Mel Gibsons new film", The Washington Times, 1997-08-29, p. 60. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.

He is quoted in another Washington Times article

Scarborough, Rowan. "Hate broadcast from left wing often overlooked; Some urban stations full of venom", Part A; Culture, et cetera, Washington Times, 1995-05-03, p. A2. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.

This one is particularly apt

Strachota, Dan. "The plot to get rid of Dave Emory", SF Weekly, 2001-11-28. Retrieved on 2007-11-04. "Dave Emory [is] one of the nation's foremost chroniclers of fascism and governmental funny business."

Here is an article about a ham-fisted attempt to silence Emory

Zinko, Carolyne. "Airwave Pirates Block Show Foothill College", Peninsula Edition, San Jose Mercury News, 1996-04-30, p. 1B. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.

This article has a couple of paragraphs devoted to Emory

Thomas, Kenn. "Clinton Era Conspiracies! Was Gennifer Flowers on the Grassy Knoll? Probably Not, but Here Are Some Other Bizarre Theories for a New Political Age", Outlook Section, The Washington Post, 1994-01-16, p. C3. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.

There's more ... Victoria (B.C.) Sun, San Francisco's City News Service, Chronicle of Higher Education ... but I think the point is made.

Peterhoneyman 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Struck through my prior vote. Sources have been provided. The article is a mess and in serious need of clean-up, but in light of the recently uncovered sources by Peterhoneyman, this seems to longer be about a non-notable person, and thus, should not be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The above sources work for me, although the article itself could use a POV cleanup. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Agreeing with FisherQueen, the article could use a POV cleanup but I don't think it should be outright deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendali (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It hardly matters wether he's right or wrong, the point is he exists and makes the claims the article says he makes. Surely Wikipedia has no policy against biographical articles about people who other people disagree with? Badjeros 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per FisherQueen. --AliceJMarkham 11:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

^ I counted 13 keeps, 10 deletes, and 9 comments, but who's voting?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:MUSIC. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercy Fall

Apparently non-notable band; completely unsourced article and while there are shedloads of ghits, they all appear to be blogs, myspace pages & Wiki mirrors. Much of the article also seems to be a cut-and-paste from AMG. Not prodding due to the multiple article contributors, none of whom appear to have seen any problem with it — perhaps there is some notability here that I'm missing? — iridescent 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If it doesn't have significane coverage in reliable secondary sources, it's not notable no matter how many mayspaces or forum posts (which are defined as unreliable) it appears in. Subdolous 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Found these examples of significant coverage in reliable sources: Billboard magazine and Saturday Night Magazine and Hard Alternative and Arizona Central and The Gauntlet and Hard Rock Haven. There appears to be enough out there to indicate notability exists. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep based on Jayron32's findings, I think it meets the guidelines and should be kept. –Kadin2048 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources are cited to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What about the sources I cite above? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, one of a million bands just like it. -RiverHockey 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article needs much work, but they did have a Billboard charting hit[24] so there's WP:MUSIC for you. Precious Roy 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Page renaming is a subject for the talk page. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of China on Taiwan

neologism, POV fork of Republic of China, Taiwan, History of Taiwan, and Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China Ngchen 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Possibly redirect somewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Article is not POV, appears to be well-covered in reliable secondary sources, and is therefore not a neologism, and verifiable. Subdolous 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an entirely redundant article. There is no need to have two articles on the exact same subject; having two articles encourages each to take different points of view. This article should be cleared and redirected to the appropriate article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:POVFORK and move any relevant material into History of Taiwan. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep The History of Taiwan does not detail this period very well , although History of the Republic of China has some detail but nothing like the detail in this article. I say, expand the article,tidy up, link and categorise. scope_creep 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment The articles if you have read them, do not have the same detail. The article we are discussing has much more, so merits its own page. Expand it. scope_creep 18:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, this is not neologism. I suggest, however, to move it to Taiwan post-war era.--Jerry 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Taiwan (province) or History of Taiwan 132.205.99.122 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Jerry, or merge. Content is definitely encyclopedic, although may be at the wrong title. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per Jerry and per the comments made by Scope creep. All the article needs is some major revision and overhaul, which I am attempting to do. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is an appropriate expansion of the related sections in History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China. While the article is yet incomplete, it is worth keeping. WilliamDParker 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete for irrelevant content. not neologism, but the term is not used to refer to a specific period of Taiwanese history. Rather, it is used to refer to the polity (the Republic of China) itself, and the preferred form used by the ROC government in the 1990s. redirect? --Jiang 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- So shouldn't it be merge instead?--Jerry 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There is enough difference between the ROC that existed between 1911 - 1949 on mainland China and the modern state known as the Republic of China that exists only on Taiwan and a few other minor islands that a seperate article is warrented in a historical context. I suggest classifying this article somwhere under Category:History of the Republic of China. The main ROC page should still redirect to Republic of China as the modern status of the state is still controversial. -Loren 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Loren. _{Folic_Acid | talk} 16:11, 6 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. The nominator's argument that this is not covered in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" was not addressed, let alone refuted. It is apparently true based on Google news, books, and scholar searches. WP:IAR seems irrelevant here as retaining an unsourced article is not improving Wikipedia, which is the only time that we ignore rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bash.org

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org

Bash.org does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please read those notability guidelines. Just because a website is moderately popular does not mean it meets those guidelines. This article should be deleted.

1. Bash.org has not been mentioned in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

2. Bash.org has been mentioned in websites, but only in two forms: a. "Trivial coverage, such as... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." b. Unreliable, obscure websites that focus on an obscure period in which a few moderators argued with the administrators. Reliability is a key criterion for Wikipedia sources. Both of these types of sources are unacceptable according to the notability guidelines. Since there is no reliable, non-trivial source that has covered bash.org, this article should be deleted.

3. Finally, Bash is not sufficiently popular to justify overlooking the rules. According to Alexa, it's not even in the top 10,000 most popular sites. Slashdot, by contrast, is the 765th most popular. I think if Bash were in the top 1000 or even possibly the top 5000, it might be justifiable to ignore notability rules. Bash just isn't popular enough.

I think Bash.org is a fine site, and I've enjoyed it for a long time, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

PubliusPresent 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - bash.org is undoubtedly a significant part of popular culture, and is still emerging. 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.52.9 (talk)
Delete - Even if I personally know of this website, it doesn't make it notable per reasons given by nom. Subdolous 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Come on, it's notable. Unless you've never been outside of Wikipedia I suppose. Besides, bits are free, let's not pretend Wikipedia is an actual paper encyclopedia and is what it is, a place to archive crap trivia. 166.70.27.1 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Agree about references, OR, and most importantly notability. Peaceduck 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment It seems hard to believe that outside sources cannot be found for this site. JuJube 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as it is certainly notable. If the guidelines don't include Bash.org as notable, then the guidelines are ludicrous. A quick Google turns up lots of references to it, even software that uses it as a data source, and there are thousands of links to it on Usenet (mostly in people's sigs). There are at least two spinoff sites (openbash and the Russian one), as well. –Kadin2048 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete When somebody visits Wikipedia for information about this very popular and well known website, I want them to be confronted with an empty page. Not because nobody wrote anything worthwhile or verifieable about this obviously notable site. I want this information deleted because I find this website, which gets more hits in an hour than you can imagine, is not notable (according to the standards of information_killer). Delete as much useful and noteable information from Wikipedia as possible. Bit trollent
- Comment See WP:INTERESTING and WP:POINT. Notability is defined on Wikipedia as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". You may not like this, but they are policy, and regardless of what you think Wikipedia should be, Wikipedia is very clear about what it is, and it disagrees with you. If it fails WP:N, it should not stay. Subdolous 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment So all the information on Wikipedia is in other, better sources? I guess don't have to go out of my way to destroy Wikipedia, as somebody has already put a stake in its heart. Outstanding. Is there a website out there that lives up to Wikipdedia's far superior past? Bit trollent —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment I'm of the opinion that Google should have managed Wikipedia (or something similar), due to their mission statement "organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful." It seems to suite the concept of an online and freely editable encyclopaedia, better. 58.178.215.183 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Bit trollent. In over 3 years no one has managed to add a single source showing notability to this article? Stop whining and add the sources, and I'll change my !vote. Crazysuit 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was actally being sarcastic, although if I can help remove this and other useful and noteable information from Wikipedia all the better. Ever since the last time I went to show somebody a wikipedia page that had been deleted to help inform them on a subject I have vowed to destroy Wikipedia. My strategy is to destroy Wikipedia the same way deletionists are, by deleteing useful information. Want a poorly written article about a common subject? Wikipedia is here for you. Want to learn about something that is obscure even if it is noteable? Go somewhere else. Wikipedia has been ruined by deletionists. Bit trollent —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep quite notable, and has over a million Google hits. I have gone to this site several times and am amazed to even find it up for deletion. The article needs work, but is definitely notable. --Explodicle 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Explodicle and WP:IAR. It's definitely worthy of an article. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. In cases of obvious notability like this one, we should IAR and forget about the need to have mainstream media sources. There are some topics which are notable, which wikipedia becomes more complete for having an article on, that do not receive mainstream media attention. Isn't that the whole idea of a user-generated encyclopedia? To reduce reliance on the mainstream media? THE KING 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable site. JJL 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Look, I enjoy bash.org, but Wikipedia's rules about notability are clear. If a subject is not covered in reliable printed sources (bash.org has not) or in reliable, non-trivial websites (bash.org has not), then Wikipedia should not have an article about it. The authors of arguments for keeping this article say that they like bash.org or that bash.org is a "popular" site. That you like the site is irrelevant--I like it, too, but that doesn't make it notable. As to the second point, it's not even that popular. See, e.g., Alexa statistics. Moreover, popularity is not a part of the notability guidelines and is therefore irrelevant. Please read those guidelines before making irrelevant arguments. I think the case is clear here. PubliusPresent 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, you'll argue that the site isn't popular by using Alexa which only counts IE hits by people who happen to have the Alexa tracking software installed. The site is notable by every definition except the WP:WEB "standards" Hansonc 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Sometimes, if something is sufficiently popular, notability can be overlooked. Bash.org is not popular enough to justify ignoring the notability rule. Alexa, because of its large statistical samples, allows for a reasonable approximation of a site's traffic and popularity, and Alexa says Bash doesn't even break the top 10,000. By contrast, Slashdot is number 765 and has almost 10 times Bash's "reach." Bash.org is not exactly obscure, but it doesn't even approach Slashdot's fame even though it's been around for almost as long. Since Bash.org is not notable, and since it's not popular enough to justify overlooking Wikipedia's notability rule, this article should be deleted. PubliusPresent 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Here's the problem ALEXA IS NOT AN ACCURATE JUDGE OF POPULARITY. Alexa only tracks users who are using IE and have the Alexa toolbar installed. If I had to guess I'd say less than 50% of the 1.5 million hits bash.org gets daily are from IE users and since I don't know a single individual who has the Alexa toolbar installed, I'd bet that the site is quite a bit under represented in your flawed popularity stats. If this vote doesn't end with a keep Wikipedia loses creditability yet again. 166.70.27.1 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Sorry didn't see I wasn't logged in) Hansonc 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep WP:IAR for this particular case. Frankchn 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a huge fan of Bash, but Wikipedia's quality is more important than the fact that I like Bash. Bash is not popular enough to justify overlooking the notability rule in this case. Slashdot, for example, definitely would be, but it has 10 times the reach of Bash, according to Alexa, and is the 765th most popular site on the Internet. Bash doesn't break the top 10,000. PubliusPresent 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You don't need to say that three times for it to sink in. Bash is smaller than Slashdot. We got it. However, many of us think we should just ignore the rules because we think Wikipedia will be better off with a Bash.org article. This is why the deletion process is not automated. --Explodicle 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Severe application of the rule leads to reductio ad absurdum. The earnest pleading for "Wikipedia's quality" (by throwing out an article about a longtime web site used by millions -- because of some quibbles over the posture of references to the site in published sources) makes it hard for me to sustain my assumption of the nominator's good faith. Kestenbaum 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Good faith? I don't know how to respond other than to say that I've read Bash.org since its inception and enjoy it; I have no personal interest in seeing the article deleted. I think that the notability rule is a good one and that it should be applied neutrally and consistently. This article fits the non-notability criterion (because there are no reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources) and should be deleted. PubliusPresent 06:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Sorry, WP:IAR doesn't trump WP:N, and if someone disagrees it's not a good application of IAR. If we start factoring in the subjective opinions of Wikipedians on whether something is notable or not, then we start getting in trouble. Let's not go there. Coverage = notable. No coverage = not notable. hbdragon88 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd argue that WP:IAR tends to trump every rule, because it says it does. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment There must be a reason behind ignoring the rules in a particular case, though. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves, does including an apparently all-original research article (except for the unreliable sources about the Bash strike) about a mildly obscure website really serve to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? PubliusPresent 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Assume Good Faith. Lots of people want to keep it for some reason, so unless you can prove some massive campaign to subvert Wikipedia, I say keep it. --Vrmlguy 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Abstain as owner/partner of bash.org, but I'd like to comment. This article is what originally brought me to Wikipedia, and one of the first things I learned was WP:OR, because I could not appropriately correct factual errors that, as the owner, I knew to be incorrect. It should be noted that the article has been nominated twice before, the results being keep and unanimous keep. I don't have the links handy; they were both in the VFD days. I have mixed feelings about this... on the one hand, I know how many users visit bash.org (think between 100k and 500k unique hosts per day, 1.5-2 million pageloads/day), and I know our google pagerank hovers around a 6 or 7. That being said, we have a real Catch 22... there is no doubt that bash.org is notable in the literal sense of the word, however this article has always seemed to exist outside of WP:RS and WP:N. The only thing I can offer regarding notability are the multiple diggs that all made it into the 24-hour (and possibly multiple-day) listings. It would be a shame to see this deleted, but I understand the WP:N/WP:RS problems (I often nominate other articles of the same nature). Unfortunately, this sort of topic just isn't covered by reliable sources, as it has no real-world impact beyond the web. For what it's worth, we were at one time in the top 5,000 sites on the web... traffic ebbs and flows. Alexa rank as of 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC): 10,107. Also, I note several innacuracies given by the nominator (age of bash.org, ignoring historical traffic and rank, etc.) Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to a 2004 Vote for Deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org) to this AfD. I can't find the second discussion, but this one was closed as a Keep. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Historical traffic, widespread impact on the web and web culture, coupled with a highly significant number of GHits, indicates to me that the site is (or at the very least, was) notable. If Alexa rankings are indeed the be-all and end-all, then historical numbers would indicate that Bash was more notable in the past than now. Fine. But Notability has no expiration date. If Bash was at any point notable, then it was notable, and coverage here is warranted. Digg isn't a reliable source as such, but it is a gauge of widespread notability. I'm not sure what coverage we could expect, other than articles headlined "Bash still online and still funny" or some such. The site is (semi!) regularly updated, but the format and purpose are static. That doesn't impinge on notability. As a caveat, I visit the site regularly and love it - and enough other people do to suggest that it is notable, despite a lack of independent coverage. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would change my vote if someone could find sources that suggest that Bash really has had a widespread impact on web culture. PubliusPresent 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - comment umm it has a wikipedia article? :-) Ok that's probably not going to convince you but it's worth a shot. But seriously just because it's not something that is commented on by mainstream media doesn't mean it's not notable and well known. Take this conversation for example, everyone here has heard of it independently and more importantly independent of the Wikipedia article. Bash.org will never be written about in the NY Times or WSJ but it's obviously something that longtime internet users know and even "n00bs" should have the opportunity to research its usage and history and what better place than Wikipedia? Hansonc 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment as abstaining WP:COI party - Previous discussion: [keep]. I know there was one more, but I have thus far been unable to find it (it was sometime in 2005 I believe). I would like to again state that I believe this article has existed in a state of cognative dissonance because of the unique nature of web phenomenon not existing in traditionally reliable sources. I would also suggest that the mere existance of so many people showing up to voice strong opposition to deletion (every time) is an indication that the site is indeed notable in the pure sense of the word. If you could see how many instant messages and emails I get about bash.org, or saw the weblogs you'd think twice about calling it a "mildly obscure website". I also urge you to reconsider basing your argument (in part) on Alexa rankings -- a site need not be a slashdot to be notable. The major problem that I see is not with WP:N, but with WP:RS. There will likely never be a source that fully complies with WP:RS that will cover bash.org. One of the major tasks I've always tried to undertake has been ensuring factual accuracy of the article, which has been massively difficult because of WP:OR. I think the arguments that "it's not notable" (a guideline) have been obviously trumped by common sense (as the comments on this page show); I do see the problems with WP:RS (as a policy) and can only promise that if NYT or NBC want to do an interview on bash.org I will fully comply. :-) /Blaxthos 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Re: WP:OR: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." So, if you see a mistake, fix it; just make sure you point out where others can go to verify your repair.--Vrmlguy 05:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment More important than any individual policy violation is just the fact that it's a bad article. It's authored primarily by one person, an administrator of the site--which violates the policies against original research and conflict of interest--and the sources are weak at best. When I saw the state of the article, my original idea was to fix it myself, but I think the article is irretrievable. The site has never been covered by any media outlet, however big or small--no local TV station, no local radio station, no small college newspaper, no alternative weekly. It seems we're in agreement that the article must be improved. The question is whether that's possible at this time. If it's not, the article should go away until someone can write something decent with a few solid sources. PubliusPresent 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question - The main thrust of your argument was that it is not notable (you used the words "mildly obscure"). Only now, after I have (intentionally) given you the WP:RS argument (gift wrapped!) have you moved in that direction. Beyond that, why are you adding a second delete !vote to this discussion? Finally, why are you now piling on WP:COI, a guideline which you haven't even mentioned until I disclosed it (twice)? Are there specific allegations of serious COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, etc.)? /Blaxthos 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I voted once for delete. What are you talking about? Reliable sources and notability are inextricably wrapped, and both are part of the original articles; if there are no reliable, non-trivial sources about a subject, a subject is not notable. Considering the ease with which you link Wikipedia policies, I'm sure you know that. Are you deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article, which you have a vested interest in keeping? PubliusPresent 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - I am trying to insure that things are accurately represented. I clearly notified everyone that I am the owner of the site (twice), and clearly stated that I recognize the cognitive dissonance which has thus far ameleorated the WP:RS/WP:N concerns. I would also note that I was the one who brought up the WP:COI and the WP:RS problems -- your nomination and additional comments focused on WP:N. What is of great concern to me (and to other editors who have commented on such here) is the vehemence with which you are prosecuting this deletion, oft repeating your points ad infinitum, and slipped in a second delete vote after your nomination. Others have noted that your shepharding of the AfD smells of bad faith; I have treated it in good faith (and handed you additional ammunition, so to speak) because I want the AfD to be both fair and wholly encompassing the issues surrounding the article. You, on the other hand, have now implicitly and explicitly stated that my COI has significance. I ask again three questions: (1) Are there specific allegations of COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM)? (2) Why did you try to slide in a second !vote? (3) Why are you now accusing me of "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article", especially given the fact that I was the editor who brought up both WP:RS and WP:COI? Thanks. /Blaxthos 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-follow up On points 2 and 3: your disingenuous argument is that I voted twice! What an absurd claim. I tried to make a second paragraph in a comment and the formatting was messed up as a result, so I edited it to make it all one paragraph. This is the second time you've linked to that edit and called it a "second vote." Now that is, I think, evidence of bad faith on your part. Your primary evidence for bad faith on my part is that I disagree with you. As I've said several times now, the original research, the lack of reliable sources, and the lack of notability--it's all wrapped into one problem, which is this. An owner of Bash.org (Blaxthos, you) created most of the article's content (original research), and you have no reliable sources to back up what you say. The content is, as such, unverifiable. Should the article be deleted because of COI? No, because I don't think that's a major problem with the article. The article should be deleted due to the lack of reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and lack of notability. Finally, about repeating myself--actually, when I thought people raised legitimate objections, I edited my original articles for deletion and even some of my previous responses to address those objections. PubliusPresent 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you all but ignored the questions I presented, I no longer feel this thread is worth continuing. The diffs above clearly show a second delete, and simple checking of timestamps (or diffs) should show that I was the one who brought up both WP:COI and WP:RS problems, and should assauge any worries you may have that I'm "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article" -- if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't have handed you both WP:RS and WP:COI on a sliver platter. Best of luck. /Blaxthos 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you stand by your claim that I voted twice. I didn't realize that a line break would put my two paragraphs in two different places. I wrote "delete" once and had one signature. I voted once. Period. You're embarrassing yourself. PubliusPresent 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, your first !vote was the nomination. Your second !vote, more than ten hours after your nomination, was your addition of a delete comment (after eleven editors had commented on the nomination) as if you were not the nominator. I would counter that an editor who makes more edits to his first AfD than he has for the rest of the project combined, changes rationales, accuses other editors of bad faith when he is handed additional rationale for deletion, and seems to not understand our norms and mores embarasses himself more than I have. Hopes this clears up your confusion. (I'm really done now... just wanted to make sure you understood that it has nothing to do with a line break). /Blaxthos 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is not a voting process. Votes don't get tallied, so it makes no difference, anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I haven't accused anyone of bad faith except you. In retrospect, I should not have argued that Bash was non-notable (even though it is non-notable) because it sounds offensive, particularly, I'm sure, to one of its managers. What I should have referenced is the reliable sources policy, which probably would not have ruffled your feathers so much. For that I apologize. I've never changed rationales, and only edited my original nominating articles for clarity. If I've referenced several different Wikipedia policies, it's because I believe the bash.org article violates them. PubliusPresent 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

comment Bad argument. Have you ever seen mainstream media coverage of Goatse.cx I sure hope not! It's an internet site with a specific audience. The pure traffic to this AfD by people who know bash.org should support WP:N. I'll also point out that it's easier to destroy than it is to fix so AfDing this just because you don't know how to fix it is the wrong way to use AfD. I'm also willing to bet if this actually gets deleted it will be recreated in an even worse form so the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't in this case. Hansonc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment If it is recreated, I'll tag it for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. In fact, I'll watchlist this right now so I can prevent this from happening. If it gets too persistent, an admin will happily salt it. Don't argue to keep it just because something worse might happen. The admins can deal with it. hbdragon88 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - All of that is a bit premature, isn't it? We haven't even gotten through 48 hours of the AfD, with keep outnumbering delete by four (by my count, as of 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)). /Blaxthos 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

LOLOLOL We don't vote, we discuss. If there were ten delete arguments but the keep argument offered a real great reason why the article should be kept, it would be kept. Likewise, if there were ten keep arguments but the delete argument was better than all the keeps, it would be deleted. Anyway, it just seemed that the user was basing his comment on what would happen if it was deleted, and I was just saying, trust me, it won't be a huge problem. hbdragon88 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there were a whole bunch of keeps and the delete argument was "better" in the eyes of the admin, the article would still be kept. A consensus must be formed in order for action to be taken. Administrators are more like janitors than judges; they just enact what we've already agreed upon. --Explodicle 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's where policies such as WP:SNOW come in. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but there are several good arguments both ways. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually... in the Goatse.cx article, I see references at Snopes.com, Time magazine, the BBC, and CNN. I didn't say just "mainstream media" either. Any reliable source, per Wikipedia policy, will do. PubliusPresent 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Cleanup is not a valid reason to delete an article. Conflict of Interest is not a valid reason to delete an article, if the article is in salvageable condition (which it is). COI is a valid reason to moderate potentially biased input with valid, NPOV edits that restore balance and neutrality to the article. The argument that the article should be deleted due to COI on the part of a primary editor (Who - to his credit! - has been open and honest about the association, and has made contributions to other areas of the project) is not a valid argument in favor of deletion. I concur that, like Goatse.cx, a site may be notable without independent coverage. I note further that the high level of interest in this debate is also not a reason to Keep - though it does say something about the subject that we've had such a lengthy debate in just over 24 hours. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Why does anyone use Alexa as a definition of notability? Why not use wind direction or something else equally random? I've heard of it, even if I don't frequent it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs)
Delete No verifiability. No reliable sources. Clear COI. Notability is not the main issue here. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The nom's rationale focused on the Notability issue, which is why I think it's gotten so much discussion here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I understand it may not be considered "notable" enough to meet Wikipedia Guidelines, but I have to wonder: who are we hurting by keeping this page here? If it is informative, useful and accurate, why must it go? Since so many users have taken the time and effort to create an accurate, useful and informative page, why delete it on the grounds that the subject is "not notable enough"? What harm are we doing by leaving it as it is? - 82.6.124.104 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: I'd like to rebut the 'popularity' and 'obscurity' arguements. Bash may not be as popular today as it was in the past, but what Alexa ratings don't measure is reknown. You'll scarcly find an IRC-goer who hasn't, in some way, been introduced to Bash. I'd say Bash falls under notability as much as any other website. There's being critical and there's being petty, and while not every two-bit website should be mentioned on Wikipedia; a website with interest to (at least) 965,692 IRC users (as of SearchIRC statistics at this time) is relevant enough. 212.235.15.78 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: If Slashdot is so low on the Alexa, then I don't know why we are basing notability facts using Alexa stats. mimithebrain 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Alexa stats are not notable enough or reliable enough to use in judging this. Let's not forget this is a NICHE site, not a mainstream site like wikipedia or bloomberg.com so obviously it's not going to have as bigger hits as other sites. HOWEVER, it is notable in that the site itself was the FIRST of this type and has been around for almost as long as slashdot.org and other "geek" sites. - 202.10.80.69 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Dog Publishing

Non-notable publisher. Article was recreated shortly after being deleted per an expired prod. Only outside reference is trivial, and a Google search only really indicates that yes, they publish books. Author of previous version Andrew2312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) also spammed articles like No Wave and London Eye with ads for books by this publisher. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I take it you don't wish to apply the same standards here that you give to other independent publishers? Was most surprised when you deleted the original article, to be frank, given wikipedia's acceptance of articles focusing on some of Black Dog's publications as referenced. And likewise your bizarre statement that the only contributor to the article was the spamming poster mentioned, seeing as I was in the process of expanding the entry significantly before deletion. Poului 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Finngall didn't delete the article, he tagged it for deletion and an administrator agreed with him. And he didn't say Andrew2312 was the "only" contributor. Katr67 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Wikipedia policy on articles like this are not clear. It is notable, as its been selected as the best small publisher in London, which by definition means England. This is one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians, do a quick google on an article and if nothing found, then its non notable. Please remember that Google themselves have said that only beteen 3%-8% of the worlds information is online. scope_creep 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Where does it say it is the best small publisher in London? That's not in the article. The article originally said "Black Dog was recently selected by Time Out magazine as one of London's most important...", though the article actually says "In an industry almost entirely dominated by big boys and blockbusters, it's a delight to discover the delicate charms of the capital's little literary imprints" and Black Dog is relegated to the "Other petite publishers" section. There is no mention of any of these publishers being "best". Katr67 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment First of all, Katr67, Finngall (or whichever obsessive it was who got the last article deleted) did claim that Andrew312 was the only person involved as a reason for its triviality - he certainly ignored all of my contributions all too conveniently. And secondly, the standards you apply to TimeOut's "ranking" of the publishers it covers is patently ridiculous, especially when considering that two of the "relegated" publishers in the article have wikipedia entries themselves, whilst three of four featured more prominently do not. Last of all, scope_creep didn't claim that the TimeOut article said Black Dog was the best in London, only that it has been selected as the best in the past. Poului 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Referring to admins as "obsessives" might not be the best way to further your cause. Regarding the other articles, please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Katr67 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

"Finngall...did claim that Andrew312 was the only person involved as a reason for its triviality..." False. I only referred to him as the original author. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that point. And even if we allow for your interpretation that I said he was the sole author, there's nothing there that says I claimed that as a reason for anything.
"...he certainly ignored all of my contributions all too conveniently." False. I did not ignore the changes you made to the previous version of the article after I placed the PROD, but I didn't think they addressed the concerns that I raised. And again, I didn't perform the actual deletion--I have no way of knowing whether the deleting admin ignored your improvements or simply didn't believe they were sufficient. You'll have to ask him.

