Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Systematic review of the Requests for Adminship process 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. —Verrai 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H-World

No stated rationale or evidence for significance past or present. Article admits to SF project abandonment. Situation hasn't improved since article inception. Inbound wikilinks not essential to any other article. D. Brodale 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete As an RPG fan, I'd hate to see it deleted, but realistically, it's a dead project which never really went anywhere, and has no established notability. External refs are few and far between, pointing mostly to sites which host various software mirrors. Having two incoming links doesn't make a project notable, and there are a number of of roguelike engines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Yngvarr. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dish Network channels 000-298

violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Chris! _ct 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Disconnect service Probably taken out of the main article, sure doesn't belong here in Wikipedia Mandsford 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Unsubscribe. Listcruft at its very finest! — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to switch to cable Listcruft Rackabello 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Dump the Dish. Wow, that's useless. humblefool ® 06:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable list (directory with no encyclopedic value).
Loss of Signal. Do Not Want. (per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOTE) ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark R. Mendoza

Nothing in the military career I can see to pass WP:MILMOS, and nothing in the music career I can see to pass WP:BAND. Bringing it here rather than speedying/prodding, as someone has obviously put a fair bit of work into this, and it's possible this is someone notable I've just never come across & am having trouble finding. For those who like such things, 1 non-Wiki/Myspace hit on Shift Key Dilemma and 0 ghits on Mark R Mendoza — "Eternal Death Slayer" produces too many false positives as it's apparently a videogame title. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete If not a hoax, non-notable. The only hit I found for "Blue Lagoon Records" was the myspace of a musician in England. Smells like vanity, too. Resembles Corey Feldman? O RLY?--Sethacus 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As above -- if not a hoax, non-notable. I can't find anything linking the subject to any of the band names or the music producer. There's some MySpace stuff that might be appropriate, but it doesn't lend notability, doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:Verifiable. As above, also doesn't pass WP:MILMOS#Notability AFAIK. Accounting4Taste 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No references. Callelinea 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgranucci (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per any of the above. Borderline speedy. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle. tomasz. 09:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Userfy or delete - an autobiography or a biography by a close friend or relative, in violation of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. I would move it myself, but the consensus is overwhelming to delete it. Bearian 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Thomjakobsen 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mourning portrait

This page is redundant—check out post-mortem photography. I see no major distinction between these two terms. If we're splitting hairs, memorial portraiture might be a branch of post-mortem photogrpahy. Either way, I favor a delete and redirect. —dustmite 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment You don't need a deletion to get the redirect — just merge any relevant info to the target page, then blank the page at Mourning portrait and replace it with the text "#REDIRECT [[Post-mortem photography]]". Thomjakobsen 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks! I will do so. Nomination withdrawn. —dustmite 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christina of Valois

Who is this 16th-century royal supercentenarian whom all sources ignore, except Wikipedia, which has harboured the page for more than three years now? Ghirla^-трёп- 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HOAX. Delete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Hoax. There are no sources to indicate Charles VII had a daughter named Christina.--Sethacus 23:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above, unless someone shows me some evidence of her existance. Worth noting that no articles link to the page. J Milburn 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, HOAX. First off Charles VII died in 1461 and Christina was born in 1543. Second Charles VII was married to Marie d'Anjou. Plus as a geneologist I can assure you that I have looked in all my books on French royalty and this Christina of Valois did not exist. Callelinea 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Off with her head!; unmitigated hoaxitude. Besides, she would have been called Christine if she existed, which she didn't. — Coren ^(talk) 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment And that's another thing that bugged me, the non-French names. I mean, "Jaquelina"? (who also doesn't exist, BTW)--Sethacus 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, shame on us for not getting it until now. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Companion (Firefly)

Unsourced (except by a book(?) by series creator) fictional version of a courtesan in TV series Firefly. Article is not exclusively written in-universe, but tends that way past the first paragraph. Much of the article reads like a trivia section, plot summary and/or "how to" guide. No claim to real world notability is made, information in article can easily be attached to the characters who happen to be or to interact with Companions. SolidPlaid 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to the Firefly article. Unlike Derrial Book, who, I believe, was the only known Shepherd in existense at the time of the series, Inara was one of many Companions.--Sethacus 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Inara Serra Brianlucas 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge simply not enough coverage to warrant its own article per WP:FICT. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. _{Nomination withdrawn.} --Aarktica 09:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mohamed Mooge Liban

Claim of notability, but no sources, no Google hits with this spelling. I don't know how to verify any of this unsourced information. Corvus cornix 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Likely hoax. It should be worth noting that Liibaan is a city in Somalia.--Sethacus 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I found him as "Mohamed Mooge" or "Mohamed Mooge Liban", accompanied by the song names as cited in the article, at [1],

[2], [3] and [4], which last spells his name as "Mogeh". All these sites have something to do with Somali music and one or two of them cite him as being a bit of a revolutionary (that is, if it's the same guy being cited consistently, since the spellings are a bit of a problem). I'd also suggest that it's worth stretching to include musicians outside the English-speaking world to improve Wikipedia's reach. Accounting4Taste 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia has many singers in other languages in it but I see no references in the article.. So a written I say get rid of it. Callelinea 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've just added the four references above to the article. Accounting4Taste 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep; although his name seems to be properly spelled "Mohamed Mooge Liibaan" (but that might be transliteration woes). He appears to have had at least some significant media coverage as well; it doesn't look like much, but relying solely on Google for an African artist is fraught with american/european bias. — Coren ^(talk) 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the sourcing, I'll withdraw this. Like I said, the only reason I listed it here was because I couldn't find any sources. If there had been anything, I wouldn't have listed it. It was most definitely not an American bias issue. Corvus cornix 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Callelinea. I'm aware of the WP:CSB issue but can't find notability. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Note that while the nominator has withdrawn, this can't be early closed as there are other delete votes. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Appears frequently mentioned on African sites, and appear notable there. Rotovia 07:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment; I've moved the article to Mohamed Mooge Liibaan, which is the spelling used by most (all?) sources. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Davien

AfDs for this article:

A villain in one movie. He isn't very well known. The only thing he is notable for is the threatening scene, and believe me, that's not very notable either. TheBlazikenMaster 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete Merge any relevant information into the film, and delete. A single character from one film doesn't need an article. --Nehrams2020 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nothing to merge since it's all plot summary. SolidPlaid 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - indeed, nothing controversial about this one, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no context outside of the film. Girolamo Savonarola 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete article and create redirect to film article if necessary (check to see what links there). No notability for this character who appears in a single film and no apparent real-world context behind the character as opposed to someone like Palpatine. (Question: Was a proposed deletion attempted? It doesn't seem to be the case.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete after relocating the one or two nuggets of useful info in the article. There are certainly M:I characters worthy of an article but this isn't one of them. - Dravecky 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A not-especially-notable fictional character whose actions and motivations seem to be covered quite well by the article about the movie. Accounting4Taste 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable AdamSmithee 06:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fairly trivial, delete. • Lawrence Cohen 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno crosier

Complete hoax. No google results for any of the people mentioned in this, and I'm sure if there were enough info floating around for a wikipedia article, it would be all over the net. A^RendedWinter 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Bullshit.--Sethacus 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No basis in reality, completely unverifiable. I saw this on RC patrol and was waiting for someone else to do the dirty work. Thanks ARW! --Bongwarrior 22:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete patent hoax. I was all ready to G1 this, but now the AfD's up may as well let it run. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to call it something else, but "bullshit" about sums it up. Completely unverifiable. Accounting4Taste 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sethacus said it best. GlassCobra (Review) 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Why cite policy when Sethacus's pithy Anglo-Saxonism says so much? Pig^man 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Haha this one is pretty funny, but I don't want to encourage the trolls. Burntsauce 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from merge as it is likely the merge already occurred. GRBerry 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Life (Book of Revelations)

Delete, we already have an article on Book of Life. Neutrality^talk 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as soon as possible. SolidPlaid 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge, as a section, into Book of Life (Judaism) and then move that article to back to its original name, which was Book of Life before someone decided that a redirect was in order. The concept of such a book is not limited to Judaism. "Delete as soon as possible" is an interesting comment. Are we in a hurry? Mandsford 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and - if there's anything of value in it that isn't already in the other similar articles - merge.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete

[edit] Sifu keith tv

Non-notable Youtube "channel". This is not a real Tv channel. Article created by User:Sifu-keith, who also removed the prod and prod2 which were added to the page. Corvus cornix 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I placed the prod2 tag on this article. It was deleted earlier for the same reasons mentioned above. A^RendedWinter 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete no notability, suffers from conflict of interest, contains internal contradictions and misrepresentations (e.g. number of employees). Sifu-keith, if you are reading this, it's great that you are making videos and I wish you well. You don't have enough of a following to justify a Wikipedia article yet, but when you do, someone will write it. Good luck! Brianlucas 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. The article can't decide whether it's about a company or a series of videos, but there aren't reliable sources to back up either. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Is this definitively a YouTube channel? If so, that's web content, and it's a candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No assertion of notability. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Brianlucas. Probably speediable. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is definitely an On-line Youtube Channel. I’ve seen this before. All facts are true and I believe that it should stay DoN-TiPzZz (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.114.200 (talk)
Comment. This is a real online channel! I used this before it was shutdown . —dean10 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dean10 (talk • contribs) — The dean10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. This does exist! No way is this a fake! I use his on-line channel—ClockworkSatsuma (ClockworkSatsuma) 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — ClockworkSatsuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Whether or not is exists or not is not the question. The question is whether it is notable and verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry: Accounts DoN-TiPzZz, The dean10, and ClockworkSatsuma were all created within a span of 30 minutes today, and all three have as their only contribs the messages posted above or an edit to Sifu keith tv. Sifu-keith, this is not an honorable course. Obviously you have a lot of passion for your project, but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of promotion. But if you're a video-maker, your top priority should be to get your videos back online! You need to resume making and posting your videos, and get them back up on YouTube so you have a channel -- then you can work on promoting them, especially through your MySpace page. Brianlucas 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I swear from the bottom of my heart that I did not post either of these 3… You can trace an IP Address if u reli would like to but I do not have any connection with these people and do not know whoever they are (Sifu Keith)
I flagged the accounts as single-purpose. While I find it curious that two accounts were created and discussed here, I don't suspect that Sifu Keith was behind them. Of course, 1) the opinions of single-purpose accounts are usually devalued by the closing admin, and 2) this isn't a vote, so sheer numbers don't affect the outcome anyway. (And 3) don't forget to assume good faith in all the parties involved here.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping your trust in me. Please may everyone accept all apologies from myself if this article may be deemed as not useful. I did not understand very well as i am new and wish to be able to learn from my mistakes while been here (Sifu Keith)

Delete per nom. Bearian 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - seems just about notable, but the real problem would be verifiability.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable; not verifiable in any event. --Russ (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lila Turjanski-Villard

No assertion of notability, and no references other than own website. A google search [5] returns only one result which only states contact info. A^RendedWinter 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete probable vanity bio. Non-notable in any case. The only thing I found was a showing (with other artists) in New York, which isn't even mentioned in the article, whose claims are, thus, impossible to verify.--Sethacus 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete... non notable self promotion only one entry on Google Teapotgeorge 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Teapotgeorge. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Lila Turjanski-Villard is an emerging sculptor with very few references. The List of sculptors page does not mention that only renown sculptors are listed. If so, then I'll suggest either to create a Emerging artist page or to delete the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YopYopYop (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:N and WP:V and because of a total lack of third-party sources.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manetas

Not too sure about this one. I don't know if this one should be here since I was trying to move it to the artists full name, but the page is locked due to old deletions [6]. He is mentioned in several other articles, but as with the other Afd [7], there don't seem to be any sources around to verify. Just wanted to bring it here and see what others had to say. A^RendedWinter 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, it's close, but I think delete. This is art? The pollack page was kinda neat, but overall this isn't notable. humblefool® 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, the Pollock one is awesome! Not sure about the Warhol one, though. The chans and YTMD come up with better stuff by the hour. Ichormosquito 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Horrid article reeking of copyvio/promotion/in-universe perspective. But problematically I think Manetas is notable, because he has exhibited at the Whitney Biennial, the premier art exhibition in the US, and has been the subject of feature articles in Salon and WIRED and the NYT. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen and the Need (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) deletion log.) In short, would pass WP:BIO in a properly written article (and I think that should be Milton Manetas rather than Neen). --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that as the sources indicate he was not actually a juried competitor, but he did receive coverage in reliable sources for the activity. "Neen" is essentially self-promotional, and "movement" is not the word I would use to describe it; it's more like his performance art. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NYT coverage of prank artnet includes it in a list of Biennial "spinoffs" Whitney curator expounds on significance FOX, more recently In short Manetas is a notable digital artist. I'm undecided whether the article under consideration is, shall we say, an instance of his art which always comes with a soupçon of self-promotion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above. Almost exactly everything I was going to say. A google search of his name (as one word) and Neen produces 10000+ hits. I would argue that we're looking at the creator of a major art movement. But, do let's not delete on the basis of whether or not you like the man's artwork. Needs rewriting.--Sethacus 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notability well demonstrated. But does need someone to make it an article. Marbruk 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Humblefool and due to lack of citations from WP:RS on the page which are required to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If kept, move to Miltos Manetas, his full name. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, rename, rewrite and wikify. Seems notable enough, plenty of press coverage, works bought by Charles Saatchi. However, the article as it stands has much scope for improvement of the breadth of its coverage and it obviously needs wikification.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, rename, rewrite and wikify per above. Contemporary art is an important subject, but I can't imagine it would always appeal to Wikipedia's populist sensibilities. We need to be careful not to dismiss this guy too quickly. The sources presented at this discussion are enough to support an article. Ichormosquito 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate college