I'm not going to plead innocent to being an obsessive at times, but flinging accusations like the above is neither productive nor particularly relevant to the discussion. --Finngall ^talk 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Ignoring" is not the same as denying; you declined to mention any of my contributions, yet you still went out of your way to spontaneously point out the original poster's supposedly lone campaign to set up the article. Exactly why would you care to mention such things on a discussion board exclusively created in the interests of discussing the reasons for the article's deletion? Seeing as this new article was set up by me, may I suggest it best not to insult my credibility and suggest some equivalence with me and the original poster purely on the grounds that I decided to re-open proposals for the publisher's inclusion on the site, and furthermore that we stick to genuine observations made in regards to the entry, the majority of which, as you can see, favour its inclusion. Poului 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per scope_creep. Google results =/= notability. Hansonc 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The press coverage, archived on their site, establishes sufficient notability. Books and culture matter, so even if you think it's close, I urge airing on the side of caution and retaining. Shawn in Montreal 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, notable publisher, covered in The Bookseller and other offline publications. -- JHunterJ 00:31, 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 11:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existence on appearance, longevity and reproductivity phenomenon

Undiluted original research. Pure tautology "patterns exist to an extent … proportionally to their frequency of appearance"! Author removes the prod but does not provide any references! (Mikael you have been editing Wikipedia long enough, you should know better.) -- RHaworth 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as OR. When you have a section called "Everything", you're in trouble. Clarityfiend 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as OR/nonsense. If this ever becomes a real scientific (or metascientific) subject, it is sure to get a pithier name, so an article with this name is never going to be needed. It's a pity, in a way, because I was looking forward to reading about Astrosociobiology. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep It could and sounds like nonsense, but I think we should give the author a chance to improve it. scope_creep 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No, sorry, delete as OR or nonsense. Wikipedia is not the place to work out his theories. Shawn in Montreal 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clarity says it best. If you can't find a single source to cite to, you're writing about your own original ideas. Mandsford 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, OR. Doctorfluffy 07:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete and I think the original author now agrees (see talk page) LeContexte 08:24, 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 delete. Renata 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obner

Not Notable Jemather 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete nowhere in that article do I see an assertion of notability. JuJube 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- So tagged. shoy (^words _words) 16:26, 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 — Caknuck 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Renzu Kwai Aikido Club, Sidcup

Non-notable single aikido club. Claims to be the first of this particular style of aikido but it is still very small single club and really the age is not notable in itself. Very few individual aikido clubs are on wikipedia.Peter Rehse 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete single Club no claim of notability reads like an advert almost a speedy --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep If its been there 35 years, then its a community institution. need source though, and the article needs cleaned, added to. scope_creep 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- No sourcing for oldest, or the 35 years & since when was a local club (with unspecified membership) a 'community institution'? No claim of this in the article. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sourced - I saw this article when it first appeared, and because it had some claim of notability I left it to expand. Unfortunately, existing for 35 years (also not referenced) isn't notability; there are thousands of older non-notable sports associations. If its wider claims can be referenced, great, but otherwise it'll have to go. ELIMINATORJR 08:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete If its assertions regarding being a founding member of the british aikido board are true, then I'm inclined to believe it is notable. However, unless that can be cited to a reliable secondary source, my conclusion is delete. Bradford44 17:43, 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 delete. henrik•talk 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ines Cudna

Completely unsourced article about a softcore porn model that has been around on Wikipedia for a long time. It doesn't even assert any particular importance or significance, and could be validly speedy deleted as A7. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ewa Sonnet is notable for being a pop singer as well as a topless model. However, Ines Cudna is not, and if Bea Flora and Aneta Buena are non-notable, neither is Ines Cudna.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No opinions? Please, someone. She lacks news coverage, which was an argument used in the Aneta Buena AfD. A regular Google search returns lots of sites offering pictures of her in the nude, but nothing that looks to me like a reliable source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No more notable than Bea Flora as far as I'm concerned.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Although having said that we do have an article about Sharday who seems only marginally more notable, although I'm dubious as to the quality of the references there...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Doctorfluffy 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Ibid et al 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC) — Ibid et al (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No coverage or awards. Epbr123 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of characters in the Fire Emblem series

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Table of characters in the Fire Emblem series

Articles for deletion/Table of characters in the Fire Emblem series (2nd nomination)

I obviously wasn't thinking properly when I closed the first AfD of this article. This content cannot be transwikied to Wikisource as Wikisource only accepts previously published material that is now free. Content needs to a single published source (not a combination of several or OR) for that project. As the page seems to be outside the scope of this encyclopedia and there doesn't seem to be a suitable target to send it to, I think we're going to have to delete it - but I refer it back in case I've missed anything. WjBscribe 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: This isn't the type of content that should be in Wikipedia. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is exactly the type of content which should be in Wikipedia. it is clearly notable by the fact that it has been played by thousands of people. Also this article is the character list for the main article. It is a well know video game.scope_creep 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If this was about the series' notability, then it would be Fire Emblem AfD. This is just fancruft that can't really be called an actual article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete crosses the line into being a gameguide. Ridernyc 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge into the game articles. 132.205.99.122 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It can't really be merged into the gaming articles—it will damage the quality of the articles to have this sort of information. Besides, mist have their own relating sub-list of characters. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. List clutter and game guide content. This should be transwikied to a Fire Emblem wiki (if one exists), otherwise some other gaming wiki in my view. RobJ1981 18:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's FEWiki. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artix Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment

Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (2nd nomination)

Article cites no independent verifiable sources. It was created by an employee of the company (see User:Skyboy59) who is responsible for much of the article's original and updated text. This is in patent violation of Wikipedia Policy regarding original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthanado (talk • contribs) 2007/10/31 13:41:31

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as written, doesn't pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Starblind above Frog47 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete In my opinion, the company is noteable enough. However, the article is too much of an advertisement. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is a well established game company. That makes it notable. scope_creep 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
'Delete, I'm seeing anything to indicate WP:CORP has been satisfied. Doctorfluffy 07:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno why it should be deleted, it's a notable company that's on the rise. It's also false that Skyboy created it, he's just a popular member. If you feel that "it's too much advertising." then you can take those parts out.

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perimeter Mall

This article goes to some lengths to explain the many and varied ways in which this mall is pretty much indistinguishable from a hundred others. It wasn't the first in the area, isn't the biggest, has no particular claim to historic or architectural uniqueness, and in every discernible way is just another shopping mall. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Did the "Perimeter" neighborhood name in Atlanta come from this mall or the other way around? Smashville 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perimeter Mall was the seed from which the Perimeter Center edge city grew; it was in the middle of completely undeveloped agricultural land (i.e cow pastures) when it was built. AUTiger » talk 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've read about it...it looks like I-285 is the reason for all that development. Smashville 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I-285 is a 64 mile loop; why did Perimeter Center happen along that one-ish mile stretch and not the other 63? AUTiger » talk 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you driven it? The entire thing is developed. Smashville 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I have, I live in Atlanta; have you? And no the entire Perimeter is not developed on the scale and intensity that Perimeter Center is. AUTiger » talk 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep so many of these have pages here that it's hard to fight for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at some point. JJL 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, if WP:OTHERMALLSEXISTS becomes a policy for keeping malls, then it opens the door for wp:otherstuffexists becoming a policy for keeping any article.--victor falk 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No claim to notability whatsoever, speedable per A7.--victor falk 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This mall was the first super-regional shopping mall in Metro Atlanta. When it was opened it was in the middle of nowhere. Today its in one of the richest areas of the metro area. If you delete this one, then most of the articles in Wikipedia need to be deleted because they are not notable or important. In fact, why dont you just shut the whole thing down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etittle1978 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, please be civil. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. Secondly, where in the article does it state that? According to the article, it was the 4th mall in Dekalb County and a similar mall already existed in Atlanta when it was built. It says this in the article. Smashville 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep While the article does a poor job of stating it, this mall was one of the top three malls in the Atlanta area during the 1970's and 1980's, and was substantially larger than its predecessors in DeKalb County. It became the node around which office development took place, and is the specific reason the MARTA station was constructed in that location. It has since been outclassed by newer development. Establishing documented notability from that time would require newspaper clippings, since my assertion here isn't citable. If we are viewing a snapshot of its significance as a mall in late 2007, and ignoring the urban context it produced, I wouldn't call it notable. However, since notability isn't temporary, I believe the argument that it should go because it has none now is invalid. I'll see what I can do about references. Acroterion _(talk) 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I don't live in that city, but even I've heard of this -- it's really big. Searching Google's News Archive produces 4000+ hits. Yes, many are passing mentions, but there's still plenty of meat; here's a small sample:
- Smothers, Ronald. "Man Shoots 5, Killing One, In a Georgia Shopping Mall", The New York Times, 1990-04-25. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.
- Badie, Rickie. "Water main breaks, soaks Perimeter Mall", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1985-06-24. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.
- "On the move: As competition in the area heats up, Perimeter Mall announces a renovation geared toward attracting nightlife", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1996-09-06. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.
- Badie, Rickie. "Water main breaks, soaks Perimeter Mall", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1985-06-24. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.
- "Mall shooter was seeking `to get even': Police say man he killed, four others were victims of his imagined troubles", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's one where the Wall Street Journal refers to this mall in passing as one of the top high end malls in the U.S.:

Starkman, Dean. "Rodamco Will Sell Itself to Rivals, Splitting Up Its U.S. Mall Portfolio", The Wall Street Journal, 2002-01-14. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Those sources establish absolutely nothing beyond its existence... "refer in passing" is exactly what sources should not do. --victor falk 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Victor, did you examine any of these pages I cited or any of the Google News Archive search results I linked to? Reading the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, the sample sources I cited all meet the 5 requirements: "Independent of the subject", "Presumed", "Reliable", "Significant coverage", "Sources" (except for the last source, which is not significant coverage). What additional criteria do you expect this article to meet? --A. B. ^(talk) 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I check them? I've done better than that. I've integrated one of them into the article [25]. Now, how encyclopedic does that look like?--victor falk 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How encyclopedic?? Very. Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You... You're pulling my leg, aren't you? You can't seriously claim that 6 inches of water in 1984 is notable?--victor falk 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anytime a busted pipe causes $100,000s of damage and shuts down a mall that grosses $1+ million in sales every day, I guess someone's going to notice. And the shooting of 5 people that dominated the news across North America and caused changes in mall security industrywide -- your thoughts on that? --A. B. ^(talk) 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit; WP:POINT much? AUTiger » talk 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete a busted water main 22 years ago and a shooting 17 years ago do not make this notable. Dekalb County had 43 murders in 1990. Most murders do get reported in the news. Would the locations of all of these murders therefore be notable? Smashville 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sporadic media mentions does not mean notability. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N.Subdolous 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: new user -- account opened 14:07, 30 October 2007. Edits to date: recommending "delete" in 40 different AfDs over 164 minutes of editing). Comment by A. B.

This mall has had dozens of dedicated articles written about it in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. I consider that large newspaper to be a reliable source.^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11} It and the associated Perimeter Center development were one of the examples used by Joel Garreau in his groundbreaking 1991 book about "edge cities". --A. B. ^(talk) 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because it is in Atlanta. It's a place to shop in Atlanta. Every mall is going to have articles in the local paper. Smashville 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, well what about the Washington Post: "Soul of a New Atlanta"? --A. B. ^(talk) 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that virtually every mall has added development near it. Some malls (like Cool Springs Galleria) essentially transform the entire city they are in - those are notable malls. Perimeter Mall is just another mall. They have a nice freestanding California Pizza Kitchen and a weird Best Buy, but it's just another mall. Smashville 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Cool Springs article; there's absolutely nothing in the article about any transformation nor anything else asserting notability. I'm assume you or someone else here will be nominating it on AfD shortly? There are probably 100 more to be nominated from this [26]. (PS. not simply WP:OTHERSTUFF, other stuff x100) AUTiger » talk 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article does not properly cover the subject's history and notability, but the mall was the birth of a very significant edge city for Atlanta. "The Perimeter business district is the region's largest employer district and one of the largest Class A corporate office markets in the southeast."[27] AUTiger » talk 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, can't see any reason why we need to get rid of it. THE KING 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep the mall's size and scope -- Gross leasable area of 1.6 million square feet -- places the mall well above and beyond the International Council of Shopping Centers classification as a super-regional mall. The sources provided establish that the mall satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - super-regionals are notable simply for that fact. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If you wanted to delete a mall, it's hardly worth it to start with a mall this upscale, this important...Ryoung122 13:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I'm changing my vote after sleeping on it to a weak keep...I have family in Atlanta, but others far more knowledgeable on the subject seem to think it's notable...perhaps it's just my inability to distinguish a notable mall from a non-notable mall. They're all malls to me... Smashville 13:53, 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 — fails notability guidelines. In the future, please be nice to everyone in deletion discussions — there's no need to rude. --Haemo 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venomcrack

Notability. By way of an irrelevant aside for the gentle reader to take for whatever value it's worth, I know the author of this software, and this smacks of a vanity article of his own creation. Katavothron 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its interesting history and its notable by the fact that it affected several people including myself, and is listed in the AVG datafile. scope_creep 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think it's safe to say Wikipedia isn't going to be covering the thousands of viruses listed in the AVG datafile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is a research tool. A computer virus is something people research on the internet.

Hansonc 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but we're not talking about removing all the information on computer viruses, only one particular virus that seems of little note. Perhaps a Google search would be enlightening? Excluding Wikipedia and the first name of the author as search terms (to get rid of the various places he himself has bragged about it), Google turns up very little (even less of which has anything to do with this particular virus), which is probably a reasonable metric by which to gage the impact and significance of a particular computer virus. For comparison: CIH, Melissa, Sobig, Code Red, ILOVEYOU, etc. Granted, google tests are of limited utility and I picked very high-profile counterexamples, but the notability of software with less than one hundred search engine hits is far more questionable than one with a few hundred thousand. More to the point, when the existence of this wikipedia page causes the subject to nearly double its search engine presence (due to mirrors and such), can it be called notable in its own right? Do any other Wikipedia pages on related topics reference Venomcrack? Does the subject have any claim to fame whatsoever beyond "it is a computer virus"? Is it within the scope of this site to catalog every obscure piece of malware in existence? Forgive my ignorance of this site's standards, but if I'm wrong here then we must subscribe to a very different notion of notability. Katavothron 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how you make an argument by comparing it to high profile non-comparable events and yet you still tweeked the search to help you even more. Yeah we probably do have different notions of notability. I believe that Google results =/= notability and that "notability" obviously doesn't really apply to Wikipedia anyway. See the billion or so articles on Pokemon or any other obscure fantasy world. At least this actually exists in the real unlike many "notable" topics on Wikipedia. Hansonc 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility and sarcasm, is this how people are treated on this site?

I don't know whether notability really is a criteria for this site, but if it is I assert that this virus is non-notable because the very best source for finding information about computer viruses (the internet, which google does a reasonable job of indexing) yields almost no relevant information about it that didn't come from this very site. There is no evidence to be found that it had any significant impact on any number of people whatsoever. You have explained what you don't believe constitutes notability, but you haven't provided a single reason why you believe that this virus stands out among the tens of thousands of instances of malware out there. What's more, comparing the notability of this virus to a children's media franchise that is instantly recognizable by millions of people worldwide is simply ridiculous.

If this notability thing isn't actually an issue and I'm just needlessly causing annoyance, please delete this discussion and accept my apology. I just don't understand how this page is remotely significant enough to be included in an "encyclopedia". Katavothron 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nowhere near the level of notability of ILOVEYOU and kin. Katavothron, you were right to nominate this. Hansonc, watch your mouth. humblefool® 05:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Watch my mouth? Because I argue that deleting something based on extremely bad comparisons (like ILOVEYOU) is a bad idea? Or did I touch a nerve with comment about how this actually exists unlike Pokemon garbage? Hansonc 15:52, 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 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal City (film)

Future film with no claim of notability. 0 non-wiki ghits for this film with Elijah Wood. No listing at IMDb. Either a hoax or completely non-notable. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as either a hoax, or zero claim to notability under notability guidelines for films. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete supposed upcoming film not on IMDB. Hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishLass0128 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete almost certainly a hoax. Dumelow 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as a likely hoax because there is no verifiability from any reliable source about this so-called topic. We need to shut down the vandals setting up these fake articles -- Vic and Marty, Jujitsu Deer, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, obvious hoax. Doctorfluffy 05:32, 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 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grayson mcgregor

Fictional character that does not meet notability requirements of WP:FICT Pilotbob 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable character from a book "published" by a print-on-demand vanity publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete As above. No reason to keep this page at all.Alberon 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICT. -- Mikeblas 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, entirely non-notable. Utterly fails secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Google returns 2 hits with "-wikipedia", neither of which are related to the topic making any chance of establishing notability extremely doubtful. Doctorfluffy 19:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails notability. 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
Delete, per everything said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete The book, author, and publisher are red links, how can the character be notable? Edward321 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalish

This article provides no primary sources and no reliable secondary sources. What sources there are have been taken from fansites, and cannot be accepted as reliable. The plot summary does not provide any evidence of real-world notability for this fictional race of people. Gavin Collins 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge -- preferably into an article on the races of Farscape. Pinball22 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep (first choice) or Merge (2nd choice). I've never seen the show and am not sure how important this "race" is, but it's part of a set of similar articles and it doesn't appear that deletion is the solution. There do appear to be reliable in-print sources, as Farscape has been the subject of a number of series guides both official and unofficial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. These are recognised story background from Farscape. scope_creep 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No reliable secondary sources to pass WP:FICT and this is really just a WP:NOT#PLOT summary. Doctorfluffy 17:18, 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 Delete, non-notable, previously deleted as spam. Admin closure. Dreadstar † 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scripts & Scruples and associated pages

Scripts & Scruples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Non-notable podcast with single editor POV and contributes, all original research, no citations noted other than podcast home page. AfD should also include the following pages. Manhattan (Scripts & Scruples); Template:Scripts & Scruples; Gregory Walker (S&S); John Paul Hunter; Blake Whitney; Adriana Cummings; Connie Richards; and Rockland County (Soap Opera). All created to "support" the main article. IrishLass0128 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:WEB. Really bizarre article about a podcast that doesn't actually mention that it's a podcast at all: indeed someone just reading through might assume it's a TV or radio show of some kind. Presumably this is to escape deletion as I'm sure podcast categories are regularly pruned by editors experienced in their nature. In any case, has all the problems one might expect: no reliable sourcing, no claims of notability, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapfan91 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- See? Even the creator wants it deleted. He's calling it bullshit. --UsaSatsui 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, per WP:WEB, and quite honestly the comments by Soapfan91. A podcast soap doesn't meet notability and doesn't fit per the WP:WEB guidelines. Speedy delete would be my recommendation. CelticGreen 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If the show is only a podcast, than I'm not even sure the show is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, let alone a character... ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

you guys are assholes!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapfan91 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment -it is increasingly clear that this person is only putting the articles up for their own benefit based on the comments above. Urging strong delete at this juncture. IrishLass0128 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, clearly not notable at this time. But what do I know, I'm an asshole. --UsaSatsui 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That must make me the leader or the biggest asshole since I nominated this article. That's okay, no offense taken. Question, how long does this process generally take? IrishLass0128 17:14, 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 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse Jockey

Contested prod. Highly dubious dicdef, which I doubt is even appropriate for Wiktionary and certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia. — iridescent 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is not Urban Dictionary. Edison 13:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I work in the UK industry on a contract basis, and have never heard this phrase once. scope_creep 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per edison. Samuel 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO. No indication this is a notable term. Doctorfluffy 19:40, 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 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken Fried Radio

Non-notable podcast. Aside from some reviews in non-notable sources, there's only trivial media coverage. --Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep These new web 2.0 media channels are brand new, and unknown at this time of their lasting impact and its important we keep a history of them. scope_creep 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. The only thing that looks even remotely like a reliable source (azcentral) is actually just a single mention in a long article about podcasts and thus trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, for the exact reasons that Scope creep explained: it's brand new and unknown at this time. Any speculation to lasting impact is crystalballery, and we are not a mechanism to record history of things not notable. For instance, we don't care (beyond trivial interest) what Napoleon Bonaparte had for breakfast on the day that the Louisiana Purchase was completed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Although it looks interesting, it fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Jauerback 18:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Doctorfluffy 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I wrote part of it back when the podcast was producing weekly episodes and gaining new listenership. At that point, it was at least on the road to notability, but now the listenership has dropped off dramatically. If it ever becomes popular again, it can be rewritten then. For now, delete. Dairhenien 02:12, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Monsters Attack Japan!

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan!

Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (3rd nomination)

While this is, I believe, its third nomination, none of the arguments made in AfD2 seem to have nailed the main point here. It's got nothing to do with crystal balling at all. Under the notability guidelines for films, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." This much is clear: standalone articles should only be created when a film enters production. As is the reasoning behind it: too many instances exist of films which are either constantly pushed back, or collapse altogether (American Gangster is an example that had a director and cast attached and still fell apart).