Tiny school with no notability assertion. Unreferenced and wikify tags have been on for months. GlassCobra (Review) 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete,No references. Callelinea 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. If it was of any importance or notability someone would have improved it by now. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unreferenced and no claim of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unreferenced; notability. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, unreferenced and non-notable.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia traditions

I propose deleting the Columbia traditions article for the following reasons: 1. Some of the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and has no notability, especially as a stand-alone article. 2. The content that is suitable for an encyclopedia already exists on the Columbia University article. And 3. The “Barnard Jokes” section is the only “addition” to the main article. It was originally created as a stand-alone article which was deleted for “Attack Page” and “Things Made Up in School” reasons. It was later added to, and then removed from the Columbia University article. The Columbia traditions article is an attempt to bring back that individual’s opinion into Wikipedia. While that section seems well sourced, the source links are mostly concerned with a specific incident a few years ago in which the university marching band had an event with jokes about Barnard students. See the various discussions on the Columbia University talk page (removal of "Barnard jokes", and WP:RFC response), and my talk page. Matan 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge non-reduntant content back into Columbia University and or Barnard College. Every college and university has its traditions, some more so than others, and these usually involve special rituals for welcoming (nicely and otherwise) new students, events before and after exam week, the big game, etc. Nothing against Columbia U., or college traditions, but against a precedent for every college's traditions to have a separate article. In contrast, a comparative article about college traditions would probably be welcome. Mandsford 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hold off on any deletion of this article and let the deletion debate run for its standard five days. This is a major university, with a 250 year plus history, and doubtless has numerous well documented traditions. It appears to have a number of references. The "Things made up in school one day" complaint would not apply to things made up during the reign of George III which have persisted to the present, should there be any such. There is clearly much more to this article than one incident involving Barnard which irritated the nominator. Edison 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep If there's a section you think of low quality, edit it--i just moved it under Orgo Night, and the relevant content could probably be combined into that section. -- There's more than enough here for a separate article, and much to be said for keeping it separate from the main article on the University. Articles on major universities can easily get much too long. afD is not for trivial editing difficulties like this. DGG (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But how does having the same text in both places help the Columbia article? Its not as if hordes of users are now expanding the article with more traditions. If there is so much text about true traditions that the main article is too long, then we should have this article. But given the writer's focus on the jokes (and nothing else), I suspect the whole point of this article is to bring back text that was justly removed from the main article. Matan 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as all of its content already exists, as far as I can see, in the main university article.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY as being notable enough for English Wikipedia. Bearian 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byron G. Highland

Subject seems non-notable. I did a Google search for Byron G. Highland, and there are only two results, this article being one of them. ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep on the basis of this and this, as I strongly suspect other sources do exist but aren't online. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. STORMTRACKER 94 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Iridescent and this.--Sethacus 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep I made some improvement using the links provided above. Chris! _ct 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep — the article has certainly improved. The sources added are enough to establish the subject's notability and to meet the verifiability policy. --Ag ü eybaná 23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seams fine as it is now.Callelinea 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Happy Bunny

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Happy Bunny

Nom - not notable, self sourced, primarily spam. Rklawton 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Week Keep I've seen this fad on posters, etc, and I'm far from the target audience. It does badly need sourcing, though. Some assertion of notability of creator's page, awards that could be confirmed. Edward321 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep It's certainly a well-known product, but barely passes WP:N. A quick google search found some legitimate articles including some stuff on a project between Happy Bunny and Partnership for a Drug-free America. Needs a lot of work to meet standards, but I suspect it could become a acceptable article.Blcfilm 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

*I will not !vote right now, but if there are no reliable sources provided, then I will !vote for deletion. Corvus cornix 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I added a citation for the award-winning Happy Bunny campaign against drugs, and a quote from the Wall Street Journal (which is behind a paywall) that's from their website. Not the strongest third-party evidence I've ever provided, but I am prejudiced because I'm looking at the It's Happy Bunny 2007 calendar over my desk. Yeah, I know, "I like it" is a lousy reason. I'd welcome other cites and will try and find some. Accounting4Taste 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Found and added three more cites from arm's-length third party sources -- fairly reputable business-oriented ones. (No blogs.) Accounting4Taste 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the press coverage now cited by those above is sufficient to pass WP:N and WP:V. I have also added a ref from The San Diego Union-Tribune here. --TreeKittens 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I see these things all over the place Roadrunner 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 interested editors wish to merge the content, request a copy of the article from me. --Haemo 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects (2nd nomination)

Oh, boy! Another Game-guidish, crufty weapons article. No relevance to outside world; no references, let alone coverage of the weapons. Basically, the guidelines "which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. It is not veribfiable since it has no sources, has plenty of OR, and isn't written from a neutral point of view. 'Nuff said. See also: Halo 2 weapons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Half-Life 2 (2nd nomination), and Weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think StrategyWiki is a better home for this article--Lenticel ^(talk) 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT. STORMTRACKER 94 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT is my opinion as well. Pig^man 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, lame guide. SolidPlaid 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - game guide. Hal peridol 00:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 02:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Ridernyc 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because it passed an earlier discussion with nearly all keeps, is well-organized, even contains a nice picture, people are willing to edit it, etc., but I do think references would help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good point bringing up the earlier discussion. It's important to have a good (and preferably new) reason to renominate something for deletion after an earlier discussion on the subject. However, I think this nomination does that, by bring up several core policies that weren't discussed in the previous AFD. Consensus can change when new arguments are raised. That said, it's possible to clean up the POV problems, but even if sources for this exist, it's pretty close to a game guide already. There is some legitimate debate over whether Wikipedia should remain an encyclopedia or become a knowledge megacompendium with game guides, etc. But its character is still fundamentally an encyclopedia. --chaser - t 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Worms or a similar article, or keep as per Le Grand Roi. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Crufty game guide. --Oscarthecat 06:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a video game guide. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong KeepYhere is far too much information to merge with the worms article. Also, many weapons appear in all of the games so merging would be a little pointless. It did pass a previous nomination for deletion before so it clearly is a worthy article. The people that say that wikipedia isn't a game guide are right, but neither is the article. If the article was part of a game guide, it would say where and how to use the weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneyman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment in Wikispeak - Perhaps, but per WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:CCC, also WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. WP:N, too. Remember, WP:AGF. --WaltCip 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Trivial, not particularly encyclopediac. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge I don't see any reason it shouldn't be kept as a part of the Worms (series) or something like a Common Themes in the Worms Video Game Series article --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE, or transwiki it if there's a better wiki for it.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but possibly trim some of the less notable weapons. --128.2.160.253 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Media

A POV fork from Buh6173 (talk · contribs) who is on a campaign to make separate pages for the Japanese version of Zatch Bell! despite an agreement having been reached some time ago that the English names are to be used. In any case, even given that he'd be right in the end, this page still contains no useful information beyond what's already in the Zatch Bell! page, other than a list of image songs. JuJube 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:POVFORK. STORMTRACKER 94 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge the small amout of useful content to Zatch Bell!. Edward321 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and create redirect to Zatch Bell!. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving a disagreement. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CFORK, merging any useful info.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CFORK as redundant and unnecessary. — Satori Son 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intintuator

Despite my researches, I can find no such object as an "Intintuator". There is the "intinuator" which appears to be a car part related to the alternator. Marketing technobable or hoax? — Coren ^(talk) 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Well, the car part isn't mentioned in the article, so delete as hoax. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's not automotive related, but rather audio related. Not that I am a know-all expert on this, but I've not heard of such as stage. When I search the term on google, it suggests intinuator which is automotive related. I'm wondering if the article name is misspelled? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

adding to my comment The best I could find is attenuator, which does pretty much what the nominated article claims: adjusts power to compensate for harmonic distortion. /shrug, I'm pretty indifferent either way. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. For all intensive purposes, this is a mondegreen and not a likely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you use "intensive purposes" (a mondegreen of "intents and purposes") on purpose? :-) — Coren ^(talk) 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful or I'll throw an eggcorn at you. (Actually that's a better word for this.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per ~~Coren~~ Dhartung. STORMTRACKER 94 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Dhartung. Edward321 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A56 (software)

Possibly non notable assembler. Hard to search for sources because of the generic name, and, in any case, I am unfamiliar with Usenet, and this article seems to relate to it, so perhaps I am missing something key. J Milburn 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep The DSP56k is a well-known product family, but as there does not seem to be a parent article for the DSP56k, I'd say keep it. DSP development is a little more specialized than general processor development, and there aren't that many (or at least that I am aware of) Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to above Well, I'm not going to strike my vote, but I did do a little bit of work on the article. I am afraid it'll never get beyond the stub phase. However, I did find that the 56k family does have an article, so I've properly linked it. Maybe it'll be better to merge these two sentences to that article? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, just another piece of non-notable software. I would like to see an improvement before the decision though. BASE101() 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per BASE10; this article should get cleaned up before final consensus. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per NASCAR Fan24. STORMTRACKER 94 21:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, notability of processor is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. No attribution of notability to independent sources kills it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per NASCAR's reasoning. • Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I added an external link for it to the Motorola 56000 article, but that's about all the merging I think it deserves. —David Eppstein 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as virtually empty.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability, much less one verified by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Aarktica 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Andover Middle School

I simply don't see how this is notable. Also: WP:OUTCOMES. ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable school - the article is chiefly about the three "houses" the kids are divided into. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Definitely not notable. Delta 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - i've seen worse middle school articles. --MarsRover 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to North Andover, Massachusetts per our well-established WP:REDIRECT guideline, which trumps any sort of "outcomes" essay by a mile. Burntsauce 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per the bastardized school and locality guidelines, not to mention WP:REDIRECT which remains unscathed. Silensor 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Silensor and per WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Burntsauce, as definitely not notable. --Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sphinx C--

Non notable compiler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N BASE101() 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete An concise argument I've used many times today: No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Leave. It has an historic value and was predecessor of C-- (intermediate language), that is target for many compilers including Haskell. Here in Russia, it had some following. 85.140.17.254 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Nascar Fan. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and unsourced.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable. — Satori Son 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Jreferee t/c 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Campaigns

It's an article on history, apparently either completely or extensively plagiarized from a U.S. Army account (here) with a potentially biased perspective. (U.S. Army was a party to the conflict.) Agyle 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete POV article, biased towards US, seems plagarised. Needs to be wikified and has no sources. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Completely plagarised; but is not a copyvio as I'm pretty sure works of the US government are in the public domain. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Kudos to Agyle for investigating and documenting a revolting example of word-for-word plagiarism. I'm fairly sure someone will argue that the solution would be to keep and improve, but no amount of cooking can remove the taste of tainted hamburger meat. Perhaps someone can write an original article in their own words, instead of pretending to do so. Mandsford 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well said. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep We use U.S. military sources for many things such as Medal of Honor recipients, United States Navy ships, and so forth. They are public domain because they are works of the US federal government. The addition of a simple attribution ends the "plagiarism" concern. The cautions at Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#Please_don.27t_data_dump.21 are certainly appropriate. But we have no comprehensive list of U.S. military operations against the indigenous American population and this resource could be reformatted to be one; deletion is supposed to be a last resort only. Agyle has good intentions but may be unfamiliar with some of the materials we have used to flesh out the encyclopedia in the past and how we have incorporated them in encyclopedic and policy-compliant fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung, I understand your point, and know that plagiarism is easily addressed by putting block quotes around the whole article, but my objection is that it's a one-sided account of a controversial military conflict. Uncontentious facts like medal recipient (who, when, what, and military's reason given) are different from an explanation of what led up to and took place during a military conflict. The general tenor is that the "treacherous" and unreasonable Indians kept leaving the U.S. with no choice but to kill them. As an example of bias, the first conflict describes U.S. losses to the "hostile Indians" as "disasters," and the U.S. victory as "characterized by Wayne's excellent tactics and the able performance of his well-trained troops." This is not an even-handed treatment of the topic. The material that isn't overtly biased-sounding still seems questionable; it may say "attempts at peace negotiations failed", while an impartial historian might describe that as "the tribe rejected U.S. demands." -Agyle 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that "plagiarism" of a public domain source is NOT a rationale for deletion. Nor do we need blockquotes; see, for example, the template {{DANFS}} or {{1911}}. If you believe this has no value as a WP:POVFORK of Indian Wars, that's one thing and we can debate that aspect, but there seems to be a witchhunt here where there is no justification. Wikipedia uses public domain resources all the time. If credit is missing, the appropriate quick fix is to add attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence; I didn't suggest deleting it because it's plagiarized, I suggested deleting this plagiarized material because it's from the potentially biased perspective of the U.S. Army. I don't know the Army created it, so I said "apparently." GlobalSecurity.org also publishes the same text, without attribution, and may have supplied it to the Army. I was unfamiliar with citation guidelines for this; I just added citations according to the 1911 Britannica examples. -Agyle 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the US Army is a definitive source for a list of campaigns undertaken by the US Army, if you want that sort of thing. As for bias, even the 1911 encyclopedia articles are often full of outdated language or goofy and discredited ideas like eugenics. FYI, the Pentagon employs thousands of people who write these sorts of things, while GlobalSecurity.org is little more than one guy; and half their stuff is cribbed from the FAS anyway (which while not always attributed is usually from govt. sources). Anyway, I just found the right citation template, so I'll modify your attribution accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Attribution most emphatically does not excuse plagiarism. Regardless of whether the documents are public domain or not, there is no excuse for plagiarism in an encylopedia article. I'm sure a properly-written article can be created on the subject in the future, but there's no reason to keep an obvious copy-&-paste job here. -- Kesh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as they're attributed, there's no policy against wholesale use of public domain text. You might want to check out Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, currently numbering in the tens of thousands. Thomjakobsen 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
And attribution is a simple fix. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of us are more disgusted by plagiarism than others. The whole point of Wikipedia, as I've understood it, is that it invites everyone to contribute, regardless of their writing skill or experience, and that those who participate improve their abilities. As Kesh says, attribution does not excuse plagiarism. It's unethical, and no matter how many Wikipedia principles you can argue to say that it's okay, it's never okay. It's the difference between someone learning to knit a sweater, and someone shoplifting a sweater. I don't want the stolen item, no matter how fine its quality. I'm not sure why anyone, who has taken the time to write a contribution, would want to defend some dumb asshole who takes 15 seconds to cut and paste a new article. Mandsford 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Topic is already covered by the Indian Wars article. Edward321 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwikify to Wikisource and link to Indian Wars. As an aside the community has no problems with plagiarism with articles using text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition with a mass of articles populating Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica its only plagiarism if an attempt is made to pass off the work as your own, and has been already stated this work is in the Public domain and there is a willingness for attribution. I guess the main concern is not so much with plagiarism as with the bigoted and outdated attitudes. However rather than being a POV that serves the purposes and reputations of the US Army and the US people, this article condemns with their own words. KTo288 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
KeepImportant part of American history. If someone thinks the United States version is biased, then by all means cite well documented Native Amercan sources for balance. If the areticle copies public domain sources, then it is in the best tradition of Wikipedia starting off with copies of the 1911 Britannica public domain articles. Edison 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you meant that "best tradition" bit as irony. The use of the 1911 Brittanica at the beginning may have added bulk when WP needed bulk, but it shackled us with a immense amount of out of date content with obsolete POV, disregard for a century of scholarship, and an air of having adopting the features of an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Personally, I love the old EB--read with the appropriate skepticism, its a marvelous way to get the feel of a different era than our own. And I'd say the same or worse for much of the PD content added at the time. We're just beginning to emerge from our outdated and irresponsible treatment of the serious side of human history.