While in certain circumstances it is prudent to ignore all rules (perhaps when excessive notability has been demonstrated or the start of production is imminent) this potential film surely does not warrant such treatment and a better place should be found for the information contained therein. Similar methods have worked for films such as Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4 and The Hobbit (2009 film). Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete I think the film is going to be made and soon, as Trey Parker is directing, and who is very hot within the industry. But the fact the film has still not started shooting, means not notable. In three month it will be different. Is it worth leaving for that time? scope_creep 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything could happen to push back filming in that time. We've seen too many examples of this happening to call it a rare event; indeed, it's quite common. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I actually !voted "weak keep" in the first afd, but as shooting still hasn't started, it should be deleted. Any confirmed details can be mentioned in Parker and Stone's articles. Crazysuit 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete A film set for release in 2009? Come back in '09. Mandsford 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep sourced. JJL 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. However, that does not address the point that the film has not yet entered production, is not close enough to production to turn a blind eye and is not notable enough in its own right to yet warrant an article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for clear failure to meet notability requirements as set out by nom. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teflon character

Dictionary definition. Transwikied. There's no concrete list of people it's been applied to, and it's only really notable in two or three cases. Chris Cunningham 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. That name, Teflon Tone for Tony Blair was used in the British press for over 10 years. Everybody in the UK knows that jibe. A definite keep. The article needs cleaned up and some sourced added. I also think the Teflon Tone is in the Oxford dictionary. scope_creep 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern was known as the "Teflon Taoiseach" for about 10 years. The article can be sourced and expanded. Bláthnaid 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a list of people who have been referred to as "Teflon.." in the media. If the keep !voters can provide sources about this term, then they should do so, but saying "keep and source" is meaningless if the article will never be sourced. Until then it is original research.Crazysuit 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment ... or you can do a Google search. A vote for deletion means that no sources exist anywhere, not just in Wikipedia. A lack of sourcing is solved with a tag, not deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
keep Let's not forget the "teflon don" of mafia fame (I think that sobriquet was applied to a few mafiosi actually, notably John Gotti). Wintermut3 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete A category called "characters with 'Teflon' in their nicknames" would be better, unless reliable sources can be found discussing the naming phenomenon as a phenomenon, or linking these people somehow. Without such sources, this is an arbitrary conjunction of otherwise unrelated people. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rename to something like Teflon (nickname). The origin is notable and this has become a well-known political (especially) sobriquet, but the phrase "Teflon character" only gets 189 Ghits and many of those are just random. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the name change to Teflon (nickname). Its true their character or reputation is made of Teflon, but it still sounds like a character from a TV situation comedy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable and source-able phenomenon. Rename to Teflon (nickname). When I came to the AFD I was expecting some obscure anime character based on the existing title. THE KING 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep No concrete list of people it's been applied to? Try Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, John Gotti, Tony Blair, and any other famous person for whom we used to say "could do no wrong" Mandsford 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Any other person" is the whole problem. It's a pretty common sobriquet these days, so much so that it's a cliche. WP:NOT a collection of cliches. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would agree it's become a hackneyed expression primarily used by lazy correspondents and headline writers. Nevertheless, its original application has historical notability, and notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In a dictionary, yes. We're not here to document cliches. I firmly believe this should be a category, and if the AfD fails I'm going to go categorising people anyway to see if we can make it one. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looks like your arguments aren't sticking. This article must be made of... you know. Mandsford 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Conflict

Contested prod. Apparently self-published forthcoming book; totally unsourced other than the author's blog, no assertion of notability, violates WP:CRYSTAL. — iridescent 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Booksurge is a publish-on-demand service, publishing a book through there is just not impressive. Brianyoumans 12:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Totally non-notable.Alberon 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep even though such a book is self published. The storyline is impressive and you should giv ehte blog a read before judgement is passed. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and saying that this book is not worthy of being mentioned is like saying apples isn't worth being mentioned in an encyclopedia. All this is still a aspect of human creativity, why not give the poor kid a chance? Syinx 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't matter if the storyline is 'impressive'. This isn't a judgement on how good or bad we think the book is, it just isn't notable yet. Perhaps if the book starts getting some good reviews (or in fact any reviews) from independent sites then that might change. But as it stands the book does not deserve a page here. His book isn't going to fail or succeed based on a Wiki entry anyway.Alberon 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Still seems to deserve one though Syinx 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Why?Alberon 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep We have got to get away from this crap about self published and it not been worth anything, apart from vanity. Several well know authors have had to self publish their first novels because they couldn't get publishing deals. These days, mostly because of celebrity publishing, like Cooleen Rooney getting a five book deal. Self publishing of pamphlets has been going on for centuries to spread new ideas, like Lutherism. Dickens had to publish his first set of sketches himself. The list goes on. scope_creep 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Dickens and Luther have coverage in independent sources. If they didn't, they'd go, too. — iridescent 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete not only is it self-published (which is usually cause to delete right there), it isn't even released yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Do I understand this right? There's a 13 year old who posted Chapter 1 of his newest webnovel, in September 2007, and who is cranking out about 1,500 words at a time on a website. "The twin moons that shone through the crack in the sky made slivers of light illuminate my black sword," is the opening line. Should everyone who self-publishes a book on the internet also get to self-publish an article about it on Wikipedia? It's bad enough that we have articles about TV episodes created by professional writers. As Alberon says, a Wikipedia article isn't going to make or break Jeremy. Mandsford 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability for this WP:CRYSTALballery. Doctorfluffy 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nowheristan

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}}

No so much a micro-nation, more a macro-nation. Proclaimed in the presence of a UN representative but is it notable? -- RHaworth 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Absolutely no sources. This is just a self-promotional campaign for one artist. This is mentioned at his article as a project, so it's pointless as a separate article. Freshacconci | Talk 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Though well-written and somewhat amusing, it has no place here. ~~WP:HOAX would probably suffice,~~ but verifiability (tough for an non-existent place) and notability are both deal-breakers as well. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I acknowledge that the movement may be a real one - but I can't find a shred of documentation from any reliable source that says so. If there is coverage out there, please provide links to sources and/or add them to the article. In the absence of independent sources that support the statements of the article, unfortunately, the article will likely be deleted. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Interesting experiment, 50k+ folk think so. Well written article, but not notable scope_creep 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete yet another fake "micronation". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep i found an excellent article about it on the very serious UN forum, but there it is written Nowherestan with an e at the place of the i after the r. I love the concept.Faresov 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)— Faresov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
strong keep its an anlternative,a chance, maybe one day a solution.Strong keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Carl.leman (talk • contribs) — Dr.Carl.leman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong keep Remarkably ambitious project with fast growing popularity and notability: 50k+ members (supporters?), press articles in major papers and magazines in Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon.. + numerous blog entries. Foxbook 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)— Foxbook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. The following comment was incorrectly left on this AfD's talk page. Since this is the discussion, all comments should be placed here - please correct me if I erred. Accordingly, I have relocated the comment to this page, verbatim, highlighting the heading and the recommendation in the last line. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a "free" "encyclopedia"?

All the comments posted on the article NOWHERISTAN can be acceptable: those calling for the deletion and the others showing their support, but this depends on HOW we understand the leading concept of WIDKIPEDIA, claiming to be a "free" "encyclopedia", and WHO reads Wikipedia and WHERE in the world.

What is an "encyclopedia"? Following the definition given by the Cambridge dictionnary of language, it is "a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order which eather with the whole of human knowledge or a particular part of it".

Following the same dictionary "free" means "not limited or controlled".

Who reads Wikipedia? All those who are fed up with Encarta, Larousse, Universalis etc. etc. Those who are looking something else than the conventional traditional encyclopedias, those who are using a site that provides the information that not any other encyclopedia do.

Where are located the Wikipedia fans? Everywhere on the planet: Wikipedia exists in all the written languages of the world: european and anglo saxon languages, but also in Kurdi, Occitan, Tagalog, Scottish, Romani, Sardanian, armenian, basque and many other languages some of them spoken in very small regions or maybe one or two tribes...

That means that when ANYONE on the planet wants to FIND an information that not a single encylopedia can give, he goes to WIKIPEDIA.

For this, and being numerous now in Lebanon and also in many other countries (Egypt, France, USA, Yugoslavia...) to be interested by the NOWHERISTAN, I think we have the RIGHT to be informed, and Wikipedia "THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA" has the DUTY to give us the information.

That's why I want the article NOWHERISTAN be kept, with maybe light amendments that can make this article fit Wikipedia in the best way. --Siguiriya 12:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)— Siguiriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Another misplaced !vote by HadySouaid was removed from the article's page itself. It is reproduced verbatim, below. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep I do not find any reason to delete this article, but i insist to keep it, since it's a great idea, based on the biggest problem in the world, leading to war, which is "Identity" because this problem, is dividing, while the vision of Nowheristan is based on uniting the people all over the world, on many common things, instead of dividing them on small differences. Give freedom a chance ... help Nowheristan to become stronger —Preceding unsigned comment added by HadySouaid (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 November 2007 — HadySouaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this another one of those "Things so small and secret that there's been no news on it, but trust me they exist" things? Or are there some actual sources? If they've been proclaimed to the UN, there should be. Until they show, though, Delete. --UsaSatsui 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
keep. Let's say that Nowheristan is more a concept than an existing place , more a philosophy than a project as it has been said. Is there no place in Wikipedia for ideas and philosophy? Nowheristan, despite being an ideacounts more than 50k citizens who supports its concept. A google search on Nowheristan will give you more than 1800 websites, in different countries, in different languages, and in very respectable and trusful places like newspapers and TVchannels, and many blogs are talking about it. For ex titlesearch for "nowheristan, or link titleor link titleor link titleor link titleor link titleand many many others... If someone wants to know what is Nowheristan or know more about Nowheristan, I believe that Wikipedia should give the answer.

A Nowheristani citizen (and proud to be) Siguiriya 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)— Siguiriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete, seems to be nonsense no matter how many advocates are on wikipedia. Did you see the emperor picture??? -RiverHockey 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. This article is utter rubbish: self-promotion of a ludicrous concept. If this AfD had not been going I might have speedily deleted it as G1. Sam Blacketer 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sam Blacketer, thank you for expressing your opinion, but being the author of the article, I can hardly assume (though I do) good faith on your part when I read the tone of your comment. Bahaab 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

- I am sorry if I have offended you, but I do tend to check these things. When I find that all your edits (apart from one minor change to spelling in France) are either connected to this micronation or its founder, and that you say you know him, then I do not think it is unreasonable to regard the article as being promotional. The article is in no sense written in encyclopaedic style; I can guarantee you that no encyclopaedia in the world would include a sentence like "Nowheristan is the first step on the way leading to Humanistan, passing through Everywheristan". This is a press release and not an encyclopaedia article. Finally the infobox gives the game away by claiming at one and the same time the whole world to be included, but yet only 50,000 people. There is no evidence that anyone takes this at all seriously. Sam Blacketer 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, currently non-notable as there doesn't appear to be verifiable sources at the moment so it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Further, it is written in so severe a non-npov style that it simply isn't salvagable. 75.128.225.15 21:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
~~Strong keep~~. I dont understand the relentlessness to persecute this article... It is not offending, ethically correct, not antisemitic, not racist, and for those who seem not to have any sense of humor, the picture of the "emperor" is pure derision, a kind of caricature of the dictatorian regimes. And it happens that some people of Wikipedia readers are interested in other subjects than Ireland, the Irish culture and the Hockey. So please keep Nowheristan among your articles.Siguiriya 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) With respect, though you are welcome to comment on this discussion as much or as little as you wish, you may only enter one recommendation of Keep or Delete. This debate is not a strict Vote, nor is it a trial. It is a discussion of what to do with the article. The nominator of the article believes that it should be deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's policies. If it can be shown to comply with those policies, or if it can be edited to conform to those policies, then it will be kept. Unfortunately, if it does not, it is possible that it will be deleted. A number of new users recommending that the article be kept will not be effective in keeping the article. If there are sources from newspapers or media coverage that discuss nowheristan, then we can use those as reliable sources, and the article might be kept. Blogs, unfortunately, don't meet the requirements for reliable sources, nor do sources affiliated with nowheristan itself. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: How many votes do you think you should get, Siguiriya? 204.38.54.172 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment to RiverHockey : did you say advocates? Advocates defend criminals and this article is not related to any crime or a criminal content! We can now mail to the 50k Nowheristani citizens asking them to register on Wikipedia and leave strong keeps. But we dont want and wont accept to act so. This article is purely informative, and does not need any advocate for its defense. We are asking that is remains in Wikipedia, where it founds its right place. Siguiriya 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the point of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia like any other. As such, all articles need to be about notable subjects and require verifiable sources to establish notability. Wikipedia is not here to promote any idea or group, or to establish notability on any person or group's behalf. If this article fails any test of notability, an administrator may decide to delete it. As for inviting people to "vote", I need to remind you this is not a vote. It is a discussion. An administrator will read the debate and make a decision based on that, not the number of keep versus delete. I have seen deletion discussions end with a keep, even though the the number of deletes is greater, and I have seen the opposite as well. I would suggest you continue to contribute to Wikipedia on other articles and try writing this particular article at a later date, when you are able to establish notability with verifiable, neutral, third-party sources. You may want to read these links: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, which give information on Wikipedia policies. No one here is "persecuting" this article. We are all attempting to maintain certain standards. This is crucial for this project to succeed. You may find other articles which do not appear to have any more notability than this one. The size and scope of Wikipedia versus the number of dedicated editors (especially within the arts) is great, and it is sometimes difficult to find all the articles which fail Wikipedia's necessarily strict standards. Please do not take any of this personally, nor attribute any of this discussion as a value-judgment on the Nowheristan project or its creator. A worthwhile project may not currently meet notability standards, but this does not necessarily mean that this will always be the case. I think most of us here are in favour of including more rather than less to the overall Wikipedia project. But there are limits and we need to be vigilant. Thank you. freshacconci: speak to me 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Siguiriya, advocate: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: ie: He advocated the creation of an article for Nowheristan. I also see your first edit was just two days ago in defense of this article..... --RiverHockey 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem in this debate is the denial of obvious realities. The users defending this article are obviously people who care about the project, and I don't find it surprising that they have only worked on this article or articles related to it. Using that as a reason (albeit implied) for deletion is a non-argument. I know no-one has actually said that, but it's the thinly veiled subtext of some of the comments here. While we should always aim for objectivity in Wikipedia, I don't believe that the majority of contributions here come from 100% 'disinterested people'. To the supporters of the project, I suggest you make the article much less self-referential. It's obvious that the project exists (otherwise you wouldn't be defending it), but you have to write about it "from the outside", and not from a Nowheristani point of view. I suggest you look at the article on Discordianism for a better idea of what I mean; the article treats the subject respectfully, but not from a Discordian point of view. Furthermore, you must get more references to satisfy the rules of notability; which, I would admit, are a little biased, because while many may have heard of Nowheristan in the Middle East (I've watched a segment about it on Lebanese television and attended a conference in Beirut that included adherents), you still need to prove it to Western readers before it becomes "real". -- Jadzilla 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, upon further investigation I've found that every user who has voted keep has no other contributions on wikipedia, except those related to this debate, see top warning. -RiverHockey 01:14, 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 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J.T. Tinney

Subject may not have sufficient notability for an article; there is no attribution to reliable sources. Speedy deletion declined because there seems some assertion of notability. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Freshacconci | Talk 12:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. scope_creep 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TGreenburgPR 06:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Deb —Preceding comment was added at 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The Chronic 04:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 13:47, 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 11:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

===Charles Alexander Moffat===Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed predictions (2nd nomination)

No credible sources: all references are either webrings, paid-use sites or dead links. All other claims are unsourced. This has been tagged since May 2007 as not satisfying notability guidelines with no apparent improvements forthcoming. Freshacconci | Talk 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 12:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No evidence whatsoever this passes WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Johnbod 14:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Note Apparently this was already deleted as Charles Moffat, but was recreated with his middle name. freshacconcispeaktome 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed predictions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Failed predictions

Articles for deletion/Failed predictions (2nd nomination)

A number of objections, culled from the Talk page:

Not encyclopaedic. More appropriate on Wikiquote.
Poorly sourced or relying largely on a single webpage source that is itself unsourced.
Whether something constitutes a "failed prediction" requires at least POV judgement or at worst original research
Not actually a list of failed predictions, but rather, selective quotes taken out of context in order to create mild comedy.
Quotes largely given without any context or commentary.

--Waggawag 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Reminds me of some of the stuff my mother-in-law used to forward, and that used to circulate via xeroxed sheets tacked to office bulletin boards. Non-encyclopedaic. Brianyoumans 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Koryu Obihiro 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I didn't hit the Pick 6 at Monmouth on Saturday. That is also a failed prediction. Smashville 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I think the key to this, despite being enormously indiscriminate is "out of context". It leads itself to having apocryphal info, too. Smashville 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep with a thorough cleanup and references. Most of the examples should be deleted as too vague, but the doomsday predictions give specific dates or years and have presumably been publicized, so it shouldn't be impossible to find sources. Clarityfiend 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Let's instead move the "Doomsday" predictions into the Doomsday event article and delete them here. Unfortunately, doomsday predictions can be generated quite regularly in modern times, and continue to be generated, so only those that were historically high-impact (ie, had some relevance to human events beyond being simply noted in the historical record) ought to merit inclusion (in that article). --Waggawag

Delete. Funny but merely a hodge-podge collection of quips, not a proper encyclopedic article. For such title I would expect scholar treatment of the topic, not something lifted from a Sunday newspaper. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete I knew I'd seen this before. The "humorous" quotes are taken, word for word, from a cheap paperback book called 303 of the World's Worst Predictions by Wayne Coffey(1983, Tribeca Communications). The dates for the world's end are from The People's Almanac #2 (Wallace & Wallechinsky) Author failed to predict that someone might recognize plagiarism. Mandsford 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I predict Delete, though if it's kept again, add that one into the article. The fact it would qualify under the guidelines I see there show the problems with it. --UsaSatsui 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Reeves

Found whilst doing an AfD clean-up: AfD created but not followed through; I suspect deletion is being requested for notability reasons. Procedural nomination - I have no opinion at this time. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The following opinions were left on the article talk page by various new/single-purpose/anon users:
- This page should be deleted. there is no relevant reason for her to have a page. She's just a contestant on a reality tv show, she hasn't even won. I don't know haw to do this so can someone please delete this page. Tinkerbell630 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Tinkerbell630
- I agree with Tinkerbell630. Additionally, a third of the "article" is nothing but conjecture; "She is amongst the most popular". -billy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.135.41 (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't delete until she leaves Beauty and the Geek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.145.117 (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Once someone gets on a popular reality show they are considered a celebrity and should be included on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock29 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- She is insanely hot. Lets just leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyank489 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NN unsupported by WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are so many reality shows around these days that simply being on one no longer automatically makes you notable.Alberon 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn (but concur hat she is insanely hot). JJL 14:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. scope_creep 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be funny, but since my nomination includes the words "Procedural nomination - I have no opinion at this time", which part are you agreeing with "per nom"? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it isn't the "not wearing pants" part. Hot or not, there's insufficient notability here for an article, so delete it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with not wearing pants :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable. --TGreenburgPR 06:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable. -RiverHockey 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Speeddy delete not even close to notable. No reason to have such pages on WP. Turgidson 03:22, 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 Delete. This is an OR essay and should be deleted per the consensus below. I am also setting a redirect editorially per the suggesting of UsaSatsui. Eluchil404 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the articles of confederation

Prod removed without comment. Completely unreferenced original research amounting to a POV personal essay. Evb-wiki 11:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete While an article about the Articles of Confederation can be good stuff, this one appears to be the stock high school essay about why the A of C had to be replaced by the U.S. Constitution. This one doesn't even rise to the level of "My term paper is on Wikipedia", because it's unsourced. Topic of problems is covered adequately in Articles of Confederation. Mandsford 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete redundant and poorly written, but would say the better coverage of the subject is actually here: History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Weaknesses_of_the_Articles_of_Confederation. JJL 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is already an primary article which sourced thinking about pro's and con's of the article in question should be put. But this article is original research, not written well. No sources. scope_creep 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Articles of Confederation or History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Weaknesses_of_the_Articles_of_Confederation. --UsaSatsui 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as Satsui proposes: the concept of problems with the Articles is significant enough that it should be linked, even though it shouldn't have its own article. Nyttend 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As nominator, I would support a redirect to History of the United States Constitution#Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. --Evb-wiki 14:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play

This collection of video games seems to fail WP:N. I leave it open here whether the individual games are notable; but it is completely obscure to me what encyclopedic content should be added about the compilation of games. (PROD was contested for formal reasons.) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The compilation has been independently reviewed by several reliable sources, Metacritic has no less than 24 reviews, this is no less notable than the next PSP game. I also notice we have individual articles for other compilations, namely Midway Arcade Treasures, Midway Arcade Treasures 2 and Midway Arcade Treasures 3 - this is just following on in the same tradition. Since notability is there would you consider withdrawing the AFD?Someone another 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Absolutely notable. scope_creep 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep extensive coverage of topic exists in reliable source, and thus is notable.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. SharkD 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I removed the original PROD, and in this case I'm willing to contest the AfD nomination, too. The article requires serious attention, though, and I partly believe that the uneven collection of Midway Treasures game articles points to possible collapse of each into a "series" article. D. Brodale 18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Significant game collection from a major publisher. Google News shows reviews in high-profile magazines, such as this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N requests sources not for counting them, but because they serve as a basis for writing a good article. Now what in these reviews should be written about the game collection that has not already been written about the games, all of which seem to have articles? --B. Wolterding 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - presumably something about the nature of the collection relative to its platform, the PSP. Which would also be the point of distinction between this title and others in the Midway Treasures series. No? I don't really follow where you're going with this line of inquiry. D. Brodale 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - The whole point of making a video game article is to list details over and above mere gameplay summaries. Do they compare with modern games? Do they seem less playable then they did now? Was the compilation delivered in an easy-to-use way? Were there problems with the release? How well has it sold? Does the compilation represent value for money compared to non-compilation games on the system? Yadda yadda yadda. The compilation has been sold as separate, self-contained piece of software and has been reviewed as such. Someone another 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Just because something violates a policy (in this case COI), it doesn't mean to say it should be deleted. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Weinreb

Non-notable computer scientist, article originated with COI problems, but still has no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Definitely a violation of WP:COI TaintedZebra 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This man is notable for two things. For writing the first implementation of Emacs, which has been used by million of computer engineers on unix, and two, for founding symbolics. These alone make him notable. The article should be rewritten tidied scope_creep 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per scope_creep. Smashville 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment It seems that Weinreb wrote EINE, which appears to have been merely the first standalone implementation of Emacs, which was already in use as a set of macros in another editor. The article Emacs doesn't suggest that EINE was a particularly notable implementation, and the aticle on Weinreb doesn't suggest that he has done much notable since then. His biog should be redirected to EINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, technically BrownHairedGirl is correct here. Stallman and Steele obviously wrote the very first Emacs (in the sense that any small number of people 'wrote' it). --Gwern (contribs) 01:06 1 November 2007 (GMT)

Strong keep. Citing COI is a a bogus argument; the strongest language on that guideline is that it is discouraged to edit or write stuff about yourself because you might make POV edits or unsourced statements - everything written in the article is easily verifiable, and if anything, it understates matters. There has never been a deletion reason "Strong delete, subject edited the article'. His article would have been written sooner or later, and I was glad when I saw him create the article because it saved me the effort. Now, notability is established by a number of things (in no particular order):

Writing the Eine/ZWEI/Zmacs family of editors (he wrote Eine and kept developing and rewriting it into the others
Much development and research of Lisp software, particularly for the Lisp machines (see his books on Symbolics' Lisp Machines and documentation for flavors, among other things[28])
Was a major coder for the S-1 Mark II[29]
Cofounded Symbolics (this is for me the most major item, which alone would confer notability)
"Participated in the design of Common Lisp (one of the five main codifiers, I was one of the co-authors of "Common Lisp: The Language", with Guy Steele, Richard Gabriel, David Moon, and Scott Fahlman)."[30]
And so on in a bunch of other countries. One might also find it interesting to read through some of the hits in Google Scholar[31]. If Daniel Weinreb doesn't count as notable, you might as well begin preparing AfDs for the other Common Lisp committee members as well. --Gwern (contribs) 01:06 1 November 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was redirect to Doxygen. GlassCobra 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dimitri van Heesch

This article has been a single-line sub-stub for over three years. Either delete or merge to Doxygen. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge - This page is a waste of space to be honest, but it can be included in the Doxygen page. TaintedZebra 10:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge I agree with TaintedZebra. scope_creep 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge - to Doxygen, per above. jj137 (Talk) 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Just redirect, nothing to merge. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 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, and endorse the original speedy deletion. No assertion or indication of notability, no reliable sources in evidence. The "keep" opinions are all indifferent to the pertinent policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:N, and are accordingly not taken into account. Sandstein 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No 4th Wall to Break

This was speedied, yet I can't agree with the reasoning. It may well not be notable enough for Wikipedia, but AFD is the place to determine this. Not speedy deletion. Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This AfD hasn't been lodged properly. There is no template on the article. Close this AfD? TaintedZebra 11:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- ...or - we could, like, add the template as this AFD only got started an hour ago? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
'Keep'. It seems to me there is a bias on wikipedia for deletion of web content. But nowadays, a large amount of new material is created on the internet. Just because something is on the web and is created by private people does not imply it is not notable. Being a fan of comics, I know this is the case here. I've met several people who read it at the same time as me, while there are tons of comics on-line.
Notability...