This source isn't quite that bad--its a convenient summary of narrative history from authoritative sources. But it's a source, to be rewritten as appropriate for WP, with careful attention to POV and implications. I call attention to the parent page [8] and to the very useful bibliographic resource U.S. Army Chief of Staff Professional Reading List Again, the solution to editing problems and POV problems is not deletion, but editing., so

Keep and edit I think all in all its a useful start at a summary. DGG (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and transwikify. The value of this article is the out of date attitudes and POV, this tells us most about these people and their attitudes, than as a chronological summary, it is most useful as a source that illuminates the motiviations greed, prejudice and avarice for these campaigns. If it was left here and edited in line with Wikipedia policy that POV will be lost and with it any real reason to keep it than to write it from scratch. This is pretty much a primary source and the next best thing to putting the entire article in block quotes as suggested by Agyle is to move it to Wikisource. KTo288 11:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unencyclopedic. Can be sent to Wikisource if desired. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite - currently poor and possibly POV, but could be made good.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Since this is plagiarism, it would be better to restart from scratch - if and when it is demonstrated that there is a need for this article (i.e. that it isn't a content fork of Indian Wars). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW based on WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Bearian 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phyxius

Mississippi State University's entry into some competition, which it didn't win. I don't think notability is asserted but this article is three years old so I figured I should bring it here. Calliopejen1 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No notability assertion. As there are no sources to back it up, it may be OR. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N and WP:OR. STORMTRACKER 94 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are no independent sources to back it up. It seems non-notable. Minute Lake 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete it serves no purpose at all. BASE1011() 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete 11th out of 42? Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; a failed entry in an old competition which has not otherwise garnered media attention is a textbook example of non-notable. — Coren ^(talk) 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as violating WP:NOT and WP:LIST. Bearian 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of historical people portrayed as villains

Delete - wildly indiscriminate list, enormous directory of loosely and unassociated items, giant trivia dump. Otto4711 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. How exactly the creator planned to keep this remotely up-to-date is anyone's guess. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and NASCAR Fan24. STORMTRACKER 94 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BASE101() 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This makes "X in popular culture" articles look relevant and well-cited in comparasion. This article has way too many unsourced "real person X likely inspired fictional character Y" enteries (which is original research), and none of even the more obvious examples can be cited in secondary sources. --Phirazo 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Like so many of these lists, impossible to ascertain with any authority who should/should not appear on the list or why someone put them there, nobody can guarantee that a fictional character is "based on" a historical person except the author, fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Accounting4Taste 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Odd article that attempts to list every real person who has been portrayed unfavorably in a "work of fiction" (which apparently covers any film that is not a hard documentary, though some books are thrown in for good measure). Thus, we have tyrants such as Hitler, and hard-to-get-along-with folks like Joan Crawford who are movie antagonists. It's a list of folks you always knew were "bad guys", and some you didn't. This one could go on indefinitely. Mandsford 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and SNOW-close it. There is no way to salvage neutrality here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep or make into a category. Articles like this should be cleaned up, not deleted as these unique lists help to distinguish Wikipedia as that much more expansive of a reference source than say paper encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories for "villains," "heroes," "antagonists," "protagonists" and the like have been repeatedly deleted at CFD because of the subjective nature of the categorization. That same subjectivity plagues lists of "villains" and the like. Did you have any response at all that actually addresses the points raised in the nomination? Anything? Otto4711 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Roi is voicing the opinion that something that is "wildly" indiscriminate, or an "enormous" directory or a "giant trivia dump" is not beyond being "cleaned up" as an alternative to deletion. No need to go ballistic. I think that your nomination will prove successful. Mandsford 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete as implemented, this does seem to be a rather indiscriminate list, and the list of possibilities is so great that I do not see how to readily deal with it. Let it get deleted, and start over in a more focused way--probably as several lists --or -- much better--sourced general articles about historical figures in the cinema, etc. DGG (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, yet another useless trivia dump. Fuck. Burntsauce 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"Delete" yet another endless unsourced list that will grow out of control.Ridernyc 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete just a highly subjective list. Where are the sources? JJL 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LC points 1 through 4, 6 and 8. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardy Jackson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harvey Jackson

Articles for deletion/Hardy Jackson

Articles for deletion/Hardy Jackson (nomination 1)

The primary reasons I am proposing deletion is because Wikipedia is not a memorial, as well as the article failing to provide notability. Thousands of people died during Hurricane Katrina, and tenfold more were affected by the hurricane. Some might argue for his notability in that he briefly became an international news story on the personal affects. First, this isn't Wikinews, and second, his being on the news was being at the right place at the right time. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Article recounts the experiences of a person during a prominent news event. No reason for notability other than having been seen on television during this time period. -Jmh123 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The fact that his story was substantially covered in multiple places and the fact that, even recently, there've been follow up articles on him, makes him a cut above the average Katrina victim. I don't believe WP:NOT applies, as the man is not deceased, however I certainly don't feel we should have articles on every Katrina victim, either. And I think, in light of the subject matter, the nom should reconsider the phrase "right place at the right time".--Sethacus 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is neither Wikinews nor a memorial. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable. Should have been deleted after the first nom. --Strothra 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Sethacus.Lustead 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Very sad story, but subject does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Newsworthy is not always encyclopedic. — Satori Son 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Muller

Non-notable YouTube "celebrity" - No secondary sources. Article was speedy deleted before and recreated. I'd like to get a little more consensus on this. While this is sort of a procedural nomination, I am advocating deletion. Mr.Z-man 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No notability here, just some random guy on Youtube. ~~It may be a little early, but can I get some salt on those deletion fries?~~ NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's only been speedied once to date. WP:SALT should be restricted to repeated violations. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - complete non-entity who uses a website. He may be controversial and even popular; but controversy + popularity doesn't = notable. B1atv 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, need attribution of notability from independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable BASE101() 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Z-man and NASCAR Fan. GlassCobra (Review) 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above, non-notable. Dreadstar † 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Not Delete I have added articles about directors of CERN, heads of companies, etc which are less known than CapnOAwesome, but because they had a single snappy reference they haven't been touched. Something tells me you guys have it out for YouTube and now I know why most of the main YouTubers don't have pages in Wikipedia. I think it's funny you characterize YouTube as just "a website". More people have watched some of Muller's videos than watch the evening news in most cities. I don't see you deleting any local television stations. This seems to be a severe bias of Wikipedia. And that's not even talking about radio stations! Just look at WAAX for example. Only 100,000 people live in the Gadsden, AL metro area. I'd be willing to bet the video Muller put up today will get more viewers today than that radio station will have listeners. And that's just media. Have a look at the endless pages in Wikipedia on asteroids sometime. I would estimate less than a 100 people are aware any particular one exists. Not to mention the pages for various people who have discovered an asteroid! (Mario Jurić for example) I just think y'all need to apply your standards for "notability" a little more evenly and not discriminate against YouTube. Wogsland 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:BIGNUMBER, just because a lot of people watch the video doesn't make it notable. Now, WAAX may be a small radio station, but it is well-established in its area of broadcast and has been around for sixty years. We are not biased against YouTube, just that websites have higher notability standards than, say, radio stations. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that starting a radio station, getting the necessary permits, and maintaining it is a whole lot more work than posting offensive videos to YouTube. (Not that this has anything to do with notability, I'm just saying it's not a fair comparison). Mr.Z-man 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:Notable; there is no confirmation of notability from other reputable third-party sources. And the argument above about radio stations, etc., is covered at WP:WAX. A car accident is not notable, no matter how many people slow down to look at it. Accounting4Taste 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; YouTube fame is not notability, period. — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per G4: Recreation of deleted material, and tagged as such. It was deleted earlier today. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- G4 does not apply to pages that were deleted through speedy deletion, only XfD discussions. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Correction, the tag reads "Previously PROD-deleted articles are not eligible under this criterion, and Speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for this criterion" but could be eligible. It was speedily deleted exactly 8 minutes before it was recreated. I think G4 applies. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    - The tag is misleading. The policy states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, or deleted via "proposed deletion", or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." And please re-read my nomination reason. I know it was deleted once before and it may be speedy deletable material. I'm just trying to get a consensus on a borderline speedy case. Mr.Z-man 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Either way, this AfD should run its full course so that it will be an unambiguous speedy and salt if it's created again. -- Satori Son 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable Vgranucci 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Has yet to attain Chris Crocker level of fame. Burntsauce 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estudillo Center

Short, amateurish article on a strip mall in San Leandro. The article makes no claim to notability; in fact, it seems to do just the opposite by stating that the shopping mall is "one of many". Only Google hits are for yellow pages listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - malls are inherently nn unless they are remarkable from an architectural point of view or else had some momentous event happen inside them.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Verrai 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Marketplace (San Pablo, California)

Non-notable, half dead strip mall in California. Page's content has not been changed significantly since creation. No claim to notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability and no sources. The mall's dying anyway, so why have an article on it? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete dying strip malls are not notable enough for inclusion. The Wikipedist 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete If it was the only dying mall, that would be notable. --Victor falk 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And yes, yes, I know about "one death is a tragedy, a million statistics"--Victor falk 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.139.48.81.98 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as inherently nn.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kappa's research established that the topic meets the general notability guidelines, which was not rebutted by the delete arguments. The spam was cleaned up during this AfD (see WP:HEY), and the importance/significance concerns do not rise to the level of the topic meeting CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note The prior AfD for this article is at No consensus, 10 September 2006, AfD#1. -- Jreferee t/c 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Vista Mall

Non-notable mall in California. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify most of the page's content. Borderline spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think that's enough to be considered spam. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
comment Note that this AfD was created over the previous one which was closed as no consensus. See [9]. JoshuaZ 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom & nascar fan. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. BASE101() 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per spam. -- Magioladitis 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete can someone explain to why malls are listed on wikipedia at all?Ridernyc 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep notability is derived from economic impact - Citations and infobox added Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A community development 3-page glossy brochure is hardly a reliable proof of notable economic impact, is it?--Victor falk 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. as long as it is produced by other than the shopping centre itself. May I ask why you do not believe it satisfies WP:RS? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I also want to know the answer to Ridernyc's question. --Victor falk 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To awnser your and Ridernyc question; I have always contended, Shopping centres are notable for their Economic Impact to the local community. notabilaty guidelines (yes, admittedly only a guidline) mention having effect on an economy is enough to give notability, and in my view, especially in smaller communities, a shopping centres effect is staggering. When they are constructed, during their lifecycle, even in its death throws, it is still having an effect upon the community. After the place has met the wrecking ball, I would still contend it deserves an Article because they had a staggering economic effect upon the local community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. [10], even the cinema opening [11] Kappa 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this is going be deleted as "spam" we can just make a new version anyway. Kappa 03:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Look, the fact that the article could be re-created does not mean that the current article is not spam. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be stupid. Kappa 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ahem, please be civil Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.139.48.81.98 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:IMPORTANT Jbeach56 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete mall with no claim of notabilty, the only sources found are too local. Jbeach56 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are Citations from that locality no longer as valid as any other Citation? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources are the mall themselves, that isn't independent, another one is a trivial mention for a city development plan, and the google news sources are only local news, only interesting to the local public and that's it. Jbeach56 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reason #1.. ok, but as for "trivial", Did you read the PDF? The Mall fills the first page, its got a picture of its own, in every paragraph its mentioned! It is a full 1/3rd of the entire publication, that isnt trivial. #3 "interesting to the local public " ... so you admit it apparently is "worth noting" to some people, am I correct? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nn.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as spam. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is original research. If the table was a sourced summary of a publication by Roald Dahl (or someone else) that noted the differences between the book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that may have turned the deletion argument since it would have been Dahl's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, the source for this article is concluded by consensus to be original research. -- Jreferee t/c 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

This article fails to be verifiable as the content is wholly based on the subjective determinations of editors regarding what differences are appropriate, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Furthermore, this topic fails to be notable as there is no significant coverage by reliable sources about adaptations of the source material. Basically, the table is pieced together indiscriminately, with items like whether business cards were shown, the presence of contracts, the act of getting out of bed, etc. There will be creative and conventional differences in any, if not most, adaptations of the source material, and the threshold for inclusion is for there to be real-world context, based on the preceding arguments of notability and relevance. This article meets none of these factors, being the originally derived piecemeal of editors that do not use secondary sources. According to WP:WAF#Secondary information, "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." No secondary information is used here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, because well put together table concerning incredibly notable films and book. Anyone watching the films or reading the book (which would be thousands, if not millions of people) can verify the information with ease. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Well put together" is not an argument to keep an article, and "Incredibly notable" does not apply to the differences between them. Star Wars and Star Trek are both incredibly notable, but we don't draw connections between them because there's no real-world precedent for it. The Chocolate Factory relation is closer, but the fact remains is that this article is originally derived by like you've admitted -- people who read the books and watch the films and come up with ideas of what should be included. The lack of verifiability and real-world context of such differences fails to establish a threshold for differences -- the scope is subjective and limitless as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Most of the differences are trivial, there are no sources and therefore the article is OR, and I don't see why this should be included here. Major differences can be noted on the main article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is agreeable -- I think that it's completely acceptable to find out from filmmakers why they deviated from the source material in the way they did, and to note that on the film article. However, an unsubstantiated observation (he wears shorts in this book, he wears pants in this film) obviously does not add any encyclopedic value. I believe that for the Harry Potter differences, the cited differences were placed on their film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete There is some information which might be considered important, but it would be based on notability within the book and movies (I guess you would call that an in-universe viewpoint). It might be better to note the non-trivial differences in the individual articles, but there will surely be arguments about what is considered "non-trivial". Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why we need to back such differences with real-world context. In the article, it mentions Willy Wonka's father flashbacks in Burton's adaptation, but does not explain why. In this interview, Burton says, "It just felt in the movie, you've got a guy that's acting that strange, you kind of want to get a flavor of why he's the way he is, otherwise he's just a weirdo." Perspectives like these should be added to the film articles -- they're not long at all. In addition, a table in this article forces the need to specify the element of the third subject even when an explanation is only given between the other two subjects. Items like what the candy shop owner looked like in each presentation have no backing and are very indiscriminate details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete hopeless OR Will ^(talk) 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's an original research based piece of analysis. As Erik says, particular changes which have real world significance (ie have been discussed in the context of commentary or reviews) could be mentioned in the film's main articles. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete More fun to write than it is to read. Author (a) read the book (b) watched the Gene Wilder film (c) watched the Johnny Depp film, although not necessarily in that order. If you did all three, why read the article? If you don't care enough to read the Roald Dahl book, author of this article is no Roald Dahl. If you don't care to watch either movie, you probably won't want to find out what happened. There are some things that people ought to do for themselves without help. Mandsford 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. Keb25 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. Chris! _ct 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete exactly as we deleted all similar articles for Harry Poter, Narnia, etc. -- Magioladitis 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Original research based analysis. Looks like Differences between film and musical versions of The Producers might be the next one to be nominated. Or it could be Differences between book, film and TV versions of M*A*S*H, or Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series, Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1, Differences between book and film versions of Timeline, etc. Crazysuit 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep People are confusing OR with primary documents. This isn't original research, its using primary documents. Comparative literature is the stuff of college courses, and is encyclopedic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OR is just one of the concerns for this article. Primary documents are used to shape the plot summaries of books and films, but they exist to support real-world context. This is just details from the primary documents side-by-side, mostly written in an assumptive tone, such as the "Boat ride" row, where it's written, "Wonka offers mugs of chocolate to Charlie and Grandpa Joe, apparently out of compassion." These subjective and interpretative examples are scattered throughout the table because there are no secondary sources to keep the information discriminate, neutral, objective, and verifiable. Besides, if this is considered comparative literature like from college, the original contributions of editors to derive this "paper" would be original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all this article is fiction. What's important is why those film versions felt need to change from the novel. Alientraveller 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, delete. Original research at its finest. There's a place for this, but it isn't Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete violates OR policies. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I'm sad to say, especially since so many of the similar nominated articles seem salvageable to me. Alternatively, merge to main book article, but only after significant cuts. The level of detail here is excessive for the subject, and many of the comparisons made here are based on illustrations that may or may not be present in all editions of the book as well as the author's description of the appearance of various actors, etc. It would be interesting to keep a list of some of the more notable differences if they can be properly sourced. --Roger McCoy 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:OR or WP:SYN unless multiple independent sources can be found which compare and discuss the differences between the book and the film, thus establishing the subject's notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or integrate it to, say, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the article about the book itself. I believe one article here (I think it would be Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 film) says that due to the 1971 film's differences from the original book, Roald Dahl did not permit a sequel to be made. The table could help people who stumble across that statement to identify these differences. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's still original research, though. We don't know why Roald Dahl really did not permit a sequel to get made. From what I've heard, the newer film intended to capture the dark tone of the book better, so if Dahl's dislike was over tone, then that certainly cannot be objectively and originally reflected by editors. We just don't know what changes influenced Dahl's decision, and we certainly should not present a table of possibilities -- we should try to find verifiable content from reliable sources to reflect the real-world context for the the lack of a sequel. Even if we found information, it would not need this "Differences" article -- it could be mentioned at the 1971 film's article or the sequel book's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of current and past books related discussions on WP. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep. W.marsh 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MadV

Notability: MadV does not meet the notability requirements for a biography of a living person, as stated on the Wikipedia Notability page. Copyright Infringement: V is a character copyrighted to Vertigo and DC Comics, and MadV does not have the rights to use it. Images: The image on the page is of very low quality, and is hardly encyclopedic. Bias: Although I know that this is not criteria for deletion, the article needs to have (be?) NPOV Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: It is badly written, misspelled, and does not state the name, birthdate, place of birth, or any other biographical facts about MadV. Even where his accent is from is mere speculation.
Nexthoudini 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I don't think I need to add anything here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As above. BASE101() 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not Delete. This article has already been discussed and was passed to stay. See previous discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_24 In response Notability: Documented television and media appearances, magazine articles and interview, notable contest nomination, significant video statistics. Complies with Wikipedia's Notability Criteria for category of Entertainer: # Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Copyright infringement: The claimant misunderstands Wikipedia's Copyright Infringement Policy. The article itself is not infringing copyright, as no material is being used without permission, and all images and information is freely and publicly available. Whether or not the character 'MadV' is infringing copyright is not a matter relevant to the validity of the article. Images: Quality is as high resolution as original sources allow. Bias: The article has very little obvious bias. Feel free to re-write whichever elements you consider to be biased to provide NPOV. (Notice that the claimant for deletion calls himself 'NextHoudini' - is this deletion bias perhaps?) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: Feel free to correct spelling and grammatical errors. This is not a reason for deletion. Biological facts are accurate as far as sources allow. Speculation can be edited, again this is not a reason for deletion. See also: YouTube Celebrities for examples of persons of similar notability and validity (who remain on Wiki). -- Lungsboat 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No real-world notability shown. humblefool ® 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose being featured on MTV, ABC news, and Pepsi 9 doesn't happen in the real world? Lungsboat 11:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep MTV, and ABC appearances look like notability. The article surely needs some clean up, but that's not a reason to delete. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: References are made to him having been in shows on ABC and MTV, although no references are made to anything claiming that he was in them. If references are provided, I may grudgingly accept this as notability, but, as of yet, it's hearsay. I still stick to my original points, and agree that, unless the logo was put in the public domain, it is copyright infringement, as per the last deletion request.--Nexthoudini 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Response: It appears the claimant has not checked the correct references. I have now alerted him to the relevant sources. Lungsboat 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Humblefool. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Response: You appear to be correct. I did check the references, although I just scanned the first couple of them (such as the ABC website) and did not see anything about MadV. I stand corrected on the fact that he has appeared in said shows. I still disagree on notability. You claim that this is a personal vendetta because I'm not asking for the takedown of certain less popular YouTube producers, but the reason is because this is the article I stumbled on. Simple as that. You still have not addressed the logo issue from the last deletion request (a cropped screenshot is neither a loophole nor a good excuse, if that's what you claim), nor have you addressed the content not suitable claim properly. "Biological facts are as accurate as sources allow." Yes, that's the problem. Somebody with nothing known about them aside from speculation and a few appearances is not worthy of an article to himself. Possibly a notice in another article, but not an entire article to himself. The fact that others less noticeable are on WP is not evidence in favor of notability on MadV's part, only that said other articles may not be worthy of a WP article either. If you would like to, propose them as AfDs. Besides that, with the amount of information known about MadV, it is impossible for the article to be anything more than a stub, per status quo.--Nexthoudini 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Any alleged copyright violation of the image in the article is not relevant to whether or not this article should be deleted. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All images have complete fair use rationales, and are freely and publicly available. This is not even a valid reason for deletion, as stated above. The content is suitable as I have stated - in terms of significant fan-base or large cult following. Wiki guidelines do not state 'numbers' per say to qualify for this, but in the opinion of over 24,000 people and well over 6 million combined video views he has a significant fan-base. Finally, whether or not biological facts are known or not is irrelevant. He is a character, not a person. That's like trying to write biological facts about a comic book hero. What is 'suitable content' is documentation of the spread and affect of what the character has achieved through the medium of viral videos - namely nominations for the Youtube Video Awards 2006, Most Responded Video of All Time, and as you now agree features on notable news programmes. Obviously the creator of the MadV character wishes to remain anonymous, so no further information is available about him/her. Lungsboat 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep per nominator: Upon actually getting some sleep and then reviewing the argument later, I can see Lungsboat's side of things. The article does need some serious cleanup and revising, but I have weakly changed my stance on its deletion. --Nexthoudini 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So now what happens seeing as the person who originally nominated the article for deletion has changed their mind? Can we now close this AfD? Lungsboat 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Exceptional YouTube prominence + fair amount of appearances in mainstream media = notability. 2 million google hits don't hurt, either. The closing admin should note that the nomination for deletion appears to have been withdrawn. Ichormosquito 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Ichormosquito--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included on the WikiProject Internet Culture talk page.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment after close - The two references I found were Campaign for Iraq Pullout Hits YouTube and many related to Manufacturers Association of the Delaware Valley (MADV). This comment is not part of the above consensus and is placed here for reference only. -- Jreferee t/c 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment after close/followup - I just want to clarify: the link to 2 million Google hits is for "MadV AND YouTube". I realize this doesn't make up for the lack of hard sources. Ichormosquito 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Oak Mall

Non-notable shopping mall in Texas. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify the page's content (e.g. the cancelled Joske's anchor). Features some original research as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is notable, plenty of reliable sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Tim Q. Wells 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: It is probably the only mall within the mall in a 90 or so mile radius. And the Joske's proof?

Joske's never opened, a distinct Foley's opened there instead

TheListUpdater 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep as revised. Multiple reliable sources have been located to meet the standard definition of notability. Burntsauce 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have a look at them, did you? See my comment below. --Victor falk 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete wow they have a J.C Pennys, no notability, every city has a malls.Ridernyc 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: No offense, but that's the lamest AfD I've ever heard. Using your twisted logic, half of the malls listed on Wikipedia would get deleted. TheListUpdater 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Half? Only half???

Keep. Article is notable and well-sourced, and the deletion reasoning was querulous. Rebecca 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not claim notability over and above being a mall--Victor falk 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It has many reliable sources that make it notable. Tim Q. Wells 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Regrettably, Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) could not attain a community consensus. That leaves us with the Wild West of WP:N, which this meets and exceeds given the multiple and non-trivial sources written about the subject. Silensor 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-trivial!?

unofficial site
OAG Travel Information: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers :over 100 specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
Yahoo travel: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers over 100 :specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
discoverourtown.com: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers over :100 specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
cblproperties: a map and stats.
Picture from the portfolio of the architects that designed the "Pavilion on Post Oak Mall"

Those sources are certainly not... quadrivial... --Victor falk 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm friend, I was referring to a Lexis Nexis search which reveals dozens of related articles to this specific subject. Many fall into the non-trivial category. Silensor 05:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. May technically be notable, but I'm going to WP:IGNORE on this. If it was special in some way, I might be swayed - but it's not? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No indication that it meets WP:CORP. --El on ka 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, cited sources are trivial. Quite willing to reconsider my position if the other (claimed) sources are actually cited, but I can't find a thing besides standard fluff and name drops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent. This article is particularly well researched and written.139.48.81.98 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the way that people are acknowledging that it is "technically" notable and voting to delete it anyway tempts me to ignore various wikipedia rules myself, such as WP:NPA, WP:SOCK WP:Vandalism etc. Kappa 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of talk may seem a bit... uncivil to some. What do you mean by "technically" notable? ~~And who has said that?~~--Victor falk 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed Chase me ladies' comment. And, thinking of it, there is no such thing as a "technically" notable article. At least if no wikilawyering is involved. An article can be considered notable if editors judge it meets standards or not for wp:n, wp:rs and wp:v (btw, I still haven't seen no sources that don't risibly fail those criterion, I will happily change my vote if such one is brought forward), and should not keep an article on "technical" merits--Victor falk 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per many of the fine comments above. --Myles Long 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is not the most notable mall on the planet, but I think that it is notable enough and the current sources are sufficient for verifiability standards. RFerreira 21:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, completely non-notable.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely non-notable? Most of the N.N. malls on Wiki don't have any references save for the official webpage. And you're sockpuppeting, as well. Shame on you. TheListUpdater 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Grisham. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clanton, Mississippi