Honestly, what does it really matter? Information is information, and I thought the goal behind Wikipedia was to centralize as much of it as possible. So long as it's accurate, why does it matter if it's deemed "important"? Importance is hugely subjective - if I were in charge of deciding what articles are important enough to keep in WP, you'd see a whole lot less about Hollywood entertainment, for example. Yet Hollywood information stays - I can go check out Hally Barre's bio if I'm so inclined. Why shouldn't I be able to dig up information on some obscure webcomic, too? Herve661 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." CountSlackula 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete no claim of notability in the article that I can see. Can you point it out? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- DITTO!!! I don't think that "long-running" means "notable." But I could be wrong. -- Ben 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Its important that we preserve these early examples of web comics. Its been going for a while and think that is what makes it notable. scope_creep 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It hasn't "been going for awhile"... it started in 2002 and ended in 2006. And it's hardly an early example of webcomics either. Did you even read the article? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - It has actually restarted as of the 22nd of JulyDondelelcaro 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep I vote to keep any and all webcomics; let's stop making the webcomic community angry and upset. Samboy 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Srsly? Please tell me that this is sarcasm. Please. -- Ben 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Regardless of how many people get pissed, this is a non-notable webcomic in the sense that it has ZERO indepenant coverage in reliable sources. There very well MAY BE hundreds of notable web comics; I take no stance on any others that may be notable. This one presents no evidence that it is, per the requirement that all articles present evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independant sources. There is no evidence of that here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that we don't know if an article of this type is not notable or not. There is simply no way of at this time to measure in real time how many people have read this web comic. The way the notability policy in written in Wikipedia is based on traditional non web ideas of how notability should be measured. I think it is notable by the fact that it is a web comic and and a new type of media. scope_creep 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Au contraire. Wikipedia recognizes web-based sources as being just as reliable as non-web based sources. All that is needed is some form of editorial control, some sort of edited web-page, as in not a blog or open forum. I and every other person voting for delete would gladly vote keep if some reliable sources were provided. All we need to see is that SOMEONE has reviewed this in a reliable source. SHOW US A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT COVERS THIS, and it gets kept just like any other article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Other than the fact that someone deleted the obviously fair use images from the article I see nothing wrong with the article. It's well written, well formatted. Just because you feel web comics shouldn't be in Wikipedia isn't a good enough reason to delete. I feel anything about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsy Lohan is non notable, should I afd every article about pseudo "celebrities"? Hansonc 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not one person here has said anything that webcomics in general should not have articles at wikipedia. HOWEVER, this ONE webcomic has NO coverage in reliable sources as required per WP:N and WP:WEB guidelines. If such reliable source coverage can be produced, it will meet requirements and probably be kept. However, please avoid putting words into the mouths of other editors. Doing so is incivil and shows that you lack good faith in your fellow editors.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be widely mentioned on webcomic-related pages; someone who knows more about the subject than me can probably figure out which ones are appropriate as sources. --Carnildo 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now would probably be a good time to cough up these "webcomic-related pages" that mention this webcomic. Do you think that any of them qualify as reliable sources? -- Ben 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't know if any of them do or not -- Google searches for webcomic-related things tend to rank other webcomics above third-party discussions -- but given the number and variety of places it's mentioned, there's probably a reliable source or two somewhere. --Carnildo 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that the initial speedy was incorrect and it should have been taken to AfD at that point, even though the article doesn't establish notability. Articles with a decent amount of content and a history of edits by many people need to get more consideration, and sometimes notability can be established during the AfD discussion. This is less likely to happen now since the article has been deleted for so long. The web comic clearly exists. However, there are no reliable sources given, and unless they can be supplied, the article would need to be truncated to "No 4th Wall to Break is a webcomic at <url>" - and that would be speedy deleted.-gadfium 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Being able to refer easily to the antecedents and influences of other deviant webcomics and explain succinctly the nature of that influence is useful. While the article itself could be cleaned up and could make the claims for these influences more eloquently, it being undeleted is kind of a prerequisite for that to happen.Dondelelcaro 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "deviant webcomics." Is the argument here that we should keep the article so that we can add information on how this webcomic has influenced other webcomics? The text can be moved to user space and worked on there. If you have evidence of these influences, then now might be a good time to add them. They might help convince the community of the notability of this webcomic. -- Ben 07:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Notability? I thought was a Informative website not a talent contest. We need to keep all the articles on webcomics not just pick and choose. If the the dictionary decided to be picky about words or the meaning of them where the hell would we get nifty swear words?
And another thing It's off its hiatus now.

Good-Ash 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- Please read WP:N and WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all, there are some standards for inclusion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- User:Good-Ash, you may want to read Wikipedia:Notability for an explanation of what notability means on Wikipedia. Nobody is using a "pick and choose" methodology here; this is about reliable secondary sources. The encyclopedia cannot inform anyone without sources to draw information from. --Phirazo 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This webcomic is not notable, since it has zero secondary sources. The speedy delete was the correct decision (no claim of notability), and this should have gone through DRV instead of AfD. --Phirazo 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete was the correct idea. No reputable third-party sources for anything here. --Dragonfiend 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep & cleanup - There are sources. Someone should find them. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The burden of evidence for finding sources is on "the editor who adds or restores material"(WP:V). Those removing content due to lack of sources need not prove there are no sources. It is not enought to assert "there must be sources" to keep an article - editors must find sources and add them to the article. --Phirazo 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure ([32]) overturned. Neil 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish subversion

This paragraph (it is a stub really) is an obvious WP:POVFORK that can become a POV magnet as well. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Merge contents into Antisemitic canard, as above. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge - agree with IZAK and the nom TaintedZebra 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep — This article is not about "Antisemitic canard". The user who added antisemitic canard is User:Malik Shabazz [33] It is an independent topic regardless of antisemitic canards. It is not a neologism either, because "Jewish subversion" has been used in many academic books (which you can see by just looking at the references) explaining antisemitism. And how is this article a WP:POVFORK? It deals with discrimination Jews have faced by several different leading politicians. If it becomes a "POV magnet", we'll just make it NPOV. The topic is notable though. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. — Dangerous? Provocative? I'm sorry, but that is what he said he did. Didn't you read the cited source? Also, I found that in the Nazism article:

Nazism has come to stand for a belief in the superiority of an Aryan race, an abstraction of the Germanic peoples. During the time of Hitler, the Nazis advocated a strong, centralized government under the Führer and claimed to defend Germany and the German people (including those of German ethnicity abroad) against Communism and so-called Jewish subversion. Ultimately, the Nazis sought to create a largely homogeneous and autarchic ethnic state, absorbing the ideas of Pan-Germanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Ideology

Are you going to delete that too now? By the way, I can see that the AfD nominator is Jewish. This isn't a personal attack or anything, but I get the feeling that censorship is at hand due to an uncomfortable topic, and you have to remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. Jewish subversion is hardly a neologism, it is even used by the Jerusalem post:[34] And many other newspapers and scholarly books: Find sources: Jewish subversion — news, books, scholar Sorry, but this is an independent topic, and deleting this topic is censorship and nothing else. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:53 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, Elias, are you open to the ridiculous suggestion that as the article's author is not Jewish, that the feeling could be had that the author has an anti-Semitic agenda and wants to spread such ideas on wikipedia? I would not say that, but it is the mirror image of your above argument. People have areas of expertise; Jews are more likely than not more informed and aware about topics related to Jews than non-Jews are. Further, they are more likely to have an interest in Jewish topics. It is nothing more than simple probability as to why the nominator is Jewish. Similarly, even casting the aspersion that because the nominator is Jewish that is the reason why this article is nominated for deletion, besides an example of the circumstantial argumentum ad hominem: Appeal to motive, is also somewhat disturbing/insulting to those of us who try and do our best to approach things fairly and neutrally as best we can. -- Avi 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no agenda to spread anything. I create articles that may not be mainstream topics and very controversial. This goes for all topics that I find. Why do I do that? Because I want to learn something new. When Wikipedians collaborate on an article, it will sooner or later become an informative article. That is why I create articles on Wikipedia; the topic seems interesting, someone will work on it, and when I look back at the article after 20 editors or so have expanded it, I will get an informative article about the subject and being able to expand my knowledge about this and that. That is my main motive for creating articles on Wikipedia, and I don't want to see them deleted because I don't find that productive. And for the record, I'm not an anti-Semite. Though of course, you are free to believe that I am, if it makes you happy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:45 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it would be ridiculous to call you an anti-Semite because of the combination of your starting the article and not being Jewish. Parallely, I think it is ridiculous to accuse IZAK of censorship because of the combination that he nomimanted the article for deletion and that he is Jewish. Do you disagree with the parallelism? -- Avi 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete The title alone is a tip that this one isn't going to be entirely neutral. It's like having "Communists in the State Department" as the introduction to McCarthyism. While the accusations that Hitler made would be notable, merely changing the title to "Accusations of Jewish Subversion" isn't a cure for this seigheilish little essay. Mandsford 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The title is beside the point, that is what this is called. If your concern is NPOV, that is no reason to delete this article. Because if your reason to delete this article is NPOV concern, then you are not neutral yourself since your POV is clearly showing. You think this is an uncomfortable topic, and again, I'll have to remind you, Wikipedia isn't censored. What you're implying, is that you want to delete this article because you don't like the title of it. That is censorship. Case in point: your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:22 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - - "Your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count". Oh, excuse me. Change the title of garbage and it's still garbage. I like the way you lump Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church together as one: "Nazi Germany and the Roman Catholic Church considered 'Jewish subversion' to be a threat." What's up with that? Mandsford 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - This is not a vote: please see WP:PNSD. Freshacconci | Talk 12:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Reply Discussion or not, you will have to find valid reasons to delete this article, if you want it deleted. {{NPOV}} disputes are not reasons for deletion. Either you find actual reasons to delete this article, and then we can discuss if it's a valid reason to delete it, or, you edit the article until the point where you consider it NPOV. This "delete it because I find it too POV" is clearly an abuse of AfD debates. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:39 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      - EliasAlucard: Just a point, it is not censorship to nominate and request that this article's content's be put into the main Antisemitic canard article, because no sane person or scholar gives any credence to Hitler's "Jewish subversion canard" delusional rantings, you may as well start articles about Insane rantings by Adolf Hitler or Delusions of Adolf Hitler. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment This is not exclusive to Hitler. And all other sections in Antisemitic canard have their own articles. This one should be no exception. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:18 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        
        When it was nominated it was but a mere stub quoting Hitler in it's opening sentence. Since then, in the last 24 hours, the {{rescue}} template was added to it and a few more allegations were put into it. The onus is upon the editors who decided to create it to actually prove what the Jewish "subversion" really was and if it indeed exists at all. What were the Jews "subverting" exactly? Is there any historical proof that the Jews subverted any place? Methinks not, if anything, history shows that wherever Jews were let in, the countries were enriched, so it would have been a better public service to create Jewish contributions to civilization and if one needs to dwell on lies, maybe create Allegations of Jewish subversion, but you can't have an article about "Jewish subversion" just because Hitler, or some Popes or Henry Ford decided to say so in their state of dementia. IZAK 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Reply You are showing your blatant POV bias now. Let's be honest, you want this article deleted, not because it's a hoax or anything of the other things you claim, but because you fear it will result in some sort of persecution of Jews, if we have an article, documenting on "Jewish subversion". This is the reason why you want to censor this article. Also, I wouldn't call the famine of the Soviet Union, "enriched". — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:15 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        
        Do I read this right? It sounds as if you're suggesting here that Jews caused "the famine of the Soviet Union". Wow. Mandsford 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Reply No, you read that wrong. He claimed that in whatever country Jews have been, the country has been "enriched". Obviously, that was not the case with the Soviet Union. I didn't insinuate that the famine was the Jews' fault; I just disproved the myth he was trying to create. I must say however, I think it's quite arrogant to claim that wherever Jews go, the country prospers because of Jews. Sounds like Jewish supremacy if you ask me. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:51 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment I think y'all are being a tad silly here. Taking IZAK's statement too far would be the fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Even if there is a correlation between economic, scientific, or cultural advancement and the presence of Jews in those fields, the most that can be said for certain is that a correlation exists, and we would have to see statistical evidence for that. Elias is exhibiting the fallacies of Ignoratio elenchi and Hasty generalization, in that having a famine in an area does not in any way shape or form mean that enrichment could not have occurred in other areas. Further, famines are acts of G-d or nature, and even humorously attributing responsibility for them to a specific category of people is somewhat reminiscent of past libelous situations. This is the 21st century, you know :) . -- Avi 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment: Actually, Avi, the famine was due to Soviet policies (see Holodomor)...the same Soviet policies, as it happens, that were shipping tens of thousands of Jews to gulags at the same time. The idea that the Jews caused the famine inadvertently, or that the Jews created it intentionally, bespeaks two concurrent problems: deliberate antisemitically-inspired lying and unforgivable ignorance. As for the assertion that societies that invite Jews in experience a flowering of cultural and economic, etc. advancement...that is true. It is also true, however, that it's not just because they let Jews come in and live freely—it is because when policies are enacted that encourage Jews to come to a country and live in freedom, the same policies are extended to the populace at large. Freedom inspires creativity and enterprise, regardless of whether it is offered to Jews or to non-Jews. The one thing that does "help" in such circumstances is when Jews move into such countries and bring philanthropy and investment with them. An example of this can be seen with the Fugu Plan, whereby Jews were invited to Japan, and some went. Prosperity did not ensue, however, because the Jews there were subjects of the oppressive Japanese Empire (although the Jews did not experience the same horrors as some of the Chinese did at the same time, at the hands of the Emperor's armies). It is freedom that brings prosperity, not simply the presence of Jews, although free Jews certainly help. Tomer ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        To dislike Hitler is a crime? That's a new one! So why were the Nuremberg Trials held? I think that it was great that they were held, does that make me too POV as well? Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a POV -- you included -- but it's as editors that we all control our POV to write and edit in a NPOV fashion, so you have no clue what NPOV means if your interpretation of it is "NO Point Of View" -- which is not what Neutral Point Of View means. Check it out. This nomination is neutral and the article will stand or fall on its merits, and please note it is other users who state that the article is a violation of WP:NPOV because the nomination is more basic than that. Note also, that as a human being I am entitled to my anti-Hitler feelings just as anyone is free to have pro-Hitler feelings, and may the best man win. But really now, do you really think that I hold that I "fear it will result in some sort of persecution of Jews" when the whole Internet is flooded with all of the worst antisemitic garbage in history? If that is what you think, then you can review my edit history and you will find that my record shows that I have no fear of well-written truly NPOV articles about anything, which this one is not. It was just an opinion piece for Hitler when I nominated it and now it's not much better, just that it now quotes from some Popes and other misfits. IZAK 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Reply What? Where did that come from? Where did I ever write that disliking Hitler is a crime? Stop putting words in my mouth like that with Straw man fallacies. Yes, everyone has his POV, and so do you. This nomination is nowhere close to being neutral. Basically, it goes something like this: "HELLO, I'M JEWISH, BECAUSE OF THAT, I FIND THIS ARTICLE PROVOCATIVE AND I DON'T LIKE IT, SO I WANT IT DELETED, REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC, AND THE POPE AND ALL ANTISEMITES ARE DEMENTED MISFITS". You're not representing yourself very well with your personal attacks. Nowhere did I say that NPOV means NO POINT OF VIEW. But it goes without saying, you, are not being objective here with your deletion rationale. You and many others who have voted delete, want this article deleted, because you don't like it. That is is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Add a {{cleanup}} tag. Your approach of the first edit you make in the article by putting it up for deletion, is obviously, a very suspicious approach. Had it been some other article, it would just have been put up for {{OR}}, {{cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} or something else. But now, it's a controversial topic, and therefore it must be deleted. That is to me, pure and simple, censorship. Another thing, you say: you can't have an article about "Jewish subversion" just because Hitler, or some Popes or Henry Ford decided to say so in their state of dementia. — What? Who are you to decide the rules on what articles should be allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia? If the article has notability, we can have an article about it regardless of the topic. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles which put Islam in a negative light. Bottom line, AfD is not an {{NPOV}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:15 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the title any worse than, say, Zionist Occupation Government, Kosher tax, or Jewish Bolshevism? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Er, Malik, who is questioning those topics now? You were the one to put in the links to Antisemitic canard [35] and added it to Category:Antisemitic canards [36] and what the nomination is requesting is that the information in this stub (of Jewish subversion) be put into the Antisemitic canard article where it rightly belongs. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm sorry that my comment became separated from the comment to which it was a response: "The title alone is a tip that this one isn't going to be entirely neutral. It's like having 'Communists in the State Department' as the introduction to McCarthyism." My point was that "ZOG", "Kosher tax", and "Jewish Bolshevism" were similar titles that aren't preceded by "Allegations of ..."
      Regarding "Antisemitic canards", please read my comments elsewhere on this page: "'Jewish subversion' is an antisemitic canard but ... each of the other canards at 'Antisemitic canard' has its own article." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Freshacconci | Talk 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to speak to the subject and explain what the concept was/is who used/uses it and how; POV issues are legion on wikipedia but not a reason to delete an article that's a reason to edit an article. Deletion an article because it's a POV or vandalism magnet would wipe out Jesus and plenty of other standard fare for an encyclopedia. Fix through regular editing and make suggestions to focus the lede to steer towards non-forkiness as appropriate. Benjiboi 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Benjiboi is right. This entire AfD nomination, has no support in Wikipedia policy: WP:DEL#REASON — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:50 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - Sources for a huge historical hoax and lie and then place it in Category:Hoaxes. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Modernist 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is clearly not "Antisemitic canard". I've just recently read a biography of Winston Churchill, and several books regarding Neville Chamberlain and the British government during the late 30's and up to the start of the WW2 and the question of "Jewish Subverion" runs through all these books. Jewish refugees who wanted to come to the UK after the start of the war were viewed with suspicion, simply due to this reason, and this lead to them being sent to the British mandate of palestine after a certain number came to the UK, I think the number was 12000. scope_creep 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not just a canard, it's a lie. There is no such thing as "Jewish subversion" (if only people knew how disunited and split the Jews are, for 2000 years they couldn't even get a country of their own but wandered around like lost sheep!)-- or are there Christian subversion or Hindu subversion or American subversion or Chinese subversion? (Of the latter there actually may be), but "Jewish subversion" is a hoax actually a violation of WP:HOAX and pure fiction of the delusional sort. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. It just seems to be a soap box for anti-semitic views; not a proper encyclopedic article.Spylab 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- - Reply If it's a lie, why are you so afraid to have an article about it? Isn't it better that we have an article where it explains all these allegations, and perhaps, even refute them as being false? Also, it's you who should prove that it's a hoax. You can do that by editing the article with credible sources. If you want it deleted because you consider it a hoax, then I'm afraid, you're giving the impression that this accusation of subversion is so genuine that you want to censor it on Wikipdia. In any case, it's not a violation of WP:HOAX, it may be a false accusation, but regardless of that, it has an important historical significance in the history of the Jewish people. Your ancestors have been killed because of Jewish subversion. You want to ignore this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    - What do you mean by your statement: "Your ancestors have been killed because of Jewish subversion" without even a qualifier or what? So now editors must think about who was "killed" in their families when the identity of editors is anonymous? It is beneath contempt that a discussion on Wikipedia could stoop to such depths that fear of who was allegedly "killed" is introduced into a discussion. Well, then again, Blood libels did occur but they only revealed how demented and sick those who created the lies really are. IZAK 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Reply Well obviously, Jews, which I assume are your ancestors, have been persecuted, and killed, because they have been perceived as "Subversive". That alone is a notable reason to have an article about it on Wikipedia. The question here isn't if Jews are by their nature subversive or not. This article is simply trying to report about the phenomenon that Jews, throughout history, have been accused of "Subversion". — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:36 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        
        Pardon, but this so-called article was only a quote from Hitler when you wrote it, so don't backtrack now by saying that "Jews, throughout history, have been accused of "Subversion"" -- and you know something, this is a dumb discussion, because every nation that has had enemies has been accused of "subversion" or something else like that, but why does that have to get huge articles? Alleged subversion by Greeks written by Turks, Alleged subversion of Muslims written by Christians, Alleged subversion of Tibetans written by Chinese, and is there an article about Nazi subversion or did the Nazis not subvert anything? Something is very wrong here, when this article needs to be defended. There was a similar debate about "Israeli aparthied" and it was resolved to call it Allegations of Israeli apartheid as in Allegations of apartheid. So even the choice of wording for this article is way off. IZAK 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Reply this so-called article was only a quote from Hitler when you wrote it — This is a lie as much as it can be a lie. This is what it looked like before it was put to AfD,[37] obviously, more than a quote from Hitler. Now, the interesting question is, why are you making up lies like that? Why are you disingenuous? Obviously, the article had a lot more content than a mere quote from Hitler; it never actually quoted Hitler, it said, Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion, that wasn't a verbatim quote. But anyway, all your lies aside, would you be satisfied if we called this article Allegations of Jewish subversion? If you can find me historical examples of Greeks, Turks or any other kind of ethnic groups being accused of subversion as much as the Jews have been, I think we definitely should make articles out of that too. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — Well obviously, it is a topic related to antisemitism. I can see by now, that is the sole reason you want it deleted. Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you feel it isn't Encyclopaedic enough, edit it to a higher quality. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:16 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment As you seem to like citing that one rule, I'd like to point out what it actually says: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)..." (emphasis mine). This is not a question of censorship. The article appears to be anti-semitic in nature which violates WP:NPOV. Freshacconci | Talk 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Reply — This article is not antisemitic, it's a topic related to antisemitism. This article has a historical significance, it deserves an encyclopaedic entry just as much as Jewish Question, Homosexuality and Islam, Islamic extremism, Islamophobia and other, controversial topics, which may, by the very nature of the article's topic, seem like anti this or anti that. Again, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Now, it's an indisputable fact, that this topic, Jewish subversion, is linked to politicians and other historically important men who have expressed antisemitic views regarding this article's topic. Again, that is not a reason to censor this article by deleting it. This article is part of Jewish history, it's an encyclopaedic topic. It deserves to stay. Now, I do agree that the current revision isn't exactly the best article on Wikipedia, but that is no reason to delete it. You can help improving the article by expanding and editing it to a higher quality version. By the way, where does it say, in Wikipedia policy, that you are allowed to AfD articles due to NPOV concerns? If this article gets deleted due to NPOV, I will report it as abuse of NPOV policy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:48 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment — As I said, this AfD debate is an abuse of AfD nomination. Read this: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Fact remains: this topic is discussed in academic literature about antisemitism, it's here to stay, whether you like it or not. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:58 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment Excuse me? If it is deleted its history. Seems to me it looks just like a duck, it sounds just like a duck, it walks just like a duck, but...Modernist 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply — What's that supposed to mean? If this article gets deleted, it only shows how censored Wikipedia actually is. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:18 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion. The section you cite ends with: "Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed." There are serious questions of verifiability here. If that is not established, then WP:NOR applies. The sources cited merely add supposed references to what appears to be original research. In order to save this article, we would need to gut it and start again. Is there any point to that? Others have suggested a merge and that is a sound compromise, and that is exactly what we are here for, reaching consensus. Please do not jump the gun on whether or not the article is "here to stay". The necessary gutting of this apparent bit of original research would likely lead to an edit war: not a reason in itself to delete, but more than enough reason to be cautious and consider at the very least a merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshacconci (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion. — But that is what the AfD nominator did. This entire AfD debate, should on that basis, be disqualified since it wasn't a valid reason to AfD it in the first place. If the AfD nomination had been something like, "article has no encyclopaedic notability", that would have been a valid reason to discuss if it's notable and if it should be deleted. But, the truth is, the AfD nomination is for one reason only: the nominator is Jewish, he doesn't like the article because it bothers him, hence, he wants it deleted. I'm sorry, but that in itself, is not neutral. If you think this article suffers from Original Research, then you add an {{OR}} tag on it, discuss on the article's talk page, and from there, we reach consensus, compromise, and fix the article to an NPOV, free from Original Research, revision. This entire AfD debate should be closed without any deletion, because it's not a valid procedure in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's so obvious that there are users here, far from being neutral on the subject, who want this article deleted for the sole reason that it bothers them, they feel offended by the controversial nature of the article; that's why they want to delete it. That is what we reasonable people call, Censorship. And don't even start with the "you're an antisemite" ad hominems. Personal attacks will get you nowhere. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:36 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment It sounds to me as though you might consider WP:NPA in your remarks about the nominator of this AfD. By the way this so called article that you are so ardently supporting is a total of 3 paragraphs of various biased points of view from Hitler to Henry Ford, this is not Censorship, your argument sounds a little too much like WP:ILIKEIT, and YES it's a duck, and I think you can understand that. Modernist 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply — It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. And neither is it WP:ILIKEIT, I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion. I believe the reasons given here to delete the article, lack a valid, and most of all, neutral, reason. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:02 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment I never called you an anti-semite. I said that the "article appears to be anti-semitic in nature." But it's interesting that you jumped to that conclusion, which is just as interesting as you pointing out that another editor is Jewish, and that is why "he wants it deleted." Cries of censorship, persecution and pointing out irrelevant information about someone's identity are odd ways to reach consensus (reminds me of certain groups, but I digress). By the way, my comment above pointed out that WP:NPOVis allowed as a reason for deletion (i.e. it does not say that we can't use it, as you have claimed). As for "it's here to stay, whether you like it or not" and "I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion": you may want to check out WP:OWN. The fact remains, many of us feel the article is not worth keeping. That is our opinion. You can continue to obsessively watch this page and reply to everyone who disagrees with you, but I will move on. My opinion is here for the record. Have a nice day. Freshacconci | Talk 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I'm not trying to WP:OWN anything. I added the {{expert}} tag, did I not? I added it because I wanted help with the article from people who are more familiar with the topic than I am. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:01 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment This article is certainly not anti-semitic, and its NOT an neologism. Trying to extinguish something which is historical fact is stupidity in itself and is akin to burning books. Any student of pre WW2 history will tell you that this fact and phrase was well know throughout Europe and America in the 20's, 30's and early 40's. And please don't label me anti-semitic. I am half Jewish myself. scope_creep 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThis so called article is about the German propaganda used against the Jewish people during the 1930s. Anti-semitic nah, by the way which half is Jewish? Modernist 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The article at the moment only has a German reference to it, but it was used all over Europe and America at the time. It needs to be expanded with the right content and tidied up. The dark half....;8-) Modernist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Question This is a question to the dark half - what was used all over Europe and America at the time? and please sign your edits - Modernist 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- - Reply Then we tag it Nazi propaganda,[38] which only makes it more notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:41 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Redirect to, and Merge content into Antisemitic canard where it will fit perfectly with the other dozen or so examples of such. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What's interesting here, according to the AfD nominator: There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. — is that, all the sections in the Antisemitic canard have their own, separate articles. Hence, this article, shouldn't be deleted. Should it have its own section in Antisemitic canard? Sure. But deleted? In my opinion, no. Otherwise we'll have to AfD all other articles in Antisemitic canard. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:34 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Just to clarify my position: I don't think that the material should be deleted, just the article. Other sections within Jewish subversion are larger and might need to be separate articles, but I don't think this material does. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep "Jewish subversion" is an antisemitic canard but, as EliasAlucard just wrote, each of the other canards at Antisemitic canard has its own article. Accusations of Jewish subversion date from Biblical times (Esther 3:8, perhaps even Exodus 1:10) and have been a near-constant theme in anti-Jewish politics since then. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment With all due respect this article says nothing of the kind, Biblical? Esther? Exodus? what article did you read? I don't think so. Modernist 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply The article is still in its early stages. Yesterday, when it was created, it was a few sentences; while it's much improved today, it's still mostly about the 20th century . My point is that, contrary to many of the earlier comments, "Jewish subversion" is not a term or concept that originated with the Nazis. A more complete article, to which I'll help contribute, will show that accusations of Jewish subversion are almost as old as the Jewish diaspora. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment with all due respect, Modernist, but this article, is just the tip of the iceberg. I think that instead of wasting time on this AfD debate, we should be working on it. It can become a great article helping showcase the persecution of Jews through the centuries. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:29 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Comment with respect to you perhaps the article should be renamed and refocused to say: Subversion Of The Jewish People Over The Years. By the way this looks like WP:Canvas [39] - Modernist 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply WP:Canvas? The guy seems familiar with this topic, I would like to improve this article, and I asked him for some help. What's wrong with that? User:Scope creep has actually voted in this AfD poll. It doesn't fall under canvas. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:43 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

CommentWP:Civilty please. As entertaining as it is to dig through who's accusing who of what I'd much rather see some constructive work on improving the article to where most disagreements are rendered resolved or we all agree that the article could never possible be encyclopedic. As we apparently have a few folks here who have knowledge on the subject please apply your energy into refocusing the lede and addressing the needs of the article. I'm quite concerned that those, like myself, who would like to contribute to the article are not getting much constructive outflow from this discussion. It's a tough subject and one which wikipedia can grasp with breathtaking maturity if given the chance. Benjiboi 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be a notable concept and is well cited. Could use some cleanup and editors of this article should keep WP:NPOV in mind. I don't agree that this is violates WP:NEO or WP:POVFORK. Pilotbob 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The concept is notable but the implementation is awful. This needs to start from scratch using academic sources. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The article is using almost exclusively academic sources, it's well cited to published academic books from different universities. There's no need to delete it, just edit it until you feel satisfied with it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:12 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, do not merge. I would expect scholar treatment of the topic, not a haphazard and dubious collection of quotes lacking context. Such kind of articles needs to be created complete abd cannot be built by random people adding their favourite bits. Pavel Vozenilek 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Afd is not a {{cleanup}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:21 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Comment Following along with this debate, I'll pose this question to you Elias... are you referring to Jews being subverted by someone else, or are you referring to Jews being subversive? "Subversion" has more than one meaning, although it's most commonly used in the sense of a group conspiring in secret to do something evil, rather than the same group's existence being undermined by someone else. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on an ambiguous word. Mandsford 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply To be honest, I have no idea or should I say, no knowledge of this word's (as in "Jewish subversion") history. I found it when I edited the Nazism article,[40] and decided to create an article out of it, from what I could find on the Internet, because it seemed like an interesting topic. That's what I usually do when I discover new topics, for instance, Aslim Taslam was added for AfD just as soon as I had created it, but it survived the nomination, and now it's an interesting article. To answer your question: have the Jews been subverted by other peoples? Yeah, many times; a few examples are the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and lastly, the Germans. Have the Jews been subversive towards other peoples? Probably; there are those who claim they have. Gwynne accuses them of being subversive through the revolutionaries of their race,[41] which I assume he was talking about the Russian Revolution when the Bolsheviks seized power; a coup d'état in which many Jews were involved (which is why there's an article entitled Jewish Bolshevism). But this article should report on it from an NPOV stance. To claim that this is an Antisemitic canard, is of course, needless to say, a POV stance because it implies that this accusation of Jews being subversive, is by default, false. Now, whether this accusation of Jews being subversive is false or true, is none of my concern. I believe this article has an Encyclopaedic value, simply because of its long use by politicians, and the fact that it is a controversial topic, is why I believe it's an absolute must to have an article about it. I also believe that Jews have been persecuted because they have been perceived as "subversive" (most notably, in Nazi Germany). That is why I want an article about it, because once a lot of editors edit the article, improve it and expand it, it will be an interesting article and it will clear up a lot of misconceptions. By the way, if I'm not mistaken here, Muhammad considered the Jews subversive as well, which is why he persecuted them until there were basically no Jews left in the Arabian peninsula. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:50 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

*DELETE and MERGE relevant content into a broader anti-semitism article. I just don't see the point about retaining this as a separate article, nor EliasAlucard's passion for doing so. Are we to have Wikipedia articles such as Big Nosed Jews, Greedy Jews, etc.? Those are certainly derogatory statements that one could find secondary source for, as well, aren't they? Shawn in Montreal 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is that supposed to be funny? You can't compare this, a political term, with stereotyping of facial features of Jews. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:05 01 Nov, 2007 *(UTC)
- No. I'm dead serious. But actually I see there are separate articles for all the canards so I can't argue such a position, after all. So withdraw my deletion without offering to keep, either. Have your Jewish subversion article. Shawn in Montreal 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. After the article had been nominated for deletion, the definition of subject was changed to: "Jewish subversion is a term mostly used by anti-semites to justify hostility toward Jewish people or those perceived to be Jewish". Since now the article seems to be about Jewish Subversion as a firm term, it should report about the history of the term, and say who has used it in the public where the first time. But in the article, I can't find any clear source for a literal use of this very term Jewish Subversion. So far, this article is a bullet-point list of unrelated accusations made against Jews through history. --Schwalker 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I changed that lede to be avoid POV problems (not all who use the term are anti-semites, and hate speech is often misdirected at people one mistakes to belong to a certain group, etc). If it's broken then either fix the lede, the article or both via regular editing per WP:AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - it is true, the remedy for a POV content is to edit, not delete; but it is legitimate to delete an article that through its topical focus can not hope to meet NPOV standards. I think the title is inherently POV, for starters; and the topic is so vague ("subversion") that it is practically impossible to differentiate from the general theme of antisemitic canards. Articles that deal with very specific allegations (Doctors' Plot, blood libel, Jenin "massacre") may justify their own article, but this, in my view, is too broad. --Leifern 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You've listed yourself as an inclusionist, now that wasn't very inclusionist of you, was it? :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:52 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Delete. For one thing, there's nothing about jewish subversion in the article, only allegations of jewish subversion, of shaky reliability. Gzuckier 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Actually that's part of the point. Hitler may or may not have believed there was actual Jewish subversion but he certainly promoted the concept and used the term thus it is in the article and as the article is expanded the subject will be better explained. Benjiboi 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Antisemitic canard where it will fit with the other so examples of such. --JewBask 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As was stated above all those canards seem to have articles of their own already. Benjiboi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete provocative and unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Please expand why provocative and unnecessary is grounds for deletion. Otherwise it seems like you just don't like it. Benjiboi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Currently the article is nothing more than a list of the times this phrase was used by anti-semites. This in no way shape or form implies that the term is notable in and of itself; it is an example of an association fallacy. Just because more than one anti-semite uses this term does not mean that it means the same thing to them or anyone else. To suggest that these people all had the same intent and idea in mind is original research, albeit possbibly implied, on the part of the article's author. At this point I see no way for this article to be salvaged from its obvious point-of-view biases, original research violations, essay-likeness, and lack of context. Should an article about the phenomenon of the use of the allegation that Jews, as a whole, are considered by anti-Semites of all types, religions, and eras, to constantly be involved in the subversion of whatever government and country that they happen to reside, then I could consider having this listed in "AntiSemitic Canards" with perhaps its own, properly sourced and impartially written article. This article does no such thing and is thus unworthy of wikipedia on its own merits. Avi 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or maximally merge with canard. Just a list of accusations of subversion, quite meaningless without context. JFW | T@lk 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yossiea ^(talk) 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. To even debate this is silly. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The topic seems legitimate. I think a problem here might be the name, which implies acceptance of the claim, so suggest rename to Claims of Jewish subversion or Accusations of Jewish subversion. --Eliyak T·C —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree the article title is a sensitive subject but so is Homosexual agenda which is balanced by the actual article which explains the term and usage. Perhaps we should insist the content be upgraded to accurately portray the term and its usage? Benjiboi 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I agree with both of you. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:46 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the direction of the article violates WP:OR and is beyond salvageability. --MPerel 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:43, 02 Nov 2007 (UTC)
Delete not nearly enough content to warrent article. Yahel Guhan 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, perhaps with REname as per Eliyak. This article has a wealth of citations. Whether all the items listed should be included is a different question. However, Jewish subversion was Hitler's excuse for genocide against Jews. This certainly makes the topic an important one. It is not WP:OR in the sense that is usually meant by that term (i.e. personal views, unsupported by evidence). The fact that he subject is unpalatable is no reason for deleting it. Nor does it violate WP:POV, for it is not expressing a POV, but describing one that people have held, even if it is (or was) unjustified. Peterkingiron 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:04, 04 Nov 2007 (UTC)

Keep I failed to see how is this article is a WP:POVFORK. This article have good sources and is notable and is pretty much NPov. I am sorry, but I think Jewish editors are being too sensitive. Chris! _ct 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
SORRY, NO. A more thorough discussion? Didn't you discuss this enough already the other day? Nobody's interested in debating with you anymore. Mandsford 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete if the title is non-neutral, than neither will the article content Will ^(talk) 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, Elias. Now you're editing out the comments you don't like? Grow up, son. Like I say, you discussed this one to death. More than 3/4ths of the discussion is written by you. Mandsford 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply It's not that it was a comment I didn't like. It was relisted for more votes. It is allowed to do that. Your comment wasn't a discussion and it didn't do anything to help reach a consensus. You basically implied that you didn't want to discuss it more. So you don't have to. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:29 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
This, coming from the kid who wrote "I'll have to remind you, Wikipedia isn't censored." I think it was like the third comment out of the thirty that you wrote last week, so you might have forgotten that you thought you were a victim of censorship. Regardless, you should be aware that editing comments on AfD is a "no-no" here. If you keep trying it, it's easily verified. I'm just telling you before an administrator has to. Mandsford 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for filling me in on how things work on Wikipedia. I must commend you for insulting my intelligence, as if I couldn't myself figure out that it is easily verified. But you're wrong on one thing: this isn't censorship. Censorship is to prohibit politically sensitive content from being shown to the public. For instance, deleting this article on the basis that the "title isn't neutral", is censorship. Deleting a provocative comment which is not adding ANYTHING to the debate, isn't exactly what I would call censorship. But hey, I just added your comment back if it makes you happy. Now, can we please continue this serious AfD discussion, with votes and actual arguments for deleting/keeping it, based on REASON and LOGIC? Thanks. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:49 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
- Could you two stop bickering about some personal issues here? This is an afd and not a general discussion. Just let it work. OK. Chris! _ct 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a side note, Mandsford is right for one thine. You can't edit nor delete someone's comment. Chris! _ct 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Editors have expressed a willingness to add to the article but seem to unwilling to waste time if article is to be deleted. Article has been zealously referenced now simply needs a chance to be written while not under the threat of deletion. I suggest those who feel it can't possibly be encyclopedic enough consider "allowing" article to be and develop (maybe a month or two?) and revisit issue if article doesn't progress enough. Benjiboi 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is systematically referenced, appears NPOV, is short, and lists several examples of notable anti-Semites using the term or concept of "Jewish Subversion". One suggestion for improvement: (slightly) longer quotations from Hitler, Ford, etc., could make it more apparent that said individuals really were complaining about Jewish subversion per se. Phrenophobia 04:10, 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 speedy deleted by User:Dreadstar (speedy WP:CSD#A7 No assertion of importance/significance). Admin closure. Dreadstar † 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel bisdee

Non-notable actress, with no claims for notability under the criteria. Google search brings up zero news results, general Google search shows only about 450 results, most of which are either MySpace type pages, forums, or the like. No verifiable sources given that demonstrate the notability, just a media/talent manager site listing. CSD tag was removed by creator of page, without using the hangon, and no discussion on the talk page. Perhaps someone here can find proof of notability, but I'm unable to do so. Ariel♥Gold 09:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No reliable and independent secondary sources can be found to proof notability. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Only seems to have a few commercials and the occasional TV appearance in her portfolio. Apart from that there's no apparent claim to notoriety that would justify the page.Alberon 10:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This is a VERY pre-emptive nomination for an article that is only 24 hours old! TaintedZebra 11:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Considering the article qualifies to be speedily deleted, and the CSD tag was removed with no attempt to contest the deletion, or to improve the issues, bringing it to AFD is better than slapping another CSD tag on it. Additionally, the responsibility of proving notability is on the author to do so at the creation of an article. This is one purpose of sandboxes, userspace, etc, to allow people to formulate things prior to making them live, to ensure they are appropriate for an encyclopedia, and won't be deleted. Ariel♥Gold 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there was no explanation for the removal of the prod you can put it back again as procedure wasn't followed. TaintedZebra 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a prod, it was a CSD tag, and it was invalidly removed by the author of the article, who didn't use the {{hangon}} template as instructed. But rather than engage in an edit war over the tag, I chose to take a more peaceful route, bringing it to AFD. Ariel♥Gold 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Nothing says new articles can't be afd'd or speedy deleted. There is nothing at all showing this person is notable at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arilyn Moonblade

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} was removed by User:Addedtried without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - see also other Forgotten Realms nominations TaintedZebra 11:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced, in-universe style, fails WP:N. Edison 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to a new article on the Songs and Swords series, along with other characters. Pinball22 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Doesn't appear to be a notable/major character within the context of the setting. No support for keep. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per TaintedZebra scope_creep 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Is the main character in three popular Forgotten Realms books ~Dj Gilcrease~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.88.9 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable character within the Forgotten Realms series and novels. BOZ 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional: Major Forgotten Realms character, is the main character in the novels Elfshadow and Elfsong, by Elaine Cunningham. BOZ 20:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete does not have sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House Do'Urden

Non-notable fictional group. {{prod}} was removed by User:71.108.52.19 with the comment "reverting idiot", so taking to AfD. Mikeblas 08:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep/Merge Lots of content for a series which was a best-seller by mainstream standards. Peremptory deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden 08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - agree with Colonel's comment TaintedZebra 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete In universe and unreferenced, fails WP:N. Edison 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Significant in the Forgotten Realms setting/novels, especially since it's Drizzt's house. Needs referencing, though. Pinball22 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep — Notable group within the context of a notable setting. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Merge Should be merged into one article, but not if its too long. scope_creep 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vangerdahast

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} was deleted by User:Addedtried without comment, so opening an AfD. Mikeblas 08:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - see other Forgotten Realms nominations TaintedZebra 11:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: if you could link (both here and elsewhere you've posted this) to the specific place where you've laid out your argument, that'd be helpfuls. —Quasirandom 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unreferenced, other than to a red-link book article, in-universe style, fails WP:N. Edison 13:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep — Within the context of this notable and widely-used campaign setting, this is a notable character. Notability is established by the notability of the setting. — RJH (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per TaintedZebra scope_creep 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable character within the Forgotten Realms series and novels. BOZ 00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional: Major Forgotten Realms character, had a significant role in the novels Azure Bonds by Jeff Grubb and Kate Novak, Crusade, by James Lowder, and Once Around the Realms by Brian Thomsen. BOZ 17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep One of the seminal characters in the Forgotten Realms setting. --Polaron | Talk 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable per WP:FICT and mainly just a plot summary without real-world context, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT. Google returns no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Doctorfluffy. Heavy in universe plot summary is just not supported by real world context at all. --Gavin Collins 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and reduce - This article is clearly poorly written and an ideal example of what {{in universe}} would be appropriate}}. However, the subject character is highly notable within the fictional setting, which is, itself, notable as a long-running published campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons game, which is itself notable as the most widely played roleplaying game (not to mention the first). -Harmil 05:49, 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. No reliable sources to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taegan Nightwind

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 06:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - see other Forgotten Realms nominations TaintedZebra 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unreferenced, in-universe style, fails WP:N. Edison 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Doesn't seem to be a notable character within the setting context. No support for keep. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per TaintedZebra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:Plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eve (Tv Series)

Entirely unsourced speculation with no assertion of notability. Article is not linked to from any other Wiki articles. DAJF 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article makes detailed assertions about an upcoming Mauritian TV series with no references to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Edison 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. scope_creep 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable, unverifiable, crystallballery. Crazysuit 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I originally prodded the article. No sources or references to show that this upcoming show even exists. Just to let the nominator know, this article is also being discussed at WP:RM (I did that before I decided to PROD the article). TJ Spyke 22:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Crazysuit. Doctorfluffy 05:09, 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. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kierkan Rufo

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed without comment by User:71.108.52.19, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 06:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - see other Forgotten Realms nominations TaintedZebra 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced, in-universe style, fails WP:N. Edison 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to The Cleric Quintet, which needs work and would be enhanced with a characters section including a shortened version of this. Pinball22 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Already mentioned on the page for the much more notable Cadderly Bonaduce character. Doesn't appear to be a major/notable character in his own right, within the context of this setting. No support for keep. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per TaintedZebra. Need to be reorganised, re-written if need be, and categorized correctly. scope_creep 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability, no reliable secondary sources Pilotbob 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources, just plotsummary. The only ghits come from fansites. --Gavin Collins 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
delete per RJH or merge per Pinball22. If The Cleric Quintet is notable enough to satisfy WP:BK, then perhaps the characters should be discussed within the context of the book article (also adding content to the article). If, however, the book itself doesn't satisfy its category's notability guideline, then delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Egerton House Hotel

Non-notable hotel. • Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can tell, this is an advert. -- Mikeblas 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Advertorial tone, unencyclopedic detail. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's an ad.Alberon 09:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Blatant ad! TaintedZebra 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Its an add. scope_creep 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable subject with no independant third party sources to explain any notability. AngelOfSadness talk 01:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elk Tribe

Non-notable fictional group. {{prod}} removed without comment by User:AlainValien, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 06:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - see other Forgotten Realms nominations TaintedZebra 11:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced, in-universe style, fails WP:N. Edison 13:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Merge Again I agree with TaintedZebra. Has somebody went around and nominated all these. scope_creep 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I seriously doubt a real world context can be established and also not notable Pilotbob 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete minor character group. --Polaron | Talk 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, mainly a plot summary and no secondary sources to satisfy WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as these fictional people have no notability in the real world. --Gavin Collins 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galaeron Nihmedu

Non-notable fictional character. {{nofootnotes}} and {{prod}} removed by User:71.108.52.19, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - see other Forgotten Realms nominations TaintedZebra 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced, in-universe style, fails WP:N. To have a Wikipedia article, a fictional character should have been discussed in independent and reliable sources beyond the work of fiction itself. Edison 13:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge — Main character in a widely-released fictional series. Could be merged into an article on Return of the Archwizards. — RJH (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Merge Again with the nominations. I agree with TaintedZebra. This one needs cleaned up, possibly re-written and categorized. scope_creep 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Main character in a published trilogy of books by a notable author. Definitely not a deletion target. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep major Realms character --Polaron | Talk 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:Plot.Ridernyc 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ridernyc is a single-purpose-only account that has not contributed anything to Wikipedia. The only thing it does is trying to get articles deleted; see Special:Contributions/Ridernyc.--Usingroute 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I've blocked Usingroute as an obvious sockpuppet account. If you want to critisize someone elses contributions do it with you own account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    - yeah I'm single purpose account, whatever you say. You might want to check out my work on articles such as Concept Album, devo, and the Residents. Just because I don't like people ignoring WP:Plot and there are hundreads if not thousands of articles to remove as a result has nothing to with my intention to edit articles. Maybe if people would stop ignoring policies when creating articles other I could spend more time improving articles. Let's leave out personal attacks and talk about policy. Ridernyc 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Rename would be better as an article on the Return of the Archwizards trilogy which doesn't seem to have one. Colonel Warden 11:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

and renaming it would make it conform to policy in what way exactly.? Ridernyc 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as this in universe article does not cite reliable sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside the books in which he is featured. --Gavin Collins 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
delete per Edison, who puts it so succintly that his comment should be at the top of the notability guideline page. "To have a Wikipedia article, a fictional character should have been discussed in independent and reliable sources beyond the work of fiction itself. Edison, 2007." AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lana and Clark

Deletion nomination Article is a personal essay about the relationship between two characters from the TV show smallville. As original as can be. No hope for anything but an OR essay here, so it should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Crazysuit 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE It is an article based on two fictional characters from Smallville. Fans of the couple would find the article interesting and entertaining. There is no point deleting it as it allows people to know background information about Lana and Clark's relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddevils10 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

An article being interesting or useful is not a very good reason to keep an original research essay that has no reliable, independent sources supporting it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Semi=interesting observations by a fan of Smallville, but Wikipedia's tolerance for original research in TV articles is generally limited to summaries of the shows themselves. OR for the infinite possibilities of an analysis of a TV show is a different matter. Writing about one's favorite TV show is a wonderful thing, and it's a fun way to develop communication skills.... but that doesn't mean the result should be an article in an encylcopedia. Mandsford 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I enjoy Smallville, but this is an opinion/ editorial. I do not think these opinions will find secondary sources. Most of the factual info here can be found in either the Smallville main article or the Smallville timeline article. An article like Smallville season one, etc. would be useful and is needed. Frog47 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone JuJube 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fan opinion/speculation. Wikipedia isn't usenet or a fanzine: this just doesn't belong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. scope_creep 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Original Research policy. Dumelow 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails per original research policy. This shouldn't be here. Not a bad show, but this article shouldn't be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. RobJ1981 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 05:12, 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 No Consenus to delete. Eluchil404 03:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith L. Muth

contested prod; biography of marginally notable or non-notable individual, minimal coverage by secondary sources, page creator's name suggests possible WP:AUTO Dppowell 05:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Although being a CPA, CFA, and a CFP is certainly unusual, there's not much that's notable about it. There's a smidgen of notability in being in the top 100 of anything, but it's not really enough by itself for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article does a poor job of it but notability is buried in there if he was Top 100 Wealth Advisors in the nation as well as numerous media spots. A respectable stub with references is certainly possible even if we don't read about CPA's on the front page. Article needs improving through regular editing. Benjiboi 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep based upon the last sentence of the article, "In October 2007, Keith L. Muth was featured in an issue of Worth Magazine as one of the Top 100 Wealth Advisors in the nation." Frog47 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Definitely worth keep and clearly notable. Who are the other 99. Could do with a re-write. scope_creep 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Dhartung. Certainly nothing here to indicate significant coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 17:16, 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 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alum Rock earthquake

Deletion nomination Non-notable earthquake. No evidence quake caused any damage or will have anything but a fleeting notability. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake, which is up for deletion discussion here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs) 05:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Very minor earthquake. Ones of this small magnitude occur constantly at one place or another, and the fact it is the largest at that particular location since 1989 means nothing. (edit) Minor property damage, no injuries. A good thunderstorm is more notable. Edison 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. scope_creep 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per Saberwyn's pointer. No merge necessary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. I'll note, however, that this article should have been AfD'd as an addition to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/October_2007_Alum_Rock_earthquake rather than as a separate AfD. Peter G Werner 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people should check before re-creating an article.--76.21.32.2 04:54, 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. WjBscribe 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rutherford Close

This street is not sufficiently notable for inclusing in Wikipedia Pilotbob 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nothing notable enough about it to deserve an entry.Alberon 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Minor street of recent creation. No indication it has more than local importance. Edison 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per both of above. jj137 (Talk) 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep There is a list of places/locations/etc which have been named in honour of the man and are included on this main page. I think it should be kept. scope_creep 16:18, 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. PeaceNT 08:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whale Song (Pearl Jam song)

Deletion nomination Non-notable song. Never released as a single, no evidence that this song has ANY independant coverage in reliable sources. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable song. Lugnuts 08:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable song. scope_creep 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nominator. I can't find anything more than a passing mention of the song in WP:RS. Bláthnaid 16:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:Music#Songs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:02, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flilf

This was originally tag as a CSD G1, patent nonsense. I rejected it as a speedy as being a neologism is not a speedy criteria, and it is not patent nonsense. I tagged it for PROD as "Non-notable neologism". This was removed by an anon with the comment. "i do object to the deletion of this article -- i think the term's prominent inclusion in the daily show makes it notable". As near as I can tell, this term was invented by the Daily Show. Beyond this usage there appears to be no other reliable sources using this term. Delete Dsmdgold 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete- I don't see how this article could possible be improved, it's just a random collection of trivia. --(L'Aquatique: Bringing _chaos & ^{general mayhem} to the Wiki for One Year!) 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Daily Show inspired prank article. Artw 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All the same, there are all ready 1500 google hits for FLILF. It seems to have struck a nerve. Serendi^podous 07:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not an appropriate site for articles about humorous acronyms used in a comedy skit on TV two days ago. The water cooler at work is a more appropriate site. Edison 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Just my humble thoughts. I heard the term on TDS and typed it into Wikipedia because I was curious what else there was to know about it. The article is limited in information at the moment, but I found it useful, and I think others might, too.