It's not actually very notable, and though I cherish a deep admiration for the town and its inhabitants, there's no possibility of expanding the article without going into the realms of OR. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable fictional town. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the article is needed for at least one purpose—to answer the sometimes asked query, "I wonder if that is a real town." Alternatively, merge and redirect to an appropriate target (probably John Grisham). Do not delete outright. Newyorkbrad 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Redirecting to Grisham is OK; it's not worth having an article just to say that it's fictional, though I did actually believe that it was real until I first came across the article this morning! :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to John Grisham. There are a few references in book reviews and Grisham profiles but not much about the town that isn't plot summary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Dhartung. mceder (u t c) 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care what happens, but I would personally find the purpose of the article defeated by redirecting it to John Grisham; it really makes no sense. What harm is this article doing by being a stub? The reason I wrote the article was because, like Porcupine, I didn't know if the town existed - so I looked it up and wrote what I found down. That this is the setting for more than one best-selling Grisham novel indicates that many will ponder the same question that we did. The redirect is probably less helpful and more confusing than just deleting the article outright. Johnleemk | Talk 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
~~RedirectRename to Clanton (John Grisham)~~Keep and Rename to Clanton (John Grisham), as per Derry, Maine--SarekOfVulcan 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment How would that help? It'd still have its own article.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So does Derry. If it's a fictional setting in multiple Grisham books, it should probably have its own article. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply - it should only have its own article if it's notable (that is, it has several reliable sources listed that are independent of the subject; there actually are no such sources: I've checked). Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing your vote not just once, but twice - talk about abuse of process! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change your vote, because it disrupts stuff and is not impressive. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Grow up. Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppose you've looked at WP:NPA lately, have you?--SarekOfVulcan 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume from the fact that you refuse to accept responsibility for your vote-changing means you feel slightly ashamed of it? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) "if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s>"--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine, there's nothing wrong with someone changing an AFD !vote multiple times. Stop with the rude orders ("grow up") and assumptions of bad faith.--chaser - t 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that doing it twice is a bit shoddy, particularly just to counter someone pointing out one of your rather silly mistakes. Also see my points here. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect the damn thing already. Now!!! Burntsauce 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Opinion - my non-admin closure was reverted because 'people voted keep'. This is absurd, since the reverter was the one person who voted keep. Just for the record, if the process policy mandates that (which I don't think it does), then it is STUPID. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- A consensus hasn't clearly been demonstrated here, and since people have voted 'keep', you can't invoke WP:SNOW. And as nominator, you dratted well shouldn't be closing your own AfD, never mind doing it two days early. And for the record, I was not the one person who voted keep -- I voted rename, someone else voted keep, and the article author chimed in with a "I don't really think it should be deleted, but I'm not voting".--SarekOfVulcan 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Only one person has voted keep, darling, so stop saying "people". It's so simple it's almost comical. Plus, who in heaven's name mentioned WP:SNOW except you? --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Just made my implied "keep" above explicit.--SarekOfVulcan 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Please leave AFD closures to neutral outside parties. Practice is that no one closes an AFD they initiated.--chaser - t 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to an applicable section of one of John Grisham's novels absent more context for the article. I agree that redirecting to John Grisham makes little sense. The_Last_Juror#Plot_introduction seems to be a good option. The text there can always be modified to mention the other novels its used in and accomplish the same purpose the existent article currently does. If not that, then rename it as has been suggested (and flesh it out a little bit. I haven't read any of the novels, but I assume there's more that could be said about this fictional town). Into The Fray ^T/C 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge any worthwhile content into a suitable existing article.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Michael Madonick

First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability as a professor. Movie information not backed up by sources and conflicts with info in sources such as IMDb. Speedy was contested, so I assume a prod will be as well. Fabrictramp 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails the notability guidelines for professors and no sources to back it up. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article isn't even funny, just a load of bull. BASE101() 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. As near as I can tell from a Google search, completely untrue and fails WP:Verifiable. Also incredibly vulgar with no redeeming humour, hence the "speedy". Accounting4Taste 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#CENSORED. That's not a criteria for speedy deletion. --Ag ü eybaná 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - G10; vulgarity isn't a speedy criterion, but attack pages are. — Coren ^(talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Coren, I doubt the jackass who wrote it intended it as an attack. DGG (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

- Comment My apologies for using the word "Speedy" incorrectly. I just wanted to get rid of it quickly and wasn't asserting that it fell into a specific category. Accounting4Taste 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Coren. I'd assumed, at first, vandalism, given the vulgarity. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that was the original. Probably some pissed off student who flunked the good professor's class or something.--Sethacus 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

changing to weak keep In light of the changes made to the article, which should've been gotten rid of in the first place or heavily rewritten. Answers.com has another mirrored version that suggests he also directed This Is Spinal Tap. O RLY? The prize is notable. However, the only things I can find on Google Scholar are a single poem and a thesis paper.--Sethacus 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I stripped out the attack content so that we could focus on his actual achievements. What remains looks innocuous to my eyes; it's copied (and was a copyvio, but I rewrote that too) from his faculty profile. —David Eppstein 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
weak keep if the Academy of American Poets' prize is notable--I have no information on that. His books are not notable--I can find only 9 libraries on WorldCat. It's wrong to judge an article by the junk people put in it, or all faculty will be at the mercy of the stupider among their students. DGG (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as seems to be notable, but the lack of any third-party sources is not a good thing.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was disassemble (er, delete). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoAsm

Non notable assembler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Written like an advert. No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam... Given that the thing was developed by someone called Jeremy Gordon, and that the article and logo were both created by a seemingly single-purpose user calling themselves Jorgon, I think it's a fair bet that this violates both WP:SPAM and WP:COI, so speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Maybe it could be rewritten by a neutral writer/team of writers, but I still doubt it'd pass WP:N.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SjASMPlus

Non notable assembler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Written like an advert, NN piece of software (?). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam...--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peach (film)

Unfinished film with no claim of notability in article. (Perhaps once it's released, it might be notable.) Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No notability assertion. Since it's unfinished, it shouldn't have an article yet (at least until sources and a reason why it's notable are found). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE until further down the production line. Accounting4Taste 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I've seen more trivial entries in this wiki!--87.109.236.84 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That argument is dismissed at WP:WAX aka WP:OTHERSTUFF. Accounting4Taste 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sure it will be notable once released. No harm will be done if readers are redirected to a short write-up at Blender Foundation. Ichormosquito 17:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N and WP:CBALL.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Blender Foundation. Here's a source, from Ars Technica: [18] Ichormosquito 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I took it upon myself to merge. I think a redirect is the most sensible option now. Ichormosquito 18:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tasty planet

Yet another flash game article. Nothing notable about it at all. A^RendedWinter 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion, no sources, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Fateh Singh

No assertion of notability, seems to have been an Army captain, but I can't find anything that asserts notability. Also, extremely difficult to read even after much editingKernel Saunters 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources cited. Article is poorly written, confusing, and difficult to read. Article strays off topic and has too much information about subject's family. Either a severly major cleanup, or throw it in the trash. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unnotable captain with no major awards Clarityfiend 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A copy of this article's information is in [www.sikhiwiki.com]; it doesn't meet our biographic standards. Accounting4Taste 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Edward321 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, seemingly nn. Also, isn't it funny that, while it's recognisably written in English, you still feel like you need a translator?--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deer Park, Co. Leitrim

Delete. This article is a weird mixture of garbled a garbled piece of local history and an attack page. Attempts appear to have been made to tidy it up, but I don't think there is anything worth salvaging. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Confusing and poorly written article. Nothing worth keeping here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:COATRACK. There is probably an article to be written about the place, but this certainly isn't it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Poor text, but still not entirely sure about the notability of it. An improvement would be good to see for this. BASE101() 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence of notability in the article itself. I know the area a little, and hadn't heard of the deer park, and all that I can find on google are a few references in the Manorhamilton area to roads named after it. I suspect that there is or was a deer park in the area, but an article on it would need some credible evidence of using reliable sources. If this is deleted someone may write a proper article which actually demonstrates at least a hint of notability, but there's nothing in this version to improve on: it needs a complete rewrite from the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There is a small area near Manorhamilton called Deerpark (more often rendered as one word from what I can see) and as BrownHairedGirl pointed out, there are a few roads named after it, but I can't see anything that couldn't be included in the Manorhamilton article. (Although very little from the existing article: "In 1815 Napoleon Bonaparte, the great French general, rested his forces in Deer Park"... made me laugh.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoax, hoax, hoaxity hoax... Delete. IF (and it's a big if) this place DOES really exist, the article would need a total rewrite anyway, so I reckon we'd best just delete this, as it certainly falls foul of WP:NPOV.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Tapes 2

This article has no reliable sources whatsoever. It is also contradictory as it claims to be a compilation album yet it also claims to be by rap singer Nas. The article states the album was never released and never will be. If there is anything here worth keeping it ought to be on the Nas article - that's if its notable at all, which this article isn't. B1atv 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't really deserve an article if it will never get released. Nothing to write about besides the four sentences already included in the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability is not inherited. Also an unreleased album cannot really be notable unless it has indepedent reviews from reliable sources (main criteria of WP:Music). Might just warrant a mention on the artist's page if the recording was in some way important, but I doubt it. A1octopus 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This was just speculated with no credible sources to deserve an article by itself. No reference on a future release either.--Sosa 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4 GRBerry 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B'nai Elim

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/B'nai Elim

Articles for deletion/B'nai Elim (2nd nomination)

Stub article on a subject that fails WP:ORG (the same reason the previous version of the article was deleted). Little potential for growth due to the lack of available third-party sources. For the same reason, any potential additions would likely fail WP:V. Google hits virtually all link to the organization itself or to blogs authored by its proponents. No press coverage.
--Rrburke^(talk) 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Just not notable enough. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and NF24.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted, non-notable organization. —Verrai 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usha studios

non notable private film studio. A google search produces only 320-odd youtube, myspace flickr and blogs [19]. The article claims films have received news coverage but the link goes only to a newspaper, not to any articles. B1atv 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails the notability guidelines for organisations. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ORG.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generic terminology

The title seems innocent enough, but when you read the article, you may have trouble making sense of it. Not only is the article unreferenced; the content cannot be referenced. I'm not sure how to explain this, but read the article and you will understand what I am trying to say. The article is the work of a single user. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's basically a list of words that are used generically in other contexts and ways that are not part of their specific definition. For example, harassment is listed as a wide spectrum of repeatitive [sic], deliberate annoyances. Since that is not the official definition of harassment, which is persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress (thanks Wiktionary!), it is listed here as a word that is often used generically, in unrelated context (as in "She keeps harassing me by brushing up against me in the hallway".) If you don't get it, that's okay because I'm starting to confuse myself now. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete There are numerous different classes of linguistic meaning change[20] and this is not specific enough. There are numerous examples of words with both specific and general meanings -- too many to list effectively. I know once there was a page listing words with meaning that has changed "significantly" (one example: mayhem (crime)) and it was deemed original research. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Strange article about problems with communication, written by someone who has problems with communication. Mandsford 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete It seems to be just a list of a few words that happen to have broad meanings. Introduction tries to make a concept out of this but result is not clear. Brianlucas 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Mandsford. Bearian 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The creating user is almost certainly a sock of a banned editor and the article can be speedied as nonsense, in my view. I'd just speedy it myself, but there is a very small chance Koopa Turtle isn't a sock.... see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koopa turtle ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winningest football coach

A made-up word to describe succesful college sports coaches. Even if the word wasn't made up it is difficult to see how this article could ever satisfy the notability requirements. A college coach is a college coach. B1atv 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Relevant information can be noted in the respective coach's article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there really is no need for this to be an article. Just put a note on Bear Bryant. Winningest *is* actually a word, by the way, as odd as I agree that it sounds, but that's far from a reason to keep this. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Winningest a word? I've just looked this up on the Internet as it isn't in my dictionaries and I've just discovered that this is one of those cases where Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language! One US -> British online dictionary said: "Don't blame me for this horrible word, I didn't invent it I'm just reporting it! ;-) B1atv 06:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not the first article about winning football coaches. Just the first one that doesn't use tables or other illustrations. Kind of like writing "The Cubs finished the 2007 regular season with a record of eighty-five wins and seventy-seven losses, and they were two games ahead of the Milwaukee Brewers who had eighty-three wins and seventy-nine losses, and they were seven games ahead of the St..." Mandsford 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This struggles to be more than a dictionary definition, but fails. Relevant content should be moved onto College football, High school football and to the individual coaches' pages. Brianlucas 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I mean, seriously. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck's sake. Can't this be speedied per CSD G1?--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why would it be? It's not nonsense, just biased and not useful. Though by this point it could be WP:SNOWed. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor war

Delete This article seems to be totally based on original research. "The two largest camps are....." - I imagine it's not quite NPOV, and that it contains weasel words or whatever. It neems to be scrapped altogether - as far as I can tell, it's not even all that notable.

All that said, those who vote in the AfD will probably all be 'hacker culturalists' themselves and all try to keep the article :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep vi forever! Err, um, well, seriously, the concept is well established, and there are enough references [21] [22]. This is deeply embedded in hackerdom, and you're going to get the same arguments from the same people who don't want to keep Kibo and the like, because most of the references are "unreliable usenet" and that kind of stuff. Yngvarr (t) (c) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well-sourced and well-written with arguments from both sides. This page may be prone to vandalism due to the nature of the topic, though. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What did I say?!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to above I'm sorry, but if you expected as such, why bring it up? It is a historical debate. Just search for "vi versus emacs", you're going to find hundreds of references. But, as I said, the reliability factor comes in play, because many people don't accept precedents where the only evidence is from a community who's primary existence is an on-line one (e.g., there are not going to be many print refs). Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply I'm not a hacker and haven't even heard of those programs. I'm simply listing what I think after reading the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article needs more context wrt the notability of this particular feud, but it's definitely one of the top computer-industry "philosophical" disputes/holy wars along with Mac vs. PC and Unix vs. desktop OS or ATM vs. TCP/IP. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It has ten references and a relatively neutral tone. Possibly it could use some more context and references in the lead paragraph but these are issues for the article collaboration and improvement drive, not AfD. Feezo (Talk) 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Has references and seems to be notable. Cleanup would be a good idea but not deletion. And Porcupine, read this essay. --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is _the_ prototypical flame war meme, coming from the origins of the Internet culture. Future historians would have a hard time figuring what was going on and why all this energy was wasted, without this Wikipedia article to clarify the tongue-in-cheek tone of these "religious" wars. The article would benefit from expanding the "current state of the editor war" with some references to relevant original Usenet posts, and some quotes from "The Art of Unix Programming" to explain how it all started, but this lack of context is not on itself a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Moya (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Famous feud, though largely historical today. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noochie varner

Non-notable minor league baseball player Rackabello 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N -- sports personalities are only notable if they've played at the top professional level (which, in this country, usually means Major League Baseball). According to The Baseball Cube -- [23] -- Noochie played at double-A for most of his career, moved up to AAA Tucson for most of a season (and hit .321!), and for some reason they sent him back down to AA again the next year. Clearly does not meet the threshold, though. Deltopia 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It serves absolutely no purpose for Wikipedia at all. None except fans and friends have heard of him it seems. BASE101() 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD A7.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacArthur Study Bible

~~No assertion of notability, very promotional written tone, possibly G11 speedy material Rackabello 16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)~~

- My concerns have been ameliorated. Rackabello 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. For the most part, the tone is more descriptive than promotional. As always it's a fine line between content that attempts to establish notability and content that could be perceived as promotional (e.g. noting the number of copies sold, that it won the Study Bible of the Year Award, etc.) Captain Zyrain 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see this being promotional. It's a fairly clear and concise description of what it is, and establishes notability based on WP:BK for a major award. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Written in a descriptive (not spammy) tone, well-sourced, asserts notability, and that assertion passes the notability guidelines for books. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, nommed version was more like a directory entry than promotional, but current version adequately asserts notability with sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it has been a lot improved since the nomination. I have never heard of it though. BASE101() 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, in regards to the initial concerns, however I wonder if this text is WP:NOTABLE in itself? Tiggerjay 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasspeedy delete per WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A7 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Depulso

Not really necessary, a one liner about a spell in a Harry Potter video game. Rackabello 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete, nonsense. Domthedude001 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivial - not worth an article. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bitterwood (novel)

An unsourced article about a non-notable novel Rackabello 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a source for the article. Feel that the novel will be much more notable in a short time timbo_29544 19:35, 7 October 2007
Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. Please note that the addition of a source may not automatically make the book notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is being mentioned all over blogspace. Of course I haven't used that as referencing. However the reaction to the work seem fairly widespread. I have added reference to a notable review from the UKs Guardian. Notability as not high but it is not nonexistent either. Check article for latest state of editing some aspect of the comments above are historical. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - one third-party source isn't enough to confer notability.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep There's also a starred review at publisher's weekly, for what that is worth. [24]. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Traynham

This is a autobiography written in a self-promotional tone by Roberttraynham (talk · contribs). John254 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Autobiographies are discouraged, there is a COI here and this man fails the notability guidelines for people. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Strangely enough, the reasons why this individual is notable do not appear in the article but need to -- he was the subject of national attention in 2005 when he was outed as a gay man working as the chief spokesperson for Rick Santorum, who is "one of the strongest opponents of gay civil rights in Congress" (read about it here, among other places. He's also a "founding member of the Congressional Black Republication Organization" and was "the youngest staff member ever to work full-time at the White House." (Found here.) And from the same source, "For the past five years, Roll Call Newspaper has named Mr. Traynham as one of the “50 Most Powerful Staffers on Capitol Hill." He might be the most powerful unelected African-American gay man in U.S. politics. I'm going to spend a few minutes to add this material to the article. Accounting4Taste 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Accounting4Taste. Definitely a quality candidate. GlassCobra (Review) 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprising Westmeath Network

This article cites no third-party reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable organization. John254 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom.Ridernyc 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam...--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coedit

WP:NN program, lacks WP:RS. Self-promotional article. M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless notability can be established Rackabello 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as completely nn.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is an inappropriate content fork. -- Jreferee t/c 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic-Americana

Removed Prod: I think this would be better off in the Goth article, or the like. Article is unsourced, and sadly filled with terms like "Like a medicine show without the snake oil, the shows are filled with an incomparable energy." Also uses Wikipedia as a source. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion, no sources, no notability. Most of the article is a list of famous singers of that genre. Perhaps it could be merged into Goth, Americana, or Alt-country? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Merge into Goth and Americana - This is most likely copied off of some promotion for the genre on a website or otherwise. There is enough notability to warrant a separate section on the above-mentioned articles, though. Ανέκδοτο 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per NF24--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; what little bits of this article that aren't unsourced aggrandizement don't amount to enough left to establish notability. — Coren ^(talk) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Might be a legitimate genre[25], but sources that actually define what it encompasses are lacking. Could be recreated. Ichormosquito 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wuya

Wuya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Raimundo Pedrosa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kimiko Tohomiko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Clay Bailey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Dojo Kanojo Cho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Jack Spicer (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Chase Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Full of original research, these articles are about anime characters that fail to assert any notability or cite any reliable sources (which would also establish notability). Notability is not inhereted -- even if the cartoon is notable, each character is not (this isn't pokemon). The subjects all fail WP:FICTION, and the articles are full of Fair Use images that do not meet our fair use guidelines. We don't need huge articles on every character in every anime cartoon.

Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all No assertion, no sources, no notability. They all fail the notability guidelines for fiction. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per above Rackabello 16:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia. I'm an admin there, we want this content. I agree these are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Jay32183 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment no objection here. It's obvious people put significant work into the articles. It would be a shame if there wee not appropriate home for them (but it's not en.wikipedia). /Blaxthos 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment While this series is animated, it is an American production, not Japanese, so it is not anime. Also, Xiaolin Showdown is not just a TV series, but also a video game and a card game. Edward321 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
transwiki the articles do have sufficient sources. contrary to "popular" belief "derived from the TV show" is considered sufficient sources. However, the article's content would be more appropriate for a transwiki project.--Marhawkman 23:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per NASCAR Fan24. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per NASCAR Fan24.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Question Are people actually opposed to a transwiki to a compatibly licensed wiki that wants the content? Jay32183 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Twang Scene

While the term "twang scene" can be found, and some references to it located without much difficulty, there is no indication that St Louis's is particularly notable, and the primary contributor to the article appears unable or unwilling to provide citations to establish that it is (simply repeatedly removing the {{notability}} tag without addressing it). — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...St. Louis is one of the nation's strongest alternative country scenes, and among the originators of the style through bands like Uncle Tupelo and the Bottle Rockets. They helped give birth to No Depression Magazine, Bloodshot Records in Chicago, and Undertow Records. They also host one of the lagest alt-country showcases in the world, Twang Fest. St. Louis is still producing popular musicians in a thriving scene that attracts regional peers on a regular basis, and many of the bands are helping lead the charge for modern alt-country music. St. Louis warrants this article moreso than many cities and music scenes in the world today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy pf (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The movement itself might (just) be notable, but the the St Louis one is not notable. St Louis is hardly a world city, after all! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. St Louis's "scene" is not particularly notable. --Evb-wiki 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete for lack of any assertion of notability.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven karahan

Non-notable person. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: NN - Rjd0060 14:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: NN - Llajwa 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails the notability guidelines for people. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as above (272 google hits, by the way, that's it). BASE101() 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. He's not one of the "current" record holders -- according to the Wikipedia article, he's been superseded by three subsequent record holders. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Raven King

Article fails WP:FICT; merging does not seem reasonable. This article is about a character in two books of Susanna Clarke. It consists entirely of plot summary, no sourced real-world content is offered. The only source given is a private homepage. Since the articles about the two books already contain a good deal of plot summary, there's no point in merging plot details about this minor character into there. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Really is not notable outside the scope of the books. - Rjd0060 14:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. Could be redirected to the book article. Major characters in the book don't have articles, no reason for this minor character to have one. shoeofdeath 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough on it's own for a stand-alone article. • Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:barnwellr One of the most important characters in the book, would be best to merge into the book write-up and allow more in-depth write-ups of other characters. 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnwellr (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Late additions of reliable source references rebut the delete arguments. Consensus is that the topic does meet the general notability guidelines. Also, the reasonable assertion of importance/significance in the article rebuts arguments that the topic does not meet CSD A7 and the article as of this close does not reflect any WP:COI problems for which the contributors should be blocked from contributing. -- Jreferee t/c 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jena Sims

Previously proposed for deletion with the following reason:

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other accomplishments, only a few local media references. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, et al) and their deletions upheld at deletion review.

Now re-created by User:Jennifersims [26]. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Probably could have been speedy (per CSD G4) as there is no new information in this article as was in the deleted one. - Rjd0060 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, could be COI. - Rjd0060 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article is re-created after being successfully proposed for deletion, it cannot be speedily deleted for that reason, unless it meets the criteria on its own. Also note that the re-created version was different from the deleted one. - Mike Rosoft 15:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Local notability is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Judging by the username of the creator, there is almost definitely a COI here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep No COI as I was the original article creator. Jena is more notable than most of the Teens because of her charity work for which she has one a number of national awards. She certainly has more press coverage than the others (apart from Caitlin Upton of course) and not just because of winning Miss GA Teen USA. The two together (Miss GA Teen USA pageant winner & Miss Teen USA contestant and national recognition of her charity/community work should be sufficient for inclusion. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 19:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Being the original author has no effect. It can still be COI. The guideline says "Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". It doesn't really mention creating articles, although if you do create it, I suppose that counts as an edit. - Rjd0060 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per NF24.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immanuel Lutheran Primary School

This primary school seems to fail WP:ORG; no secondary coverage is known, and the article doesn't even give a hint as to why the school would be notable, apart from a strange episode in the school's history. PROD was contested with comment: "seems more notable than most". To me it doesn't seem so. Anyway, no secondary sources are given to demonstrate why it's notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: NN college with no outside references. - Rjd0060 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No assertion, no sources, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but add references as school is over 100 years old and schools that are around for that long had a notable influence on its many students. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - NN school - oldest children for a SA Primary school appear to be 13 years old per Education_in_Australia. An elementary/junior high school in US terms. Hard to demonstrate notability. (NB: it's not a college; the founding institution is a college.) -- BPMullins | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Primary schools are generally non-notable Computerjoe's talk 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the procedures, in agreement with DGG below: The article is not a candidate for speedy deletion (A7), since it asserts some notability (although I do not think the assertion is valid). Rather I put it up for proposed deletion; that was contested, so I sent it here for further discussion. That's all perfectly legitimate (although I would sometimes prefer more detailed rationales). --B. Wolterding 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. The Wikipedist 18:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into an article on the college unless sourced independently. Many primary schools, perhaps most will not be notable, but if the article says anything that indicates notability at all, they can't be speedied. this one indicated a noteworthy sports center, and I thought it was among the more extensive elementary school articles so I removed the Prod. Anyone at all, even the author, can remove a prod; hen the person placing the prod has the choice between leaving it alone, or sending it here--I am not surprised it came here. What it needs is sources. If they can show the school or its programs have received coverage according to WP:V, then I think the article could stand. GRC raises an interesting point about age. Obviously, this will depend on the location--I would not say a school in the UK or most US Eastern cities founded in 1895 ago would be per se notable. In Australia, I don't know. (this is different from historic buildings--the school is in a modern building). But --B. Wolterding is right that the primary school is not old. The event during WW I also concerned the secondary school. the notability project should have considered a merge first--or, since there is not at present an article on the college, writing even a stub, or asking for one to be written. Actually, I could have done the same. DGG (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
delete It's time to face the fact that most schools should not be listed here.Ridernyc 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is yet another non notable school. As stated by Ridernyc; "most schools should not be listed here". There needs to be a review of the criteria or better application of what exists. --Stormbay 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Swatjester (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) as CSD A7. — TKD::Talk 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAWNGAME

Non notable online game. Hasn't been covered by any independent reliable sources, and the search result only reveals forum entries and directory pages. Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Alasdair 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: NN with no outside sources. - Rjd0060 14:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails the notability guidelines for websites becuase of no outside sources.NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:N. Only related hits on Google are, as nom said, not reliable sources. The Wikipedist 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. This article have been created and delete multiple times before; no reliable sources are created in this period of time.Rockvee 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Would a Speedy (G4) + Salt be in order then? Arakunem 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Check the deletion record for detail. This subject have been created under different titles as Pawngame, Pawn Game, Pawn(MMO), may be more.Rockvee 00:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No sources that I can find anywhere. Came across this article while on RC patrol, and I can't tell what's vandalism and what's factual... Arakunem 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 IMO, but may as well let the AfD run — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete During vandalism patrol, I found this article. It's non notable, and we'd need about four editors working 24/7 to keep it vandal free. Agree with Arakunem's point, I can't figure out what is what either. Puchiko 23:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable and lack of reliable sources -- AngelOfSadness talk 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, and possible WP:COI. Note the page created by what may be a single purpose account, see [here. Most of the other editors (esp. IPs) seem to be SPAs - although their purpose seems to be more vandalism than creating an article about a non-notable game. --Cheeser1 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, this fits A7 like that slipper fit Cinderella. hbdragon88 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Snowball delete for obvious reasons. <eleland/talkedits> 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton fuzzbox