Over 15,000 Google hits now, some with dates going back a couple years. 24.59.148.187 13:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete junk JuJube 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a neologism unlikely to ever see widespread use (even if Fred Thompson were to become president...) Dethme0w 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This term was in use even before Daily show used it. Now, after its use on Daily show, it will only rise in prominence. It could easily become a cultural reference for future presidential elections in not just USA, but other countries too. Abhiag 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:CRYSTAL much ? Pigs could easily sprout wings in the future. Edison 03:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for the punchlines of jokes. --awh (Talk) 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete If MILF doesn't warrant its own article, then this should not.Hoponpop69 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge into the list of Daily Show episodes, pointing to the date it aired. It is not a term in common use. WTStoffs 05:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable, ephemeral neologism. Delete with fire. - ∅ (∅), 08:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This term was used in the title and content of video posted on Youtube and FunnyorDie July 15, 2007, several months before TDS used it. --Justiceforall1234 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And? - ∅ (∅), 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per others and WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 04:28, 3 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 10:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Farley

Seems fake Pilotbob 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fake or not, fails to meet WP:MUSIC, Delete Dsmdgold 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- appears to be a hoax, no ghits for Spracktones other than Wikipedia and mirrors, and I don't think there are degrees in phrenology any more. Pinball22 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.scope_creep 16:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I am sure that if credible references were available, they would have been added by the creator or someone else by now. Regardless, I don't believe it meets notability criteria. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 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 10:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hillside Court

Residence halls are generally not notable. It is questionable whether there is any assertion of notability Pilotbob 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unless notability can be proven. Magus05 ^(talk) 07:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I live near the university this hall of residence is at and I've never heard of it. The page has clearly just been set up by the student listed on it as a joke. Hillside Court deserves a slightly expanded mention on the main University of Reading page at best.Alberon 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or if proves real, put into main article. scope_creep 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The mention of Hillside House being a listed building provides an assertion of notability, if this building actually exists. However, I didn't see anything on the University of Reading site saying that it's indeed a listed building. Unless this article is fixed, I'm going to say this can be deleted. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bozeman Icedogs

This junior hockey team is not notable Pilotbob 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep seems like a legitimate sports team. JJL 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete junior sports teams are by definition below professional level. Unsurprisingly, no reliable sources... or indeed no sources at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment but a Google news search on the team's name shows they exist: [42], [43], [44] among a great many others. The subject is clearly notable despite the fact that the article fails to make that fact explicit via WP:RS. JJL 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and tidy article, categorize. scope_creep 16:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Google News shows 210 articles [45] not all of which are the local paper [46] [47] [48] [49] 153.90.88.9 00:14, 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. → AA ^(talk) — 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibbit

The subject of this article lacks real world notability, a real world context cannot be established, there are no sources and I seriously doubt that it can be cited with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT Pilotbob 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as has no primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 09:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (though 'cleanup' could be argued) There is insufficient context to know what games or books this fictional race figures in and how prominently so. Already is tagged with {{context}}. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Having its own article is a waste of resources. Should be a small paragraph in a main article describing each race in D & D for that particular version if notable. scope_creep 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all and redirect. There is clear consensus the articles should not be retained. The decision is whether to merge or to delete. Given the lack of sourcing raised by a number of editors, merging such content would violate WP:V, and so deletion is appropriate. Neil ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ghost Whisperer episodes

Episodes from a TV show, looking at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes most episodes are redliniked. Fails WP:NOTE. The episodes have had {{Notability}} on them for a while. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect all to show Like songs from an album, individual episodes that lack individual commentary lack THUS lack individual notability. There is no evidence that these episodes have been individual subjects of individual commentary, and thus should all redirect back to the TV show in question. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to the List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, where the relevant broadcast information and plot summary is located. De-link all episode names in this article. -- saberwyn 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing here worth saving. Leave redirects as others have suggested, if the list of a bunch of non-notable episodes is notable. -- Mikeblas 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: The Episode coverage Task Force in WikiProject Television has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all I love Jennifer Love-Hewitt, and I enjoy the Ghost Whisperer. However, I strongly believe that articles about individual episodes of any television series do not belong on Wikipedia. Yes, I know, there are tons of such articles. And they're all original research, tolerated only because Wikipedia took what it could get when it was starting up. Episode summaries belong somewhere else on the Internet. Mandsford 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep': This is good information that should be kept for those interested in the subject or the curious. It can be easily verified by watching the show. Why must they be moved "somewhere" else. The only reason I like wikipedia is that it is an "all in one" source of knowledge, if you start just deleting useful information then wikipedia's overall value has gone down and people are more likely to just look elsewhere where they can actually find the information they want. --MacGyver07 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Should be put in the main episode guide. Why delete it. This show is extremely popular. That in itself makes it notable. scope_creep 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read WP:NOTE. It does not make it notable. Significant coverage by independant sources does. These articles lack this. i ^(talk) 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect all to a list of episodes page. Articles contain little more than a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) with no critical commentary and a collection of unsourced trivia and quotes. Quotes sections would be better moved to Wikiquote. I would accept keeping the pilot episode (as they typicallly have the best chance of establishing notability) if someone agreed to look for sources, but my initial search turned up very little usable info. Star dust 8212 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all No evidence of sources beyond the plot itself. No prejudice against creating new redirects if they are deemed appropriate. Jay32183 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, they should be merged and then deleted as making them redirects is useless; I doubt anyone would search for a specific article title. However, the history needs to be left so that editors who care and are knowledgeable are able to merge to the LOE page. So just redirect them. i ^(talk) 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The list of episodes is overly detailed as it is, merging would make things worse. Also, writing plot from source material is incredibly easy so merging is fairly pointless anyway. Jay32183 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, or if that's impossible, merge in some way so as to preserve the information contained on the individual pages. I think it's ridiculous to continually destroy information that a sizable community of people may find interesting and relevant. –Kadin2048 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Burn every single one of them in the deepest pits of the underworld — these articles completely fail to meet WP:V (making everything there original research), as well as WP:NOTABLE. There's no need to merge anything, as the information is unreliable and unreferenced; merging it with the list of episodes would make the list even worse. --Agüeybaná 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all Merge the summaries into the main list, shortened if necessary. None stand alone enough to meet WP:Notable guidelines and, in general, individual episodes of a show do not need whole articles. As otehrs have noted, the "extra" info is unreferenced or goes against the no trivia ideals. Collectonian 04:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and/or redirect to List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, like it says to do in the guidelines (WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles and WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines), and please stop bringing episode articles for notable television series to AfD. DHowell 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Based on the condition of the episode list, merging is not an option. Jay32183 00:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Why not let the editors of the episode list decide whether that is an option? Besides even if it were true that merging isn't an option, the WP:EPISODE guideline says to redirect, not delete. DHowell 07:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    - Merging is a bad idea, the episode list needs trimming. I'm not against a redirect existing, but preserving the article history just to keep people from whining is stupid. Articles that go through AFD are not automatically salted so a new redirect can be created after the deletion. The redirect solution in WP:EPISODE is really to try to avoid AFDs because they can end up very heated. Since we're already at AFD, delete should be considered an option. Jay32183 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      - What purpose is served by deleting the article histories? And how exactly is characterizing the opinions of people you disagree with as "whining" and "stupid" a civil way of behaving in a collaborative project based on consensus? DHowell 07:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Every relevant policy and guideline indicates that these pages never should have existed in the first place. There is no reason to preserve the history while getting rid of the article, that just doesn't make sense. It is not an act of incivility to point out that people who insist on not making sense are whining to get their way. "Stupid" could be uncivil, if directed at a person. I, however, directed that comment at a behavior. The fact the Wikipedia is a consensus driven project doesn't create a reason to preserve work that shouldn't be a part of it. We aren't trying to placate people who waste their efforts doing work we neither need nor want. There is absolutely no reason to preserve the edit history if we aren't preserving any content. Jay32183 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Every relevant policy and guideline says that we can fix these types of articles by merging or improving, not by deleting. There is no reason to delete the article history when making a redirect, that just doesn't make sense. (Even vandalism is preserved in article histories, and this content is far from vandalism). Can I assume you will not consider it an act of incivility to point out that your insisting on deleting material for no sensible reason looks like whining to get your way? "Doesn't make sense to User:Jay32183" is not a valid reason for deletion. Read WP:CIVIL again, it doesn't apply exclusively to personal attacks; calling a person's ideas stupid can be just as incivil as calling the person stupid. It is the consensus of editors, not just you, personally pretending to speak on behalf of "we", that decides what work is to be a part of Wikipedia and what work we need or want. Even the WP:NOT#PLOT policy says that some of this content "may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" and as such can be useful for a future editor who finds more independent reliable source material to establish notability, or who wishes to incorporate some of this content in another article. There are several reasons to preserve this content for other editors, but you really haven't given one good reason to eradicate the content entirely from history. DHowell 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        There are no reliable sources for anything other than plot, improvement is impossible. The episode is overly detailed, merging is impossible. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You don't make an article without sources and hope sources show up later. Existing articles retain every edit in their histories for copyright purposes. If there is no article, there are no copyright issues. Again, I called a behavior stupid, not an idea. The behavior of trying to retain an article history to placate editors who are having their articles removed is stupid and should always be avoided. When there are no appropriate sources, completely eradicating the content is the only option. Existing policies and guidelines have an existing consensus, and a single AFD is too limited a discussion to disregard that entirely. You shouldn't feel upset if an AFD closes in delete when you know the article fails all relevant policies. You can't save everything, and it's a waste of time to try. Jay32183 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        So you've done an exhaustive search and determined that no reliable sources exist, or would ever exist for any of these episodes? We have far more detailed articles, based on reliables sources, for episodes of other television series, so I'm not sure how you can be so confident about this. You're distinction between "behavior" and "idea" is pretty irrelevant, and I still don't see how calling either one "stupid" is civil. And, yes policies and guidelines may have an existing consensus, but it is those very policies and guidelines which you ignore in order to press for the deletion of harmless historical content. We have guidelines to "placate editors" because it is better in the spirit of consensus and community to do so when there is no harm in doing so. Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Completely eradicating the content is" not "the only option," as we have hundreds if not thousands of redirects with article histories containing content both potentially useful and completely useless, and no one is going around demanding deletion of all of those histories. Only because these articles happened to be brought to AfD (against guidelines) do you seem to be vociferously arguing for the deletion of these particular article histories. DHowell 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Oh, and regarding "You don't make an article without sources and hope sources show up later": Maybe you don't, but Jimbo does, and that's the way Wikipedia generally worked before people started demanding that all articles which are not fully compliant with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines from day one be deleted on sight. DHowell 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to White Plume Mountain. Neil ☎ 09:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aegwareth

This is a short article about a nonnotable subject. There is no real world context and there are no sources outside of the D&D gaming world. Pilotbob 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with something (perhaps White Plume Mountain). With the small amount of content in the article, it should be very easy to incorporate the material in a larger article and redirect, obviating the need for the AfD. It would be best if someone familiar with the topic did this, however, so I'll wait for a while before attempting it myself. --Philosophus ^T 04:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this one line stub has insufficient content, or sources to demonstrate real world notability outside of the game settings from which this fictional character is derived. --Gavin Collins 09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge into White Plume Mountain. Also, Gavin, you need to actually start reading the articles proposed for deletion--if you had, you'd see that this one is NOT a "one line" stub.--Robbstrd 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason, however, why it shouldn't just be changed to a redirect to White Plume Mountain, which already contains most of the same content? --Philosophus ^T 10:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons has been notified about this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per Philosophus. Pinball22 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment — I can't tell, based on the content, whether this is a major character within the context of the setting. No support for keep. — RJH (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Merge into a article contain all characters/races from this D & D game. scope_creep 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, no amount of rewriting or cleanup can possibly allow this article to pass WP:N and WP:RS. Doctorfluffy 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I asked someone else above, is there some reason why you think this shouldn't be a redirect? --Philosophus ^T 05:35, 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 delete. Neil ☎ 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake

Instead of placing a simple {{prod}}, I'd like to put it up for AfD instead so people can voice their opinion. This earthquake, though less than magnitude 6.0, was higher than the July 4.2 earthquake. And until the readings are officially confirmed and damage reports are all in, it is better to nominate it for deletion rather than just tag the article. The article has {{currentevent}} on there, which means the article will be expanded in due time. It should not be deleted until at least a couple days after the quake. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged with a {{currentevent}} with reason: Same reasons as posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake: Earthquakes in California less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough

I'd like to KEEP until news stories confirm only minor damage and that the earthquake was indeed less than a magnitude 6.0 before deletion. It should have been tagged with a {{currentevent}} especially when it was already tagged with {{currentevent}}. However, I do agree that earthquakes under magnitude 5.5, not 6.0, should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable and WP:NOT#NEWS. From the citations, it's described as a "moderate temblor", "no reports of damage or injury", "electricity never went out and his telephone was still working". This isn't even the top story in the local news there. Crazysuit 04:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This was no more an event than the average thunderstorm or snow shower. This was an entirely nn earthquake. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm... Notability is still questionable, but besides tonight's earthquake, a 5.6 magnitude earthquake has only shook California about 31 times since 1973.USGS NEIC: Earthquake Search Results I just sorted out their data through a simple CSV sort, but it's all right there. The last time we had one of these was 2001. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, clearly a non-notable event in the bigger scheme of things. (OK, it was strong enough that it has me up at night reading about earthquakes on Wikipedia, which is how I came across this AfD.) And please note notability is not temporary – either something is notable enough to be permanent part of Wikipedia or it doesn't belong. Jameson – ever heard of Wikinews? If you want to write about this event, there's where to do it. Peter G Werner 05:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Another article on the smae subject, Alum Rock earthquake, is up for deletion discussion here. -- saberwyn 05:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Here's a direct link to that AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alum Rock earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - 69.181.239.72 just mentioned of minor injury reports. Once again, it's just best to at least let the article sit out overnight. The July earthquake article was AfD'ed 13 hours after the article was started (info courtesy of User:Zzyzx11) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Merge with Alum Rock earthquake; largest earthquake since 1987 Loma Prieta is certainly notable. This will likely be front page news and will receive many news articles as the media moves into gear. Also expand on cell phone outages; for a "minor" earthquake to have any disruption in communication services foretells major problems for any major disasters. Benjiboi 10:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - So what if its front page news right now. Wikipedia is not Wikinews! This earthquake will be practically forgotten within a year. Notability is not temporary! Peter G Werner 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Very minor earthquake. Ones of this small magnitude occur every day somewhere or other, and the fact that it is the largest one in this exact location since 1989 means nothing. Edison 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non Notable. Hundreds of these happen all over the shop. Why is this one important. scope_creep 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but didn't I just post that there were only 31 of these quakes since 1973? lol - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability at Wikipedia is NOT determined by how rare or how common something is. It is determined by its appearence in reliable sources in a non-trivial way. There is no evidence presented that this quake is considered notable by the press or by any other reliable source, and untill and unless such coverage exists OUTSIDE of wikipedia, there is not proof of notability and this does not deserve an article IN Wikipedia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting your citation to WP:RS, "Mainstream newspapers may be a reliable source for some subjects." Since the quake's report was not reported in the Opinion or Op/Ed section of the newspaper, I'm pretty sure San Francisco Chronicle would be a notable and reliable source. And something rare may not be notable for Wikipedia, but a (I'm not a seismologist, therefore I won't make any bold assumptions here) quake that strikes right around where Loma Prieta hit in 1989 (decent quakes have known to strike around 20 year cycles) should make it notable. Sometimes it is a precursor to a larger quake, however, USGS has found that the likelihood of aftershocks more powerful than the initial quake felt last night to occur in the next 7 days is low. If this article shall be deleted, we should merge it to another more notable article so that at least it is somehow on record. If this happens, it would be nice to have a #REDIRECT on to that page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Peter G Werner 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, but with the knowledge that it can be ressurected. We don't have a death toll or damage count yet - until we get something more than minor numbers, it kind of falls below being a notable quake in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Changed my mind. Notability comes from news coverage that this has gotten, so I'm flipping to a keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS; The city gets loads of earthquakes each year. Will ^(talk) 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment An utterly non-encyclopedic and nonnotable thunderstorm recently caused major property damages and a fatality. This earthquake caused only minor property damage and no injuries. A minor earthquake in a region where there was once a major earthquake gives the local papers a chance to sell some newsprint. It is the essence of non-notability. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 03:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Under normal circumstances I might agree. The US Geological Survey (Released: 10/17/2007 12:11:04 PM (approx. two weeks prior)) The 1868 Hayward Earthquake: 139 years and counting... - "Time is not on our side! Sunday, October 21, 2007, marks the 139th anniversary of the 1868 Hayward earthquake. Scientific studies indicate that the average interval between the past five large earthquakes on the Hayward fault has been 140 years. It would not be surprising if another large Hayward Fault earthquake happened tomorrow." Benjiboi 09:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is indeed insignificant as far as casualties and damage go, however considering it is the biggest earthquake in the whole of California with an epicentre onshore for over 3 years it should be seen as noteworthy. As far as earthquakes go a 5.6 is certainly not minor, plenty of people have actually been killed around the world by earthquakes of this size as well as in California. This quake is also noteworthy for achieving over 63000 responses to the USGS 'did you feel it?' earthquake questionnaire, which is the highest ever by quite some margin, again showing it's noteworthiness. RapidR 15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

KeepIt shouldn't be deleted, yet the name should be changed to "Alum Rock Earthquake". Get rid of the date. That belongs in the article. --76.21.32.2 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Date is important in case a future earthquake originating from nearby location occurs. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The article should be kept. The only reason why there is little to no damage is because of the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. California has been rocking and buildings are becoming being modified to handle earthquakes. This an important earthquake for California. Remember the rest of the Pacific Rim has had stronger earthquakes and if we don't relieve enough pressure on this side, it has been stated we will have a very major earthquake. Noting the 5.6 earthquake may not seem very important but the faults need to let loose on this side of the Pacific Rim. It seems people would rather more damage and devastion be done. We should be happy we have learned and added precautions to keep us safer. I believe it is important to note this earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.217 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Same reason that I posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake, and when I originally tagged the article in question with {{prod}}: WP:NOT#NEWS – Earthquakes in California less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. CitiCat ^♫ 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solveig sadnes

Because of claims of a single charting in Japan, I've brought this here. Although if there is only one charting song, I don't think she qualifies under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC Pig^man 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The single "Marie" was a #1 pop single in Japan, ~~as well as used in the soundtrack to All About Anna,~~ which would pass WP:MUSIC. Sources in English are lacking though: the only source I have is the official site for the film.[50] dissolve ^talk 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep There are hundreds of singers / groups on Wikipedia that only have 1 chart topper Jimmy_Eat_World SoHo [51] [[The_Lightning_Seeds] Faster,_Pussycat!_Kill!_Kill! Oleta_Adams Kyper Deee-Lite and thats just the a few random ones from a One Hit Wonder search. So only have a single hit is not a good reason to delete 153.90.88.9 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The surname is spelt differently in the article than in the article title, BTW. TomorrowTime 15:47, 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. Wizardman 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somerset Primary

Contested speedy. Author states None of the Bermuda schools are notable world wide, however within Bermuda Somerset Primary is the number one primary school as revealed in an independant survey of Bermuda's schools last year". Seems to me a valid reason to keep, if it can be sourced, but then again, I'm not sure. Ideas? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 2007/10/19 22:30:30

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability is given in the article. As it stands, the article is nothing more than blatant adspam. —gorgan_almighty 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable, the author hasn't managed to provide a citation for that claim of notability, and he's had over a week to find one. Crazysuit 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
While Bermuda schools can certainly be notable, I have no reason to think that this one is. Delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep There are lists of primary schools by country. Why not put this in that category. There seems to be an arbitrary decision whether to add primary schools or not. I say add. scope_creep 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Auroranorth (sign) 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability. Twenty Years 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOREP

Lebanese political movement. Written by Morepist so clearly there is COI. No independent refs. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 09:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Please review the independent references in MOREP article including Lebanese newspapers. It is written for a purpose to define MOREP since it is well known movement in the Lebanon. Many articles could be suspected of COI but still has public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.156.197 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral/Weak Keep More an NPOV issue than a lack of notability. Maybe pull out offending terms and label for an EXPERT. Mbisanz 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Mbisanz, although I'd guess labelling it for an expert is just going to attract every Joe and his uncle to come out and declare themselves, as members of the movement, experts. I say tag it for npov and keep. --(L'Aquatique: Bringing _chaos & ^{general mayhem} to the Wiki for One Year!) 06:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think it is a genuine organisation, as its mentions in Robert Fisks latest book. Article needs lots of work. scope_creep 16:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep More developments added to this article for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morepist (talk • contribs) 20:58, 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 22:10, 11/6/2007

[edit] International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology

Article deleted through ProD, but contested afterwards through email. Original ProD reason (not by me) was "Lacks any independent secondary sources to establish notability; fails WP:ORG.". It seems indeed to be an organisation which is promoted heavily by a small number of people, but which lacks a more general notability in its field. Fram 07:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ weak keep Produces a significant journal, published by Springer, a very important highly reputable academic publisher. This is an indication of significant status. The journal the produced was published only from 1999 to 2003. t DGG (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Where do you get the dates from, DGG? Both Medline & NLM catalogue [52] seem to think it's still ongoing, and Springer link to ToCs from 2007 [53]. It seems to have changed its name from Ethical Human Sciences and Services in 2004. Espresso Addict 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Lacks secondary sources, fails WP:ORG. Publishing a journal is great, but without independent secondary sources it's impossible to say anything enyclopedic here. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The importance of the journal would be indicated by it being from a major publisher. But on the other hand it is held by only 25 US & Canadian research libraries. changed to weak keep.DGG (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per MastCell. Insufficient sources. Doctorfluffy 06:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Same as DGG's logic. Mbisanz 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Psychology has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete MastCell hit the nail on the head with his comments. We need secondary sources. If these are added, someone let me know, and I'll change to "Keep". I am wondering if there are any reliable secondary sources though... Chupper 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep A quick google search [54] brought up 208,000 results, this does not make it notable in and of itself, but according to WP:ORG A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. these should [55] [56] [57] [58] 153.90.88.9 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Er, WP:ORG requires non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Three of those 4 sources have a fairly trivial level of coverage (i.e. little more than mention of the organization's name), and the other is from a book authored by Peter Breggin, who is the founder of the organization and thus hardly independent. MastCell ^Talk 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per MastCell unless someone adds appropriate independent sources confirming notability before this AfD ends. Doczilla 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
speedy keep: An appropriate notification of listing by nominators would have been appreciated. The roster of luminaries that participated in the recent ICSPP conference should more than suffice to demonstrate the noteworthiness of the journal. Ombudsman 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- As you frequently advocate a "speedy keep" closure of AfD's ([59], [60], [61], [62]), would it be too much to ask that you review the speedy keep criteria and explain which of them are applicable here? As to notification, the AfD may have opened while you were blocked by Jimbo Wales, which may explain the lack of notification. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not sufficiently indicated (e.g. in which way the FDA has been lobbied). Content can be merged with Peter Breggin if necessary. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballet sneakers

Non-notable product. I couldn't find a good reason to speedy a product like this. If there is a speedy reason for a situation like this, I'd love to know it. Pig^man 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sources are found that establish notability. Searching around a bit, I found a a trivial mention of the term and this article, which might be a good source (quote from the google search hit: "Shoe manufacturers are now producing leather "ballet sneakers" that look like regular lace-up athletic shoes but have [...]"). However, I'm not willing to pay to find out for sure ;). — Ksero 12:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Ballet sneakers" brings up a fair bit of hits on Google, at a minimum this article needs sources. Is this just a jazzy "ballet slippers"? Mindraker 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep and Merge This article is notable, but a page for it, no. Needs merged into a suitable place. scope_creep 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep. Needs more sources, but seems to be a popular fashion of slip-on shoe for girls. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Is the article poorly done? Yes. It the topic legit? Yes, per Jelly shoes, Brothel creepers, and Espadrilles--Esprit15d 20:19, 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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Michael Dasburg

Non-notable painter, no assertation of notability beyond an obituary in the newspaper. Other "source" is from promotional website. Some guy 03:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. A New York Times obituary shows notability. Anyone who receives an obituary in the New York Times is inherently notable. Crazysuit 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep While this article may never rise to the encyclopedic notability of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS), this stub of an article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability for one of America's early modernist painters. The inherent notability provided by an obituary published in The New York Times is just a cherry on top. Rather than follow Wikipedia:deletion policy, which requires that nominators make good faith efforts to research potential notability and make edits to improve the article, it appears that some guy came along minutes after the article was created with the intention of starting an AfD, regardless of the notability of the subject. Alansohn 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you're demonstrating good faith by making personal attacks? I don't consider an obituary to be notable. Many people get obituaries. The other cited sources are weak and do not correlate well to the information attributed to them. Some guy 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - "Many people get obituaries", sure - but in the New York Times? I don't think so. Resurgent insurgent 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - The article and the sources speak for themselves. I'd strongly suggest reading and understanding Wikipedia:deletion policy (let alone criteria for speedy deletion), and becoming more familiar with The New York Times's and its obituary policies. I think you'll find that it's not "an absoluely^[sic] pathetic assertion of notability" after all. Alansohn 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Why don't you take a look at WP:BIO, specifically "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Furthermore, Dasburg does not fall under any of the "Specific examples of sources". I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that says New York Times obituary automatically equals notable. And I stand by my assertion that 12 whole interlinks and an obituary do not assert notability. Please refrain from further personal attacks. I'm not stalking your edits. Some guy 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Subject of a 24 page article in the American Art Journal. I can't believe this was tagged with a speedy. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- At the time of the speedy, there was no assertion of notability. Check the page history. Some guy 07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. The article as nominated said he was part of the Armory Show, possibly the single most famous art exhibition in US history. As this major claim of notability was sourced from the NYT, the nominator should have been less jumpy. That said, article writers should be careful to ensure that major claims of notability are in the article (preferably even the intro), not inside footnotes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep User:Some guy merits censure for abuse of this process. Colonel Warden 08:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep He was a notable pioneer of American modernism and this is a ludicrous nomination. How a lengthy obit in the New York Times can be seen as 'trival coverage' is unfathomable. How can the nominator think an article like Earthsiege 2 is notable if Dasburg is not? There are now 13 solid references in the article, did the nominator bother researching this man for even a second before nominating it for deletion? Nick mallory 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Solid references are provided. The subject is clearly notable. There is no apparent reason why this should be nominated for deletion (I will assume good faith and leave it at that). Freshacconci | Talk 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep with the added sources, this qualifies for any reasonable inclusion criteria. I think the weather report calls for a WP:SNOW flurry, localised right here, right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, an important American Modernist painter. I proposed someone write an article about him several months ago. He showed his paintings with Alfred Stieglitz at the Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession or the 291 - as notable as you can get. Please. Modernist 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This man is all over the web like a rash. There are sources all over the shop. The article needs tarted up though. scope_creep 16:49, 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 10:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Rawlinson