Dubious notability outside of the local area ... no nontrivial sources. Blueboy 96 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Local notability is not good enough to keep it. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Qualifies under A7.Kww 13:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
'Delete: a7 would qualify, but since we are here, it is NN. - Rjd0060 14:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD A7--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SFSOC

Non-notable student group. Just barely escapes being an A7 speedy. Blueboy 96 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no notability. Saved from being an A7 by the skin of its teeth. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: NN Club. - Rjd0060 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Qualifies under A7--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Williams (blogger)

An article about a blogger, who's only claim to fame is that he won a prize after a debate between 80 others bloggers on the same subject. While considering whether to create my own group and get my own prize, I'll nominate this article as it fails WP:BIO, and seems more focused on self promotion Trident13 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This person has won a prize which is not notable. Moreover, this person have not been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Thus it fails WP:BIO. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Blueboy 96 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails the notability guidelines for people - winning a NN award does not make you notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: WOW, A prized blogger. Phff. - Rjd0060 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO. The Wikipedist 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. How could there be a collective consensus when each song is well known and has been around for such a long time? While the songs may have been related, they certainly do not stand or fall together as to the issue of whether each meets the general notability guidelines. The nomination was poorly a conceived multiple related page nomination and the discussion reflected that. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweet Transvestite

AfDs for this article:

Also nominating:

Science Fiction/Double Feature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)‎
Rose Tint My World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Over at the Frankenstein Place (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hot Patootie (Whatever Happened to Saturday Night?) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)‎

Delete all - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. While Rocky Horror is very notable, none of the individual songs from it (with the exception of The Time Warp) are independently notable and the notability of the stage show and film are not inherited by each of the songs. None of these songs passes the proposed songs guideline at WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 13:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all None of them pass the notability guidelines for music and remember that notability is not inherited. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all: Per WP:MUSIC. Are we going to start making separate articles for every song that plays in movies that have articles? - Rjd0060 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep some of these are notable and should pass wp:music. --Buridan 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep All These are songs from one of the most famous cult movies of all time. The film has been theaters for over 30 years.Ridernyc 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated twice now, notability is not inherited. The notability of the film and of the stage show do not translate into independent notability for every song from the show. Otto4711 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

sometimes notability is inherited under wp:common and wp:iar, and beyond that notability is not inherited is just a pov, not a rule or policy. this is one of those times where the pov causes trouble, because it deletes notable content under the rubric of it is only part of another's notability. --Buridan 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate that the content is in fact notable, though, reliable sources need to be provided showing this. Just saying "this is notable content" doesn't prove it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

if you just go around willy nilly afd-ing things without marking for cleanup, expansion, the research for reliable sources won't be performed and the interested parties won't do the work. most of the arguments seem to be substantive for any delete issue so far, most are arguments for cleanup and improvement. --Buridan 12:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for the assumption of good faith on my part regarding my nominations. Why do you think that I didn't look for reliable sources before I nominated the articles? Second, as has been pointed out to you in another AFD, you are mistaken about what "notability" means. A topic is either notable, by virtue of having been covered as the subject of independent reliable sources, or it isn't. Lack of notability can;t be "cleaned up." Lack of notability can't be "improved." Either there are sources or there aren't. Otto4711 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all with leniency (but very slight) to Sweet Transvestite - none of the songs aren't really notable Will ^(talk) 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Yet another case of a notable film - in this case - with songs having no independent notability for its songs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Keep Delete most, but keep Science Fiction/Double Feature, which I believe is notable enough on its own, considering that it's been covered many times and I've seen it referenced in various places. If consensus is against keep for it, I recommend merging SFDF into the Rocky Horror article. Kolindigo 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to New Article I voted Delete to Dammit Janet with strong arguments that it's not notable on its own, and I stand by that... however, I think there's an opening for a useful fork of Rocky Horror here if we create an article called "Rocky Horror Score" and move all of the stubs to this single article. The reason that I propose this is because Rocky Horror is both a stage musical and a film with the two sharing a common soundtrack, which is both popular and well-selling. Maybe the best way to organize and reconcile the information is to create a third fork--Torchwood Who? 06:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think this might be worth a read. Ichormosquito 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge per above suggestion. Maybe there's some disagreement on the songs having enough content for individual articles, but surely they're notable enough to be part of one article, perhaps something like Songs from Rocky Horror or something? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - yes, the show is notable. The movie is notable. That doesn't mean every song from the show or movie is notable. Sources people, where are the sources? Eddie's Teddy 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all there seems to be sufficient coverage of the songs... e.g. [27], [28]. No reason to deny our readers this information. --W.marsh 21:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bela Kiss (band)

speedy delete declined. notability per WP:BAND not looking good to me: two n.n. record labels, official webpage is a myspace. they have a purevolume site also, and they're playing a festival in New Jersey soon. ...and?tomasz. 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm having an extremely difficult time determining if this is verifiable by reliable sources, because they're named after a serial killer. - Che Nuevara 13:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, it looks like this band meets WP:BAND, where it states that has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.. This band has just recently toured the United States. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Meets the notability guidelines for bands, specifically the part about the tour. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Can't find non-trivial third party sourcing, and information is extremely sparse. Issues with verifiability and music inclusion guidelines. The length of the tour is not specified and I can't find any documentation on it.-Wafulz 14:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Could use a few more outside references but it does seem to meet WP:BAND. - Rjd0060 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Could use a few more outside references, but there are not any so the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. As an aside, Béla Kiss also was "a Hungarian who murdered woman for their jewelry and then pickled some of the bodies in alcohol prior to burying them. When the grounds around his house were probed 26 bodies were found, but Kiss was never captured partially because he succeeded in duping the police into believing he had been killed in action during World War I." -- Jreferee t/c 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Redirecting seems inappropriate since the term was never verified. W.marsh 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine mastiff

8 Ghits only. Links inside the article points to mastiff not Phil. mastiff. My father, a vet, said no such breed exists Lenticel ^(talk) 12:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the dog in the picture is a Bullmastiff. WP:NN--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that "Philippine mastiff" is the name for bull mastiff in another region / language? The article seems to readily admit that it's talking about bull mastiffs (see the "Origin" section). If so, redirect to bull mastiff. If not, delete. - Che Nuevara 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. German shepherds are still "German" in our country but I consider your redirect suggestion a good alternative (after deletion). --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but German shepherds are not "German" in Germany ... or in any other German-speaking country -- they're just called "shepherd dogs" (Schaeferhund). - Che Nuevara 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Bull mastiff. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: It is pretty apparent from the article that says "Group: Mastiff". Could be redirected I guess, but I doubt anybody will come looking for "Philippine mastiff". - Rjd0060 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no need to redirect if there is no such breed. Content was obviously modified from the bull mastiff page, no other reliable sources are apparent, at least not for that name. The link to the french wiki is DOA, so no help there. Here's a mastiff that's native to the Philippines, but probably not what the author had in mind.. :) This probably needs to be removed from List of dog breeds by country, presuming no forthcoming references. Kuru ^talk 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bull mastiff on a prophylactic basis to ensure the article is not created again. Theres a reason why its created as stated in the ORIGIN section. †Bloodpack† 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - the material in the ORIGIN section appears to be lifted from the external Bullmastiff page here with minor changes. Please note that I've removed it from the article for now as a copyvio. This seems to support that this is a hoax. If the article is recreated after deletion, I'd be delighted to salt it. There's no need for a hoax redirect. Kuru ^talk 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Beverley

Only claim to fame is being the mother of Sid Vicious. Jmlk 1 7 11:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the notability is not inherited clause. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with NASCAR Fan24. The point of this article appears to be to provide some information on Sid's family life; such influences should be included in his article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is no useful information on her real life; she has no notability beyond her son. Note the use of private unpublished sources, presumably to get birthname and birthdate. Sam Blacketer 12:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - in agreement with NASCAR Fan24. Rgds, --Trident13 13:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not really asserted here and WP:Notable is not met. Familial relationships do not confer notability. Worth a line in Sid's article. Accounting4Taste 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect (not a plausible search term). Sufficient information already in Sid Vicious (including an unverified negative assertion). --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seomra Spraoi

Appears to be nothing more than a set of meeting rooms and area. Only open less than three weeks, this just isn't notable on any ground of measurement. Ben W Bell talk 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Like there aren't any other conference centers in the world. If they suddenly moved, say, a big, huge, spectular, and notable convention there, then it could be kept, but this one goes in the big trash can on the server. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability guidelines. This social space is less than three weeks old and there is nothing in this article which is worthy of notice. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ I think that it is has been open for a few months now. They got one media mention at least. Some of the groups that meet there might be notable, but at the moment the place itself is not. Bláthnaid 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's been open a couple of years now, it moved to its current address a few months ago. Three weeks ago was the official opening. For a space that's non-notable it has a lot of Google hits [29]. "Conference center" is missing the point somewhat. Lapsed Pacifist 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see, I only became aware of it when it moved. I'm sympathetic to the project, but looking through Google I can't find anything that makes it notable for Wikipedia, or provides WP:RS. Bláthnaid 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Link: Here you go. Lapsed Pacifist 14:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - any chance of a copy of the article that doesn't require a paying account so the rest can have a look? Ben W Bell talk 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing to keep: The Irish Times article and RTE interview are enough to make it notable. Thanks, Lapsed Pacifist. Bláthnaid 18:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems to be much more than a community centre. Really needs expanded and improved, but there seems to be plenty of reliable sources to do that. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spagmumps

Looks like a nonce word -- main article is at Foam peanut. mervyn 11:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the neologisms policy and redirect to Foam peanut. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not really a good idea to refer to something as a policy if it isn't one. WP:NEO is a MoS guideline. - Che Nuevara 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just another name for styrofoam peanuts. Redirect it there. - Che Nuevara 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect: As stated above (to Foam peanut). - Rjd0060 14:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky Ashley

Apparently imaginary show. Referenced only in a few message boards, and even there other participants are skeptical Kww 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete .. and also I don't like these and other edits of this article's creator: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Elmao 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Postscript. Not exactly an hoax - just something on YouTube. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian translation

Appears to be a How-to guide on Russian translation. It's completely OR and as such unsourced. My prod was recently removed with this rather amusing rationale. Atlan (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research. - Che Nuevara 11:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the how-to clause and the OR policy. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic, unsourceable OR. --Goochelaar 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete From the article: "Look for revisions in the future which will focus on issues more specific to translation to and from Russian." Wikipedia is not a weekly column. Mandsford 22:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, especially NASCAR Fan24. GlassCobra (Review) 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed. - Out of process since the deletion tag was not placed on the 1 AH article as required by How to list pages for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 AH