Outside of her appearance in several plays listed, her only IMDb listing is for Flushed Away. Unless significant sources can be found, I'm suggesting non-notable by Wikipedia standards. Pigman^what?/trail 03:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete More importantly, there are no secondary sources to back up a case for notability. If those can be found, though, her short work history doesn't matter. That said, I see no sources in a quick GNS search that discuss this Rawlinson - there are others that discuss an AIDS activist and a coach, to add to the confusion. MrZaius^talk 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete A couple of years down the line, she should be in, but now don't know. scope_creep 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete on the basis of no secondary references. --Sesameball^Talk 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Not notable enough as of now. TGreenburgPR 06:34, 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. Apparent hoax - only Google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Gwimporini. - Mike Rosoft 10:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Gwimporini

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/El Gwimporini

Articles for deletion/El Gwimporini (2nd nomination)

Possible hoax, unsourced, and Google turns up nothing outside of Wikipedia, including for "Skipsey Animation Studios." Acroterion _(talk) 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Previously deleted here as a hoax, I've tagged it for speedy. Adios, El Gwimporini. Acroterion _(talk) 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete other illustrious contributions of this author include Unblock It You Fat Bastard and Skipsey Animation Studios (whose content is made up of "Hmmmm sluts =]"). He also removed AfD notice from this page. Block author as vandalism-only account. JuJube 04:47, 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. Eluchil404 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeremi Vargas

A speedy template was removed from this page so I'm bringing it here. The article was created to "raise awareness", but I doubt this is a notable bio/case. Not quite a memorial but close to it. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for raising awareness. Pigman^what?/trail 03:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Annul AFD and re-route to PROD as a procedural matter and to reduce AFD workload. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Cool with me. I don't really know the process of doing that properly beyond noting my opinion here. As a non-admin, I don't think it's right for me to just do it. Or am I missing something? Pigman^what?/trail 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment redux What I meant to say was that I wasn't sure how to switch to a PROD in the middle of an AfD. That is, do I close the AfD? Is there a template to add to the AfD page to indicate doing this? My question is about the procedural transition between the two rather than the PROD process itself. I'm thinking it's not that important. I'll just see how it plays out in this AfD and worry about it if there's no definitive outcome. Pigman^what?/trail 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If it had any material in the article, it might be different, but apparently creating a page with a name on it is as much awareness raising as the creator wanted to put into it. Wildhartlivie 12:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimette Hughes

Non notable person, I don't see what her claim to fame is. Former model, but google search turns up bad results [63] Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete db-bio. JuJube 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete agreed - this should have been considered under either WP:CSD#A7 or WP:PROD rather than being brought directly here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not even a claim of notability Frog47 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I guess having modelled for MTV and Disney is a claim of notability of sorts, so I'm not going to call for a speedy. Still, it's unreferenced and even if 100% true would be a long way away from an encycopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. TGreenburgPR 00:44, 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. Without references, the Keep argument does not apply. CitiCat ^♫ 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Disgaea 3 characters

No primary or secondary sources provided as evidence of notability outside of the game from which these fictional characters are derived. Gavin Collins 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Game is not released yet. Colonel Warden 08:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete Temporarily~~Keep and Merge. I understand the game isn't out yet so I think it should be deleted. Then someone could re-create it after it comes out, after they have verifiable resources.businessman332211 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I altered my thoughts because what was said below made more sense. I think that would be a better course of action. businessman332211 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Merge This is a primary game from a major Japanese game house. Although its not release yet, and which makes it non notable means it should be deleted. But it is being released in less than 3 months. Why delete it, then have some wikipedian re-create it in a couple of months. A waste of time, which could be used better somewhere else. scope_creep 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No evidence of secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete crystal, possible hoax. User:Krator (t c) 10:58, 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. Eluchil404 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Cuthbert (drummer)

I'm not really 100% sure of this one but a PROD was removed from it so I'm bringing it here. Near as I can tell from this article, his early membership in Everclear is his sole claim to notability. I think he was on their first CD. However nothing else here is notable by Wikipedia standards. The few WP:RS I found mostly mention him in passing, not significantly. Plus this mostly seems like WP:OR with possibly some autobio thrown in. I'm ambivilent but come down on the delete side of the equation. Pigman^what?/trail 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I err on the side of inclusion, this is a good article, notability is established, no reason to delete. -- Librarianofages 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete He never appeared on any notable recording of the band, nor does it appear that the basic requirements of notability, that non-trivial coverage of him or his work, seems to exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not see how "notability is established" under WP:NOTE guidelines for musicians. --Sesameball^Talk 18:01, 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 per A7. Hemlock Martinis 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Willington-Berry

Non-notable rapper. Google returns zero hits outside of Wikipedia. Article itself is a shambles. Probably a speedy, but I know nothing about rap so I'll give others a chance to speak. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, NN rapper, fails WP:V. This article is written in the first person and thus violates WP:AUTO. meshach 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. -- Librarianofages 03:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. The article is a self-admitted autobiography: "There is my auto biography I hope whoever reads this will like reading it." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Should be on the speedy list.scope_creep 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School

Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

Article asserts no notability. A google news search brings up 27 articles, all of which appear to be about the school having a butterfly farm, being a polling place (like most schools), how the fees are rising (like most schools), and the school getting a facelift. All of which i feel are non-notable. That said i feel the article fails notability. Twenty Years 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

- Comment The claims above are merely assertions and value judgements and fail to address all of the article's content. Eyedubya 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment To be more detailed, the article fails every policy under the sun: WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. It has nothing reliable written about it, by a neutral third-party. Twenty Years 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Who are you to say that a lecturer at a tertiary insitution isn't a reliable third party? Surely that is slanderous! Eyedubya 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment The book (see below) is published by the school and therefore fails to meet WP:V. Twenty Years 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment I've read the WP guidelines, and these are what my comments are based on. I suggest you do the same before you make any more unsubstantiated assertions. Eyedubya 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (reduce indent) Can you cite the relevant WP Guidelines which the article meets to prove that it is notable. OR cite the guideline that says primary sources can be used to prove an article is notable. The second, you of course will not find. The first, you probably will not find either, because i havent. Twenty Years 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Verifiability relates to the way material is sourced, and the nature of the source material. The material cited by the book are verifiable, and scrupulously referenced. The WP guidelines are clear on this, and they are based on academic standards. If you haven't found the relevant wording in the WP guidelines, then I suggest you look harder or get someone who understands them to explain them to you. Vanity publishing is the issue you are worried about, and this is not a case of that. Eyedubya 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Thats good you now know what WP:V is all about. It relates to the way material for the article is sources. Primary sources dont meet WP:V. Twenty Years 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Its not a primary source. A primary source would be a transcript of a conversation with the School Principal, or the minutes of a school council meeting. It is not that kind of thing. It is a historical account derived from interviews and a review of literature, and references 36 publications and documents, some of which are indeed primary sources, such as school correspondence and internal documentation. It is irrelevant who published it.Eyedubya 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment So its a primary source based on a bunch of primary sources. You claim that there are some reliable sources cited in this book, can you name....say one of them? which might help to make the article appear somewhat notable? Twenty Years 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment It is not a primary source, therefore your request is meaningless.Eyedubya 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (reduce indent) The book is a primary source, is it not published by the school? Cite one of the "36 sources" the book uses. Twenty Years 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You are confused about what a primary source is. I have explained above what a primary source is. It has nothing to do with publication, it has to do with the nature of the source material. The book is by a Mr Eckersall and its subject is a school. It is not by the school about itself, nor is it merely a record of a staff member talking about the school. In any event, since you are so keen to see a reference to something 'reliable' that the book cites, then here is one: Clarke, CMH (1963) Sources of Australian History, London: Oxford University Press.Eyedubya 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I am in no illusions as to what a primary source is. It is published by the school about itself, probably by a person paid by/associated with the school. This other source which you have stated says what about the school? (if anything). Twenty Years 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Thinking that you have no illusions is part of the problem, for clearly you do. The author was not paid by the school. Many people write histories for the love of research, for no fee. Just like you do stuff on wikipedia, presumably for no monetray reward. If you are so interested in what Manning Clarke has to say about this school, I suggest you get a copy of his work and see for yourself. Eyedubya 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment I presume Clarke said little about the school, until it can be proven he said something, he effectively said nothing. Twenty Years 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Which proves nothing at all in relation to this matter, one way or the other. As a history, the book draws on a range of sources to make its points. Some will be contextual, some will be primary material such as the school's correspondence and council minutes. But since it is not, in itself, this kind of material, it is not a primary source. It is published by the school, but it is not authored by the school. Your application of the WP categories is inappropriate in this instance. Eyedubya 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment. TwentyYears has misunderstood what a primary source is. Can I suggest that he reads the Wikipedia article entitled Primary source so that he understands precisely what a primary source is. Primary sources are original contemporary documents. The book in question is a secondary source which is no doubt based on many primary sources. The fact that the book was probably written by someone at the school means that it is potentially a biased source but it is still perfectly acceptable to use as the basis for an article in combination with other sources. Dahliarose 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Just for the record, the author was not at the school at the time of writing, he was an academic at a tertiary institution in Melbourne. He is a former student of the school, however. Eyedubya 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria This is a non-notable primary school. Other than former students (which is not a strong claim for notability in Primary schools), the two claims to notability are heritage and the fight to stay open. The fight against the Kennett closures is not sourced and was one of many fights that took place at that time. Inclusion in a heritage overlay on a planning scheme is common and does not indicate any heritage significance other than merely local. There are a number of shop fronts in the town where I live that are noted as being of historical significance in the Local Environment Plan (Shire Plan). None are listed on the NSW State Heritage Register and none are significant enough for articles. This school does not appear to be listed on the Victorian Heritage Register; if it is I would be prepared to reconsider inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Again, more assertions not suppprted by reference to the evidence or any objective criteria. Some former students may indeed be notable - not all former students of any school are notable. These are. While there were many fights against Kennet's school closures, not all were successful - those that were are necessarily notable. Its those that failed which are not, regardless of one's political persuasion. After all, this school is a small school by Victorian standards, yet the logic of those closures was efficient use of public assets.Eyedubya 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The user above has said that the article is non-notable, they are not here to debate the Kennet governments decisions. If they are wrong, which WP guidelines does the article actually meet. Please back up your claims. Twenty Years 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment The user has claimed that the issue of the Kennet closures is irrelevant because many schools were affected. I have already responded to this claim above.Eyedubya 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Well, if its so notable, find a source for how it affected this school spectacularly more than other schools (which it didnt). Twenty Years 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment The point is, unlike most schools on Kennet's closure list, it survived. THAT is what makes it a notable. It just continued to exist, while most of the others ceased to exist and were sold off and re-developed as housing. Eyedubya 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (reduce indent) So this is the make-it-or-break-it of the notability debate eh? So that is survived is soooo notable, that not a single person thought "hey! we should write this down, might be worth a newspaper article", no. No-one wrote about it because it was like many schools, obviously they all didnt survive, but alot did. This is just another run-of-the-mill schools. Twenty Years 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, clearly for you, this could indeed be a make-or-break issue. Its more than likely there are newspaper articles about it. Why don't you see if you can find some, since you are so keen on verifying this issue, rather than carping. Be part of the solution rather than the problem! Eyedubya 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I have found no newspaper articles about it. Or anything that meets WP:V and WP:RS, hence why im puhing for its deletion. Twenty Years 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Have you looked beyond Google for your articles? I suggest you try the Brunswick Library. They have an archive of such material that predates the relatively recent use of the web by the media.Eyedubya 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Now that its been established that the book is a primary source, do you have any inderpendant, third-party source for the article? Twenty Years 02:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment That's a non-sequitur: the preceding line of commentary does nothing to establish the status of the numerous references cited in the article. The difficulty of categorising one of the references used in the article (the history written by Mr Eckersall) as a 'primary source' has been established and it is nonsensical to continue to assert a simplistic version of this. Eyedubya 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Above and beyond respecting the results of the previous AfD, the article makes appropriate claims of notability and is the subject of a book published on the occasion of its centennial, ISBN 0731603257. Alansohn 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The book in question appears to be a self-published book (see here). This does not make it a reliable source. Twenty Years 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The book in question is published by the school, but is authored by a third party who is not an employee of the school or an agent of it. The material in the book is sourced from reliable/verifiable sources and contains a properly cited list of references. The author is an academic at a tertiary institution in Melbourne. It is not an unreliable, unverifiable vanity publication, but a work of scholarly merit. Eyedubya 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Thats the issue, it is published by the school, which makes it a primary source, and hence it is not a reliable source. Twenty Years 15:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment No, it is not a 'primary source', since it is not written by the school, or anyone working there or studying there. The issue is whether or not the source is 'reliable' and 'verifiable' - and it is both of these things, regardless of its publisher, because of the way it has been written and the sources it uses (other reliable sources that are verifiable, and that are, for what its worth, not published by the school).Eyedubya 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment So its not a primary source, yet it is published by the school, that is slightly contradictary. Ill avoid that. If it uses some reliable sources, then why dont you get a copy of this book (it appears to be only available from the school because they published it) and quote those sources here, so that this article might have a chance of passing any wikipedia notability guidelines. Twenty Years 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Its only contradictory if you don't understand what a primary source is. I have a copy of the book. It references 36 publications and documents, some of which are themselves what would be regarded as primary sources, others not - typical of an academic work of history. I see no point in providing a list of these references for an article of this kind. The book is reliable, it is derived from verifiable sources. That is all that neesds to be said. Eyedubya 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (reduce indent) Id be willing to bet that you dont even have the book. These 36 sources, if they are indeed reliable sources, please share them with us so we can end this discussion now. All we need is one source. Twenty Years 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You'd lose all your money on that bet, so be careful what you wish for. I trust the rest of your assertions are founded on a greater probability of being proven correct. The issue of the sources is a distraction. It has been established that the book is about the school, and is by an independent historian, and draws on a range of primary and secondary material. It is not a 'vanity publication', which is the main concern of the relevant WP guideline.Eyedubya 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- - (Note: I fixed the bolding of the word keep in this users comment to stop it bolding the entire comment) Twenty Years 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Thanks, mate, some of us is less competent with the wikification than others. Much appreciated. Eyedubya 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Education in Australia has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break

Delete A decent article but it is essentially just another average suburban primary school. Loopla 10:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is another assertion based on a value judgement. It is not an 'average suburban primary school', since it it is not located in an 'average' suburb, demographically or geographically.Eyedubya 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I have contacted this user in order to get them to fully explain their reason for voting delete on this article. Twenty Years 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment That sounds like 'vote-buying' to me. Surely if the user is that interested, they'll respond to my comments without your prompt. Eyedubya 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment I do not canvass votes. I just asked this person to explain ther delete vote, just like i asked people to explain their Keep votes. Twenty Years 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment I look forward to a personal enquiry from you to explain my keep 'vote' then!Eyedubya 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Sorry I should have elaborated. I just can't see anything in this article that makes the school particularly notable, it could be describing hundreds of other Australian public schools. It doesn't seem to have received any awards of note, its enrolment is only 160 which doesn't say great things about it, the article doesn't talk about any notable events apart from it almost closing (which these days is quite common), its use as a polling place for elections isn't notable (every public school in my area is the same). It just seems to be your average suburban public school. I don't think its demographic makes it unique. Im in Sydney and I could name dozens of suburbs (and their public primary schools) that are "ethnially diverse" or predominantly "non-english speaking", its the way Australia is today. If there had been a significant or interesting event in its history or something I would probably think differently. Loopla 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment There are sereval kinds of 'average' - the three most common are: the mode (the most commonly occuring kind of school (number of students, ethnic mix, range of programs, age of school buildings, distance from CBD, facilities, etc), the mean (the total quantity of any feature associated with Australian schools divided by the number of schools) and the median (the school which is half way between the extremes for any chosen feature or set of features related to Australian schools). With this in mind we can respond to User Loopla's claims of 'averageness': a lack of 'awards of note' (which awards are more notable is not defined, nor is a threshold quantified); 'notable events' (User Loopla argues that resisting the Kennett school closures of the 1990s is 'quite common' - clearly difficult to sustain given the actuality of such a specific historic event); Its use as a polling place - while many schools are used as polling places, the article does not assert that this is its main claim to 'notability', and since in User Loopla's experience 'every' public school is a polling place, this trait is no longer about 'averageness', but more akin to saying 'school's are buildings'; Lastly, it is asserted that the demographics of the school are 'average' on the basis that it is similar to 'dozens' of suburbs in Sydney. Given that Sydney has well-over 850 suburbs, then 12 suburbs is a tiny minority of places with a particular demographic, and certainly far from 'average'. And this is without getting onto the actual demographics of the school in question and its particular catchment. Eyedubya 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep ~~or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. If the suburb is increased substantially it will have to be resurrected there anyway. cheers~~,

On rethink is too long to merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Any particular reason for keeping the article. I think that it is deserving of a mention in the local area's article. Twenty Years 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - - Umm...keep means keep the information as is ~~and merge, as opposed to delete which means remove and lose it. cheers,~~ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Why do you want the article kept? It fails WP:N and WP:ORG, it appears to also fail WP:N too. Twenty Years 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think i see what you are saying: Merge the information in to the local suburb article? Twenty Years 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as reffing, this is not a high priority - it is not as if it is highly controversial and likely to be challenged. Setting up AfDs for these situations is a highly confrontational and unpleasant way of conducting article improvement. you yourself said you were only nominating as your calls to merge schools were ignored. One of the most valuable things about WP is how people research and add material to it which does not exist online yet. I have researched alot of erudite subjects in my time and there is alot not available online. You are not assuming good faith with other editors here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) But the sources are needed to establish notability, without them, its just another standard primary school. Thats known as original research and you know that as much as I do. Ive assumed good faith at all times here, that is simple fact. Please just cite a source to establish notability. Thanks. Twenty Years 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. --victor falk 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. I will also add that this structure will probably create a no consensus decision. If so, this article should be allowed for renomination with a traditional nomination survey without the traditional wait before a renomination. Vegaswikian 04:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep. The article is too long to merge with Brunswick East. It has already been through an AfD process. The article establishes notability, and the mere assertion to the contrary is insufficient justification for deletion or merging: unless an editor with expertise in heritage assessment can state why its heritage status makes it not notable enough for Wikipedia in an objective fashion, (rather than subjective judgements such as 'I feel' or value judgements about the significance of 'local'), it should stay. The argument about 'local' significance needs to be justified to have any relevance here - how 'local' does 'local' have to be to be not-notable? Its likely that while both shopfronts and schools may be listed in heritage overlays, schools are far less common than shops, schools are far more permanent than shops, schools serve their communities in different ways than shops do. Meanwhile, there are many, many items listed on the Victorian Heritage Register (or the National one for that matter) that are not the subject of Wikipedia articles. And regarding the lack of sources for the Kennet closures issue, all that's needed here is a tag to remind editors/readers that a source is required (and let's face it, if this standard were applied consistently, Wikipedia would be 1/10th the size it is ...if that).Eyedubya 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- CommentMight be worth noting that this user already said keep at the start of the discussion, that aside:
- Nothing is too long to merge. The article fails the notability criteria set down in WP:N and WP:ORG, the article may assert that it is notable, but indeed it lacks any reliable sources to back it up.
- Generally, buildings/places that are on the state register (in this case the Victorian Heritage Register) are notable, whilst old buildings that arent, generally arent (keep in mind that this is a generalisation). So effectively the building isnt notable.
  - This comment is out of kilter with the majority of WP content: Wikipedia is full of articles about buildings and places that are not listed on any kind of register, heritage or otherwise - there are many, many criteria for notability. Being on a heritage register is a measure of heritage significance, not necessarily notability - see above.Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Given the lack of any notability criteria that the article passes, (eg. WP:CORP) i think it is safe to say the school is not notable. Twenty Years 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Given the lack of any objective evidence that the school does not meet notability citeria (beyond the continued assertions of a very limited number of editors), I think it is safe to say that the article should stay, so that editors interested in improving the article can do so. Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Might also be worth noting that some users arguing for deletion also have more than one say.Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I strongly disagree. See above comments about the reliability of the history. WP standards are basically derived from academic standards, the author is an academic and the book fulfils those criteria. Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - CommentThe article fails to meet WP:N, WP:ORG or even WP:CORP. That is at the end of the day 3 notability criteria that it could meet, and it fails them all. Twenty Years 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment The above assertions have repeatedly been made without any supporting argument. Eyedubya 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment That is the argument, they fail notability criteria, hence the article should be deleted. That is the point of the AfD. Twenty Years 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment That's the point - arguing by assertion is no argument at all. Eyedubya 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is a whole bunch of primary schools categorized by country. Categorize. The article is too big to merge. scope_creep 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We know that primary schools are categorised by country. No article it too big to be merged. Why should the article be kept? It fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. It passes none of the notability criteria. Twenty Years 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...read WP:SIZE? Since we're quoting policy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, you make a good point about the size of any merged article. If my suggestion of merge was to go ahead, the article would require major surgery to keep it balanced. This may be possible, but it should be consired if a merge is the result. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- - Of course it's too big to be merged. Putting this content in the suburb article would render the suburb article completely useless by making it all about the school. Rebecca 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It could just be handled like it is in other suburb articles such as Hamersley, Western Australia (FA), with a one-line mention, that wouldnt make it too big to be merged. Twenty Years 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. The notability of the school is clearly established in the present article. The school buildings are of architectural importance as recognised by the Australian Heritage Association. The school has a long history (over 100 years) and there is a published school history which will provide ample material for expansion of the article. The article needs a lot of tidying up and the references need to be fully incorporated into the article, but there is no logical reason why the article should be deleted. Dahliarose 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Who are the Australian Heritage Association - Google shows no trace - and where is the evidence that it has recognised the architectural significance of these buildings? As stated earlier, the school is not listed on the Victorian Heritage Register an is merely mentioned in the urban plan for the local area of being of historical significance. This is not a big deal and is quite common, it does not signify a building of anything more than merely local significance. My local golf club has been around for over 100 years but also is of purely local significance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please read the article in question and follow the links and you will find what you seek. To save you a couple of mouseclicks, here is the citation referred to by user: Dahliarose: http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/vic/Brunswick%20East/BrunswickSouthPrimarySchool/15005 Eyedubya 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal status of the building can be seen here, which merely states that it is not on any formal world heritage list and that no formal nomination has been made with the department. This seems slightly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Twenty Years 05:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore It is worth noting that the Heritage Overlay planning control that applies to this school is not just a 'local' regulation. Approvals for Heritage Overlays are made at the State level, not local government level, and the form of control is prescribed at State level. Eyedubya 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment AussieHeritage is not an official listing, even so the property is listed as "Indicative Place" which translates as "Data provided to or obtained by the Heritage Division has been entered into the database. However, a formal nomination has not been made and the Council has not received the data for assessment.The data in the place does not necessarily represent the views of the Council or the Minister." That is, it is not on the National Heriatge List. Despite planning responsibilities being the domain of the state in Melbourne, being part of a heritage overlay still does not signify the property as being of anything more than merely local interest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment This discussion is getting out of hand. Being part of a heritage overlay means that certain planning controls apply, no more no less. It has nothing to do with geographical reach per se. However, the standards by which heritage is assessed are not locally-based, they are derived from a variety of well-established bodies of technical, scientific, aesthetic and cultural expertise that aren't 'locally' based. Heritage Assessments are generally made by professionals working across an interstate and international sphere. Such assessments are not made by local residents based on parochial affections. Thus, an assessment of Heritage Significance of any kind is not as such a 'local' issue, but one made by professionals whose modus operandi is premised on a sense of what is 'notable' in a broader state, national or international sense. Funds for heritage studies are limited and thus, one shouldn't imagine that there is such a thing as a complete and objective survey of every single place and building in Australia and that all items have been fully assessed, ranked and slotted into some set of values that fixes their worth for all time as 'only of local significance' or 'of world heritage significance'. Heritage is an evolving matter in the same way that culture evolves and changes. Wikipedia editors would do well to consider the imperfect state of human knowledge and the reflexive nature of the endeavour of writing encyopedic articles, in terms of their effect on the state of knowledge itself.Eyedubya 11:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The assessment basically states that the school is only of local significance, it just demonstrates that Brunswick had rapid growth in the 1880's, this could be more tha adequately handled in the suburb article. Twenty Years 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The assessment states that the school's significance lies in a number of areas, viz: "the School is historically significant in demonstrating the pattern of growth in Brunswick (for example Brunswick`s rapid growth in the 1880s), the changes in school standards and teaching practices and the influence of local people in achieving the standard of local education they sought". This is not quite the same as saying that the school is 'only' of local significance. The citation also discusses the significance of the school in terms of a way of building in constrained inner-urban sites, making it interesting as a kind of building typology of much more than 'local' significance. Eyedubya 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Excellent article, with one of the better and more interesting histories of any school article I've read. On top of it being heritage listed, it was one of the focal points of the high-profile anti-school closure campaigns of the 1990s, which should make it an instant keep on that point alone. Rebecca 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We simply do not keep articles because people like them. It is not registered on the Victorian state heritage register (see comments by Mattingbn). I do not believe it was a focal point, it was just one in a number, do you a source to back up your claim? I found none. Alot of the keep votes fail to identify any guideline that the article passes. In its current state, it fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Twenty Years 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per comments by Rebecca. Reading the article one learns quite a lot about the history of education for similar schools which you could not get from a more general article about the History of Education in Victoria or whatever more general topic- the subject matter would be come boring and lost in generalisations. There are plenty more non-notable subjects to delete. I realise this vote is partly "I like it" but some notability has been asserted (heritage listing) and wikipedia in my view would be worse for not having this article than having it. --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No notability has been asserted, its been established that the book about the school is a primary source, the heritage listing is flimsy at best, the building is not on any Victorian state register (see comments by Mattinbgn above). Twenty Years 02:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment in response - the book is not a primary source as has been pointed out above and I have also pointed out to Twenty Years on his talk page. Furthermore, like others I actually really really resent the nominator chipping in with excessive comments on opinions - if I have said "some notability has been asserted", I don't need (and nor does anybody else need) him suggesting for the umpteenth time "no notability has been asserted" - that is his point of view - welcome to express it once - not repeatedly--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    - You may wish to read Hesperians comments on the reliability of the book. The book is published by the school which may make it open to bias, and ultmately unreliable information. Reliability can only be assured by the provision of inderpendent reliable sources. Twenty Years 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      - You undertook not to continue to make comments! My comments do not relate to bias but rather to your repeated and uninformed assertions that the book was a primary source - which it isn't. Everything has a bias, a bias does not make it unreliable, it means it needs to be interpreted with care. It does not make something un-notable to have a bias.--Golden Wattle ^talk 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Simple: Edit summary. Any researcher worth their salt would look suspisciously at the book. It is written by a former student (who is an academic, i wont avoid that) and is self-published, that does raise some questions, which Hesperian clearly pointed out. Twenty Years 05:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment' The use of idioms derived from Roman employment practices is perhaps indicative of the problems faced here. Rule number one in research: never impute subjectivity. Information about this potentially 'suspect' source has been provided at length that the situation is more nuanced than that of a 'vanity publication'. To be a vanity publication, the author himself would have to have self-published it. Some academics do, but this is not one of those. Eyedubya 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section 3

Keep. Article has sources that do enough to establish notability for mine. If not, should be merged into our Brunswick South article. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can you mention any of these sources that establish notability? is it the book which is a primary source, the "heritage listing" which isnt on the state register or ....? Twenty Years 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years do you want to give it a rest? To quote - it is a school and the majority of the article is not conrtoversial and hence not likely to be challenged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Once you exceed 50 contributions to the same AfD, it's probably time to allow others the breathing space to share their opinions. Alansohn 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a fair explanation, Alansohn. I just dont quite understand why people want to keep an article with no sources that will never even be able to get B-Class, let alone GA or FA. Twenty Years 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to your source for WP:WILLNEVERBEAFEATUREDARTICLE as a justification to delete an article? I agree that it's a great objective for every article, but there are probably a few other articles in the same family. My personal record is 32 contributions in one AfD, and even that was grossly excessive in retrospect. Alansohn 02:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My justification for nominating the article (see my nom) was that there is no third-party reliable source (see all my comments above) which establishes the notability of the topic at hand. What i was saying was that an article with no sources, will not meet FA, and it was not a reason for deleting it.

I have taken your sound advice and will no longer comment on this AfD. Thank you for your wise comments, might be worth saying it to the user who also commented a good 40 times :). Cheers. Twenty Years 03:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Any researcher worth his or her salt would treat a source published by its subject with suspicion, because there is no assurance of a balanced coverage. In this case, events and persons that reflect dreadfully upon the school may well have been omitted from the book, while events and persons that make the school look good may have been emphasised. I'm not saying that's the case, but it is the responsibility of a serious researcher to consider that possibility, and to bear it in mind when drawing conclusions. The fact that this article is based entirely upon such a source makes the article inherently untrustworthy, for how can we be sure that we haven't been sucked in by a well-written puff piece? Reliability can only be ensured by the provision of independent sources. That's the whole point of the notability policy:

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

If it is not possible to verify this article against such sources, then the article should be deleted, per the notability policy, as it is preferable to have no information on this subject than to have unreliable, untrustworthy information. Hesperian 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep. My comment on the reliability of the current source stands, but it is now pretty clear that reliable sources do in fact exist, if only for the architecture. Hesperian 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- Comment There are a variety of sources that have been used so far to write this article. There has been a debate about one of them - a history of the school published on its centenary. Contrary to the assertion/assumption that 'self-published' material must necessarily be a hagiography, the book in question does deal with a number of matters that don't make the school 'look good'. Some of these have been summarised in the article itself. At the same time, there is also material that is of a more positive nature. I would strongly argue that the article demonstrates a concern for 'balance' on this score, and is not an unadulterated piece of promotional propaganda - and it has to be acknowledged by the naysayers that it is this aspect of 'self-published' sources that is addressed by the WP policy. However, it has to be admitted that not all self-published work is lacking in balance or accuracy, and only a complete cynic would say that it is necessarily the case that such work must inevitably be so biased. On the matter of primary sources, I have commented elsewhere on what is or is not a primary source, and there are any number of editors who seem intent on playing the Red Queen card here - a word means whatever they want it to mean. Well, I'm sorry, but the generally accepted definition of a primary source is not a self-published manuscript written by someone else.Eyedubya 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep and trim out the bits people think are unreliable. The school is on the Register of the National Estate(Place#18518) as "Historic" with an extensive writeup. According to the bibliography on the website there are about 1/2 dozen works that discuss the building/school/architecture. That alone is enough to support a verifyable article even if most of it's about the buildings and their history. per various comments above it appears to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment As per my comment above, it is not listed on the Register of the National Estate. Its status is "Indicative" which means nothing more than its details have been provided to the Heritage Council. No assessment of the the values of the property has been made and no decision has been made to enter it in the Register. Of course, it is still a good and reliable source of information, but it doesn't necessarily assert notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattinbgn. Perhaps you missed the primary point in what I said (the boldface bit). It is very clear from the link that independant and multiple sources HAVE written about the school so it meets the fundamental notability guidline. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about the other sources, I merely clarified a point about its listing on the Register of the National Estate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Brunswick East, Victoria under the heading 'Education'. Isn't notable enough and not sourced that well. Auroranorth (sign) 10:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The artice Brunswick East, Victoria seems to handle the primary school quite well. It handles it much the same as Hamersley, Western Australia the featured article. If the suburb article handles it adequately, shouldnt it be deleted given the lack of sources. Twenty Years 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep then get the scissors out to cleanup. No grounds have been demonstrated to question the Community's judgement last time out and the school has the multiple sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment All this action on the AFD page and you can still only find three sources, none of which mention the school in more than an incidental way? Where is notability asserted? --Yeti Hunter 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there are more sources than that, but they still give only incidental coverage to the school (with the exception of the self-published source).--Yeti Hunter 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I vote to close this AfD discussion as lack of consensus. Assize 11:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - that's not up to you. JRG 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - per TerriersFan. There are multiple references on the school, more than a lot of other articles, and I'm happy with the notability being established. JRG 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete elementary school with no claim of notabilty This is a Secret ^account 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Sandahl (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising). Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple format access

NN software, created by author Toddst1 02:20, 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 speedy delete. Resurgent insurgent 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B&r

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/B&r

Late night TV show broadcast "somewhere between channels 37 & 38". Ie. pure hoax. -- RHaworth 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete someone put a lot of effort into this hoaxalicious crap. JuJube 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Delete. No sources and zero non-wiki hits on Google [64]. meshach 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I see that I was actually the last person to edit that page! Protecting it. -- RHaworth 04:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, previously deleted under different name. Take a look at this log. No wonder it was contracted to it's current title. Pigman^what?/trail 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as reposted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bojack. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments to keep consist of asserting schools are inherently notable, and the existence of other school articles. Neil ☎ 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wahroonga Public School

Article asserts no notability, it was started like most schools, because of a need. It fails WP:N and WP:ORG, has no WP:RS and is not WP:V. Fails them all. Twenty Years 02:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It already has a mention in the Wahroonga, New South Wales article. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Education in Australia has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Good stub on a notable school. Could do with some refs, but they should not be hard to find. Rebecca 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have found no information on this school that seems to be any different from most primary schools. It was used as a polling place see here, like most schools. Apart from a few mentions on the NSW Department of education websites (see here), and its own websites. I have all but failed to find anything. Twenty Years 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Schools are inherently notable by consensus. -- Librarianofages 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What consensus? I haven't seen any consensus on the inherent notability of schools. Schools, like anything else, need to demonstrate notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ITSA - also, no consensus exists anywhere of this nature - I'd note how many successfully concluded AfDs have in fact deleted Australian schools during 2007 (the notable ones survived the process easily, in some cases unanimously). Orderinchaos 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Eusebeus 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote - it is a dicussion, and so you need a reason. JRG 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - My views are readily available on this topic. Eusebeus 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per Rebecca. At the very least it should be merged into the local article as per WP:LOCAL. These continual nominations are done in bad faith, considering there is no consideration by the nominator to merge information at all. JRG 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have you found any reliable sources so that the article may meet one guideline on wikipedia? Possibly WP:N or WP:ORG? In my search (see above) i found nothing. Twenty Years 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. - pretty standard school fayre. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is note a vote, its a discussion to determine consensus (which you know, you are experienced), can you please elaborate on your keep vote. Twenty Years 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It means keep the info and/or merge, rather than remove it, as it will be included in any comprehensive article about the suburb it is in. 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Why should it be kept, that is the question. Twenty Years 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Thsi unreferenced article is apparently about an elementary school, and we have generally deleted those unless they meet WP:N with substantial coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources. Contrary to the assumption of some editors above, "pretty standard fare" about elementary schools has led to deletion in most cases. Edison 13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge to Wahroonga, New South Wales. No claim to notability whatsoever--victor falk 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is plenty of categorized public schools on wikipedia. Why not this one. Clean the article up and categorize. scope_creep 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Categorisation is not an argument for keeping an article. Articles are kept on the basis of notability. Please clarify why it should be kept. Twenty Years 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The policy on primary, secondary, public, middle, whatever type, is muddled on this fact in Wikipedia. Some schools are allowed to stay in, some school articles are deleted. I say add them all. Every school is used by hundreds of people a year. The community also tend to use them extensively. That makes them notable. The fact that they are not in some 200k pages on google, is not a qualifier, or the fact they have famous people who was a pupil at it (which helps), but the fact that so many people use them, means they should all be added. The constant fact that every school needs to go through this long and arduous task of AFD is a waste of time as resources which is clearly and urgently needed elsewhere in maintenance in wikipedia speaks for itself. In particular the fact that so many people use these places, and could be future wikipedians. The first thing they do is, see who/what is in Wikipedia, and they find out their school is not in, but a school along the road, next district, which is the same type of school/same layout/etc, but that is included, must be galling and has the potential to drive them away. I say, add them all. scope_creep 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment In a similar vein, your argument would be better suited for a discussion on WP:N rather than in an actual AfD. --Sesameball^Talk 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      - 'Comment So "Every school is used by hundreds of people a year." Every public toilet, mail box, phone booth, and vending machine is used by hundreds of people a week. By this argument they would be even more entitled to articles. Edison 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete on the basis of no secondary sources establishing notability. --Sesameball^Talk 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also, another fact if memory serves me, according to the UN, schools are not organisations, so WP:ORG does not apply in this instance. scope_creep 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability and no indication of references whatsoever. Does not seem to meet WP:ORG and for the information of Scope Creep, Wikipedia is not the UN.Ga rr ie 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Wahroonga, New South Wales. Auroranorth (sign) 10:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge key information with Wahroonga, New South Wales per established precedent. No notability asserted that justifies standalone existence. TerriersFan 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely non-notable primary school with no non-trivial reliable sources detailing more than its mere existence. It should exist as an item on a list "List of primary schools in metropolitan Sydney" or somesuch, but not as an article on its own. Apart from the date of foundation, nothing to merge here. Orderinchaos 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Schools are not notable unless they have developed a cure for cancer or had a number 1 hit song. On a more serious note, WP:ORG states that an "organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered" when they are a local organisation. A school that's been in existence since 1944 seems to fall squarely within the criteria. Assize 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or at best Merge. Support seems to be based on WP:ILIKEIT. How can the school be notable when there is nothing in the article supporting this. There is no consensus that every school is notable, in fact there is likely a significant consensus that schools earlier then the equivalent of US high schools are in fact not notable. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:RS. Vegaswikian 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- My argument was not based on "I like it", which is not a wiki policy, but on WP:ORG. There are at least seven substantial references found for this school on Google for 2006-2007 and which are now on the article. Assize 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep given the references found for the article. I would accept a merge as a compromise if the article could not be kept. Given the content, I don't think a delete is warranted and I would ask the closing moderator to consider that references have been found since some of those requested delete. JRG 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I am wrong, the references cited in the article appear to be somewhat incidental references, that have little/no encyclopedic benefit; with titles such as The cool principal - Parking space sold to help fund classroom ventilation, Enrolments rise in some public schools and Foul school toilets leave kids no option. Twenty Years 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply. I don't think the articles can be categorised as trivial. The school is the only subject of each of the articles except for the one on raising enrolments. There are more references for the school, but I stopped at seven, which is fairly amazing for secondary sources in wikipedia where some articles only get one reference in some obscure paper in Nieu. It's not a great article by any standard, but I am only trying to establish notability. Assize 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    - By no means are the articles themselves trivial. But the way in which the school is mentioned in those articles is completely trivial and lacks any benefit to an encyclopedia like this one that we are building. Twenty Years 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Orderinchaos and nom. Articles are trivial and do not establish any notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all g1, g3, obvious hoaxery/vandalism. NawlinWiki 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derlangun

Add Die Sacer Derlangun and Villerdein to this AfD. Corvus cornix 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax. There is no verification that any such language exists. Zero Google hits. Corvus cornix 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. What a waste. Koryu Obihiro 01:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Also The Account of Villerdein by Iacrus the Fair, just created. This author should be blocked post haste. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:02, 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. Borderline case, but given the subject has asked for deletion, what harm does it do? If he gets any more notable in the future, it can always be recreated. Neil ☎ 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Tsai

This nomination is made on behalf of User:Rtsai, who appears somewhat confused about the proper process for deletion; in a prod on the article, he said, "This proposal for deletion is made by the subject of the article. He hardly finds that a single achievement, here a role in a notable film, makes him notable, but more importantly he doesn't want to be an article in Wikipedia." Since he also put an entry in AFD, I decided to complete the AFD, and I will remain neutral as to the article's fate. Brianyoumans 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Given the fact that this is a living biography, the age of the subject, his feelings and apart from one film role his distinct lack of notability I would feel comfortable vote for deletion. -- Librarianofages 03:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable people don't have the option to request their own articles be deleted. If anyone else nominated this article for deletion, saying "not notable", I would say keep, because he has played a significant role in a major film. I'm not going to say "delete" just because he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. Crazysuit 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think his accomplishments are just barely enough for notability, but he is borderline. I am inclined to honor this request. (Crazysuit: they have the option to request, they just don't generally have the option to insist.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article provides sources and makes a credible claim of notability. Mr. Tsai has been extensively covered in articles in print and on the web, none of which publications and sites seem to grant veto power to article subjects to prevent publication of articles or require removal of archived entries. There seems to be no incorrect information, and there's absolutely nothing in the article that could possibly be deemed negative, let alone defamatory. Given that there is no policy whatsoever to in essence allow for "courtesy blanking" of entire articles, given Wikipedia's goal of providing neutral comprehensive coverage, and given the extremely poor precedent that deletion of this article on this basis would set, I oppose deletion. Alansohn 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep What does it need to be non notable? As per Alansohn scope_creep 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I believe the article probably needs more cites to satisfy WP:BLP. No opinion whether to keep or delete. Bearian'sBooties 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources that feature him as a primary subject (not just mention him in passing) can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Boy

No assertion of notability at all. "Critical acclaim" links to one RS, but the other to a blog. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Google churned up tons of album and track reviews. Added a bunch to the article - NME, Pitchfork Media, lots of meaty press coverage. Reviewing their single, the BBC called them "the best band in ten years". Chubbles 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
keep The number of reliable sources for this band establish notability. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep notable per Wp:MUSIC have charted on Englands national chart. -- Librarianofages 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - any evidence of this chart placing? - fchd 05:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Yes: http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=10547 , given, its a paltry placed no.50 but WP:Music doesn't specify position, only that it has been on a "major" chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - If the sources are probably there why not just add them and save the bother of running an afd? Artw 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 the article actively asserted non-notability. GRBerry 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haji Mirza Payame Ba'i

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Haji Mirza Payame Ba'i

Original research, dubious "source", even a dubious subject (a unknown mystic who died in 1999? Rmhermen 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the article, which states: "The above information was found handwritten in the corner of a page of a recently discovered Teheran Library book". Now that sounds to me like the hoaxiest hoax that ever hoaxed, but in any case it sure as heck isn't a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy per A7. The article itself asserts non-notability, and there are no google results save for Wikipedia itself. I've put up a db-bio template even though there is already this AfD; this sort of article shouldn't be left up for the time it takes to go through the AfD process. --Philosophus ^T 04:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, hoax. Was it a school library book? If so, this is the very definition of something made up in school one day. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:59, 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. John254 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports injuries

Apparently TW has failed me. Let's see if I can re-state my original line of thinking: This article strikes me as un-encyclopedic. It was originally created by an anon way back in 2002 (!!), and lay dormant for two years. Since then, there's been activity, but even now, the article is little more than a lead-in telling us the blatantly obvious ("Sports injuries are injuries that are the result of playing sports"), then a lengthy "treatment" section that seems little more than a glorified how-to. If it were a more recent addition, I might lean towards WP:SOFIXIT, but seeing the edits from the past five years only reinforce my gut instinct that this article is hopeless. Action Jackson IV 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Sports medicine, better article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup and Wikipedia has no deadline. Give it another five years or work on it yourself. None of this is any reason to delete. And the Sports medicine article is worse IMO. Colonel Warden 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the policy cites, but I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. If I could work on it myself, I wouldn't say that there's no hope for it. I'm saying that the lack of progress over five years reinforces my gut instinct - not creates a gut instinct. Sorry for the over-emphasis, but perhaps it'll help my point come across. Can you (or any keep !voter) explain to me why (or how) this article would be encyclopedic (and not merely a treatment how-to) - given that that what is and what isn't a sports injury is completely arbitrary? Anything I can think of would just as easily be placed in injury or sports. --Action Jackson IV 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep A bad article is better than no article, on an encyclopedic topic, try nominating for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive if you want an article improved not AfD. KTo288 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep & Re-Write Valid subject, good base, needs improvement is all. -- Librarianofages 03:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
keep per all of the above. Artw 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, a notable subject which I could see becoming a GA or even FA given enough time. Information could feasibly be sourced regarding statistics for injuries in different sports and levels of sports (eg school through professional level), whether changes in OHS policy have lead to a decrease in injuries over time (or not? i don't have the stats on hand). The article could list some famous people who have been injured playing sports, and include some quotes from the authorities about whether they think sport needs to be regulated to reduce injury. I'm sure I've heard this from some of our politicians (I'm Aussie). Naturally the sports industry would have a pretty good rebuttal to this absurd argument, which could also be included in the article. THE KING 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per above. jj137 (Talk) 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Why was this nominated? It is clearly an encyclopedia article but it needs to be tidied up and improved scope_creep 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2XS FM

No assertion of Notability, was replaced in 2005 by some other station. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count)

Keep. 2XS was notable as a licensed regional radio station that won awards and has history. It was ~~apparently bought and~~ rebranded as More FM Manawatu. More FM acknowledges the prominence of the old call sign and notability does not expire. Article needs to assert notability and provide better context. • Gene93k 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional: 2XS is the old call sign for More FM Manawatu. Same owner, same format, new brand name. Non-WP:RS indicate that it is a regular #1 or #2 in its region. • Gene93k 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article needs expansion from its stub status but the subject is inherently notable. - Dravecky 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Radio Stations has been informed of this ongoing discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Some defunct radio stations are of historical value (eg, first to transmit), but this one just seems like another commercial radio station that went under. Not notable. -- Mikeblas 08:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete on the basis that I can't find references other than being nominated for some awards. Additionally, if the new station is the "same owner, same format" and was merely a rebranding, I don't see why it can't just be merged into the article under which the new station is listed. --Sesameball^Talk 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The station won awards. Clearly notable. scope_creep 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the station won awards, it doesn't seem notable enough to be alone. Maybe merge it here: More_FM#Manawatu Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep While I agree the article needs some additional "meat" in the main content section, the list of awards and its status as a (former) established commercial radio station in New Zealand is enough to be notable. Weathermandan 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and possibly rename to More FM Manawatu. Full power broadcast stations are notable, and notability is not temporary. However, if the current station is the same as the previous station with merely a new name, then the station is not really "defunct" and it makes sense for there to be a single article about the station and its history, but the 2XS FM information should not be merged into article about the More FM network. This would be in line with current conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Modifying article titles for stations that change their station names. DHowell 22:10, 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 was Speedy Delete - invoking WP:CSD#G11 This article is being used as blatent advertising with a promotional mention on the subject's blog stating "Tom Landschof Strategic Networks and Strategic Networking featured on Wikipedia". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Networking

This article is in a sordid state and feels like an ad. Marlith ^T/C 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This smells like original research and reads like an essay, but I am not familiar with the area and cannot vouch for the sources cited. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as this link [65] indicates this stub was created to promote a management consultancy. Qualifies for Speedy Deletion under CSD 11.--Gavin Collins 02:54, 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 Clear-cut delete. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Nulty

Non-notable actress with no major credits or awards. Clarityfiend 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Only source of information is iMDB, no other notability. Not everyone on iMDB is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Bit actress in a handful of movies. Most relevant Google results seem to be the result of the Formosa press pack, and consist of no real content beyond a still photograph. --Action Jackson IV 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Dennisthe2. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Most of her work is redlinked, barley any notability. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete borderline on WP:N. JJL 02:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable. TGreenburgPR 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 05:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pupkin

not notable per standards for webcomics. RJFJR 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The web comic has been going for 5 years, and is clearly notable. We need to preserve these early historical examples of web comics.scope_creep 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- ...why do we need to preserve it? We are not a time capsule, we are an encyclopedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Going? I thought it had ended? It has an end date in the infobox. RJFJR 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Exactly, we are an encyclopedia, Dennis The Tiger, which primary purpose is to record historical and current fact. The notability policy needs to be changed on this. scope_creep 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, an AFD is not the place to talk about policy changes or to attempt to set the precedent thereof. If you wish to discuss this, go to the talk page at WP:N and bring it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, didn't even make it to three years.--Esprit15d 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Working off of WP:N and WP:WEB, and regretfully it fails both. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It sort of meets WP:WEB #3: it was briefly part of Keenspot's print page, which appeared in several US newspapers, but I don't know if it counts as "independant": the comic's author is the brother of one of Keenspot's founders. --Carnildo 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no reputable third party sources covering this topic or suggesting any importance. --Dragonfiend 00:43, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mubabinge Bilolo

[edit] List of Port Authority of Allegheny County bus routes

[edit] The power of color

[edit] Deneb Accords

[edit] Cherwell Convention

[edit] N987SA

[edit] Mary Williams (journalist)

[edit] Victoria Coalition for the Survivors of Torture

[edit] Gates of Winter

[edit] Langano Sector

[edit] Ruth Ulrich

[edit] Irene Moon

[edit] White Light Riot

[edit] Hamtaros

[edit] White Cuban

[edit] List of Lawyers in Karachi

[edit] Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon

[edit] Swirlnet

[edit] Constantinos Tsakiris

[edit] ScienceWorld

[edit] List of Desperate Housewives cast members

[edit] List of Jericho cast members

[edit] Cue cards used in Subterranean Homesick Blues Video

[edit] List of one-time characters and guest stars on Desperate Housewives

[edit] William Chambers (actor)

[edit] Janssen-Cilag

[edit] Sean Bateman

[edit] Gandra Dee

[edit] Kondreman

[edit] Moses f. stevens

[edit] Mike Evans (journalist)

[edit] Patrick Clark (journalist)

[edit] Anthony Anderson (urinator)

[edit] King Lamin

[edit] Valas Hune

[edit] A. Wyatt Mann

[edit] Smeg (vulgarism)

[edit] Tatiana Iuel

[edit] Halueth Never

[edit] I Will Be

[edit] Harkle Harpell

[edit] Priorian

[edit] Cris P

[edit] David Emory

[edit] Mercy Fall

[edit] Republic of China on Taiwan

[edit] Bash.org

[edit] Black Dog Publishing

[edit] Existence on appearance, longevity and reproductivity phenomenon

[edit] Obner

[edit] The Renzu Kwai Aikido Club, Sidcup

[edit] Ines Cudna

[edit] Table of characters in the Fire Emblem series

[edit] Artix Entertainment

[edit] Perimeter Mall

[edit] Venomcrack

[edit] Animal City (film)

[edit] Grayson mcgregor

[edit] Kalish

[edit] Scripts & Scruples and associated pages

[edit] Mouse Jockey

[edit] Chicken Fried Radio

[edit] Giant Monsters Attack Japan!

[edit] Teflon character

[edit] Holy Conflict

[edit] Nowheristan

[edit] J.T. Tinney

[edit] Failed predictions

[edit] Natalie Reeves

[edit] Problems with the articles of confederation

[edit] Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play

[edit] Daniel Weinreb

[edit] Dimitri van Heesch

[edit] No 4th Wall to Break

[edit] Jewish subversion

[edit] Rachel bisdee

[edit] Arilyn Moonblade