I include here all the various xAH articles, of which there are some hundreds. Almost all of them are empty other than template content (events, births, deaths, references), but that is not the problem, the problem is that this is another naming convention for years in competition with CE / BCE, but with an Islamic slant. It is thus a POV fork, just as if we had separate articles on AD / BC with the exclusively Christian content for that era. The articles are almost all empty, as I say, or at least that's my conclusion from looking at some tens of them. It might be defensible to have an article on each decade as for example 1920s in Islam, as we do for film, fashion and some other topics, but what we have now is an unmaintainable and seemingly unmaintained series of articles which look as if they are only there to remove Islamic topics from the CE / BCE convention. Wikipedia should not be concerned with what we call a year, only with what happened during it. And since the year is an arbitrary construct anyway, we might as well stick with the convention that we already have. Cruftbane 11:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - You needed to list all of the various xAH articles at Articles for Deletion AND post an AfD notice on each article to give proper notice. You could have created a sub listing such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 AH/other articles and incorporate that into this discussion to not make this page unwieldy. You still would have needed to post an AfD notice on each article. Without that notice, deleting those articles will be out of process and WP:DRV will be overwhelmed with requests to restore them because of improper process. As it is now, this AfD only applies to 1 AH.-- Jreferee t/c 20:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all Could violate the coatrack policy by being pro-Islam in disguise, but we don't need any of these articles, as any relevant events can be incorporated into, say, 622. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and put in place appropriate governance and/or automation to ensure that events are listed on both year-series as appropriate. This is not "pro-Islam in disguise". It is an example of countering systematic bias (WP:BIAS). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. Calling a year by a different name doesn't counter systemic bias. We don't have a separate date series for Julian dates. Cruftbane 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not at all a coatrack article -- and "coatrack" does not mean "bias in disguise". A coatrack article is very specific -- it is named for one subject and discusses a different one. And it is not a policy -- it is an essay. As much as I admire Moreschi (the original author of WP:COAT), saying "this is a coatrack article" isn't really a legitimate reason for deletion, nor do I think Moreschi intended it to be such. (Note that the coatrack essay suggests paring down the article, but doesn't recommend deleting it.) Getting back to the article itself, I think it's incredibly useful -- the Islamic year does not line up with the Gregorian year, so events that took place in the same year in the Islamic calendar might not take place in the same year in the Gregorian calendar. Thus it makes a lot of sense to discuss events of Islamic history in terms of the Islamic calendar. I think we should keep them all but relegate their content to events related to Islamic history. - Che Nuevara 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into other year articles (and make a redirect) if sensible, otherwise keep. Secretlondon 14:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment What Che Nuevara says makes some sense, but doesn't that mean we'd need separate year tracks for all (major) year countings (e.g. Jewish, japanese, Chinese, etc.)? --Martin Wisse 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- In theory, it would make sense to talk about events tied to a specific calendar in that calendar. The other option would be to make "timeline" articles for the various calendars, but I fear those would become very large very quickly. - Che Nuevara 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, exactly. So we have articles for each year, using the calendar most familiar to readers of the English Wikipedia, just as we use the English names for things rather than their original names if they were "not invented here". I'd have no objection to adding the alternative calendars to the tops of the year articles, that would be informative to readers without duplicating effort. Cruftbane 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It would require slightly more than that -- the years don't match up, obviously (Islamic calendar is lunar). I would support a motion to include alternative date ranges at the top of each relevant year article (ditto for other calendars, such as Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, and possibly Coptic) and, where appropriate, also including dates for items relevant to the history of the culture(s) that use(s) that calendar. - Che Nuevara 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete All I believe in countering systemic bias as much as the next guy, but this is not that. This is the English language wikipedia, and the most commonly used calendar in English-speaking countries is the CE/BCE calendar. I don't doubt that some clever person can invent a wiki add-on or skin that will translate dates, or even let you set the preferred mode of dates in your preferences; I would find that an infinitely better solution (if there is in fact a problem requiring solution) than creating a few thousand new year articles for the Mohammedean calendar. Deltopia 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete year articles, keep century articles I'd agree on deleting the individual "AH" years (at the moment, we're in the year 1428 AH, with Muharram 1, 1429 to happen on Jan 10 '08). And I think that the administrator should bypass the usual rule of nominating each article separately, since it doesn't take much to create new articles called "1 AH, 2 AH, 3 AH, etc." I suspect that this is a case of doing something "because we can", and that the authors have to convert from CE when they're figuring out what goes where. But there's a reason we call it the "common era" and not just "anno domini". Note that the Arabic Wikipedia article for "1066" is about 1066 CE, not 1656. We don't have articles about "5750" on the Jewish calendar either. That said, I would encourage keeping articles such as "15th Century A.H." (which began on November 9, 1980 on our calendar). For what it's worth, the Islamic revolution in Iran, happened at "around the turn of the century", and I think that a century-by-century Islam perspective on world history would be worthwhile (and no, not "limited to events related to Islamic history"... we don't regulate content THAT much on Wikipedia). Mandsford 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment That actually reminds me -- the Islamic lunar calendar in use to determine holidays and the Iranian calendar are slightly different. I had forgotten this until reading your note, Mandsford, because I remembered reading that it's 1386 on the Iranian calendar right now. So, keeping the AH calendar articles does set precedent for creating another couple thousand AP articles (Anno Persico) -- which just gives me a headache to think about. Deltopia 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep some Keep the centuries, and the decades for at least the first century or two, and consider keeping the individual years for the first 50 years. Obviously there is not much content there now, but it could be filled in. And it would be useful in organizing the material. And I agree with User:Ceyockey that this will serve to counter systematic bias. I do not think separate pages are need where only parts of a year are different, as distinct from the base of numbering-- as the Julian and the Iranian. DGG (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep selectively per DGG (1-50, first few decades, all centuries), delete all others per WP:N. Orderinchaos 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and then redirect I think merge into Wikipedia's Western calendar system (see, e.g., Category:1st millennium) would be appropriate. The encyclopedic information should all be in one article, no matter what that article is called. For example, year 622/623 information should be in the same article as 1 AH, and the only remaining decision is what to name the article. Since Wikipedia English is based in Florida, United States and the Western system is what most English Wikipedia readers understand or expect to find, that is what should be the basis for naming the article containing the year 622/623/1 AH information. Islamic Wikipedias may appeal to their likely readers with appropriate article names, too. A rose By any other name would smell as sweet and Islamic year information should read just as clearly if headed by a Western calendar system name. -- Jreferee t/c 20:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and clean up. Espresso Addict 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Residual income

So many reasons. The article reads like an advertisement for network marketing, a practice of questionable legality in many countries, it does not cover information worthy of its own article, plus it violates WP:WINAD. Not to mention it is ugly as sin, although that doesn't really count as a reason for deletion. Gorman 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Spam, spam, spamity spam. Fails the dictionary clause and seems like something that would be found in an informational pamphlet. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how this is spam all, since not a single real company is mentioned in the examples. Residual and override income are hardly unique to network marketing (insurance agents often earn commissions over the life of the policies, and sales managers typically earn overrides on their subordinates' sales). To me this article seems to go beyond a dictionary definition to explain the concept in more detail. It should be tagged as a stub, perhaps, but I see no need to delete on that basis. Finally, the argument on the questionable legality of network marketing is a non-starter. Even if this article were about network marketing (it isn't), that a practice is not legal does not exclude the documentation of that practice in an encyclopedia. All encyclopedias I know of cover murder, for example. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Very strong keep. This is a legitimate accounting / financial term and there is certainly a lot to say about it. We have articles on return on equity, dividend yield, and interest rate risk, which, in my mind, are comparable financial terms in terms of encyclopedic value. Clearly this article is in bad shape and needs a rewrite. But it's a very important concept in finance today. Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to actually write this article. Gut this article and stub it, sure. But this is very far from spam. - Che Nuevara 13:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I would recommend removing all the references to multi-level marketing, since they're only confusing the issue. But in the film industry, such income is called "residuals"; similarly with writing. I believe this is a legitimate term, it's just being approached from an unusual direction. Accounting4Taste 14:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, definitely a real accounting term, but with a really bad article that needs a major rewrite. I wondered if it had been vandalized but apparently it's been this way from creation. The term has been hijacked by MLM and work-at-home schemers but has legitimate uses and you can barely glean that from what we have. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per my comments on the talk page, but trim to sub-stub. Remove all present MLM content as {{hoax}} or as "in-Universe" statements. Remove the "accountancy definition" is severely incorrect; I don't even know the name of any schools of economics which use that definition. In other words, keep the first sentence, add a reference to "residuals", and start from there. (If that's considered a "delete and re-create" !vote, I could accept it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep but fix. I've come across this one before and given up. But it's a very important accounting / financial / business concept that Wikipedia should cover. There's enough in here for a 1-2 sentence article and it can build from there. The MLM info can stay in some form because MLM is a real and widespread phenomenon and its terminology is encyclopedic; however, it should not be the primary thing used to illustrate this article. Wikidemo 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Very strong keep. The Wikipedia definition of Residual includes the following: "In business, a residual payment is one of an ongoing stream of payments for the completion of past achievements. ..." In MLM, a distributor gets paid an ongoing stream of payments for recruiting, training and supporting a new distributor and the new distributor's organization. There were an estimated 14 million Americans selling over $30 billion in this legitimate marketing channel in 2005 (see http://dsa.org/aboutselling/). The World Federation of Direct Selling Associations estimated that there were nearly 60 million direct sellers in 2004 who sold over $100 billion in 2005. In my opinion, outright deletion of this reference would be due to bias, not inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrategy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas and Friends - Season 13

Contested prod. This is about a series that is supposed to premiere in 2009 (2 seasons from now). This is complete WP:CRYSTAL and I can't find anything about the supposed first episode. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DeleteI love Thomas so I hope its true, but I can't find anything to verify it as an 'almost certain' event, as WP:CRYSTAL requires. Season 12 yes, but not 13.--Mkativerata 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails the crystal ball clause horribly. No sources either. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Crystalish ... especially when season 12 is still "proposed." Blueboy 96 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Weak keep -- The Season 12 page was nominated for deletion, but was kept (see discussion here). Unfortunately, all of the Thomas & Friends 'future episode' pages are prone to attracting spurious episode information from anon editors, and it is a right pain keeping them 'clean'. It would be most helpful if the page could be locked, with the minimum amount of information on, since the page is expected to be needed in the future (see the cited press release), but there won't be any new information for a year or two yet. (from WP:THOMAS) -- EdJogg 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the spurious 'episode details' (again). EdJogg 16:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting it now does not in any case prevent recreation once reliable, sourced materials can be found about this season. . -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect To the main article, and just add the cite to the infobox. i ^said 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete There's not enough information to warrant a page, and there is likely to be little available until it airs (if it does). There is nothing that cannot be included in the main article. Gwinva 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete see no reason for every season of to have it's own page.Ridernyc 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewspot

Non-notable software. No evidence of reliable third-party coverage, apart for the usual blog cruft. 394 ghits, some of which are irrelevant. (P.S. I nominated the screenshots for deletion as they are derivative works). MER-C 09:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the spam policy and the verifiability policy. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: NN software, call it an advertisement. - Rjd0060 14:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No independent coverage of this product from reliable sources. EdJohnston 01:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Conway

Unremarkable person fails notability requirements the article has been unsourced since creation, previous cleanup request diff resulted in the tag being removed after 3 months and request for verifiability being left unaddressed. Gnan garra 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Gnan garra 07:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even if everything in the article was verifiable, it fails notability as little more than a university lecturer. --Mkativerata 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is probably a genuine sport now - lets see if we can put in a hoax article and see how long before they notice. Albany based teachers who are supposedly left wing political commentators and published authors who do not get onto the WA State Library catalogue are not genuine for a start - the library system usually would have caught up on such regional curiosity or anomaly - it is an outright hoax and needs to go to the bin soon Satu Suro 08:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Duets with himself? clues abound in the article as to its lack of anything that deserves anything but deletion Satu Suro 08:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - a link provided by Zamphuor suggests a real person at Perth Modern School - still needs a delete Satu Suro 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability and not verified. --Zamphuor 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete If the guy's been approached by political parties to run, one would expect to find Factiva hits for him reflecting newspaper coverage. None have emerged. I tend to go with Zamphuor, SatuSuro and the nominator on this one on article lacking notability and possibly an element of complete bollocks. Also possible BLP issues. Orderinchaos 11:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:N --Sc straker 02:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
comment I removed the unsourced "teaching style" section, it was just silly, the rest is -of course- also all unsourced... Pete.Hurd 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Almost certainly not notable even if sourced. FWIW his students like him [38], so it is not a hoax. Only the notability is imaginary. DGG (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:N and a host of others. Twenty Years 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete regardless of the truth or falsity of its unverified and likely unverifiable claims. —David Eppstein 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Hayes

Contested speedy and prod. Non notable local politician, nothing offered that meets WP:BIO. Nuttah68 07:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Nuttah68 07:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, falls well short of notability criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom: nothing suggests notability. --Goochelaar 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not even close to meeting WP:Notable. His last "harrah" indeed. Accounting4Taste 14:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has already underwent deletion consideration. I request that this deletion notice be removed because this seems like WP:GAME. Sgt. bender 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, a comment like "I just think it adds a little flavor to the local area. We barely get any internet coverage at all. This way, someone can go online and check out their politicians." by Sgt. bender, the originator and main contributor to this article (see [39]), seems to confirm that the subject is not covered elsewhere and so non notable. --Goochelaar 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This article on Gary Hayes should be left. Considering that a video on YouTube featuring Mr. Hayes was viewed over 500 times in one day, was commented on 25 times, and received two YouTube "honors" shows that he is noteworthy enough to garner at least some attention on a national forum. Let the article stay. Dr.orfannkyl —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note that Dr.orfannkyl's only contribution to Wikipedia has been the comment on this AfD. Accounting4Taste 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I never found anything that I felt so strongly about, I guess. And anyway, I just created an account so I haven't had time to do much. Dr.orfannkyl 20:34, 10 October 2007

Don't get me wrong -- I'll be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia and, after I post this, I'm going to go and leave you a "welcome" message with some useful links and offer my further help with anything you need; I hope you stay around as an editor. But it's extremely unusual for someone's first contribution to Wikipedia to be a comment on an article for deletion... some people use what's called a "single purpose account" (SPA) to add credence to a Wikipedia situation that they're trying to influence, and that's one of the hallmarks of a SPA. I wanted people to consider that possibility, that's all, since it might give weight to an administrator one way or the other. I still have no opinion about your account, and it will stay that way. Accounting4Taste 00:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the material at least until after the election. I searched for 'county elections' for precedents, and found Maryland county offices elections, 2006 and Maryland county executive elections, 2006, along with George F. Johnson, IV, one of the candidates. Perhaps something like New York 2008 county elections could be created, and then the candidates could either have their own articles or be incorporated into the election article. I think that would solve the 'notability' issue. For now, I'll wikify Schoharie County, New York in the article just so it's put in context. Flatterworld 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It has certainly not been Wikipedia policy in practice to declare that "national coverage" is necessary for politicians to be notable enough for an article; virtually no state senators, representatives, mayors (and even certainly some members of Congress and Governors!) would not meet that criteria. If the individual in question is notable in the local area and has received significant news coverage there, he would be worthy of an article. I believe, rather than deletion, a "notability" tag on the article is warranted to get some of these news articles into the article as references (keep in mind that news sources do not have to be online to be included as references).--Gloriamarie 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Loaded with unsourced material and OR Toddstreat1 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wittendörp

Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. website, de wiki (all these towns have perfectly fine articles in German) --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This, and all the other German towns and municipalities nominated in this spree, is clearly notable as a real place. Nick mallory 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep real places are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 11:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wittenburg

Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, real place per WP:OUTCOMES. website --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep real places are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wittenförden

Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. website --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep real places are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wöbbelin

Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, real place per WP:OUTCOMES. website de wiki (all these towns have perfectly fine articles in German) --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep real places are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 11:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Rhodes

Contested Prod. No sources cited for notability claims. No evidence independent of subject or of Wikipedia article found. Subject does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. • Gene93k 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No reliable, third party sources. The one external link is to a myspace page, and after going there... ~~I'm not convinced that this isn't a copyvio.~~James Sugrono_{Contributions} 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This page has been deleted three times before. Does it meet CSD G4? James-Sugrono_{Contributions} 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, no third party sources. A copyvio can be ruled out as it appears the subject wrote the article, making this a vanity page as well.--Sethacus 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, copyvio isn't an issue IF and only if he is the copyright holder of the songs - which I can't see being verified any time soon, as artists don't tend to acknowledge background vocals. Even if copyvio isn't an issue, this page doesn't quite pass verifiability standards.James Sugrono_{Contributions} 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree no Third Party sources, not verifiable. I have personal evidence too, not that that matters much on wikipedia. Also this is not the first time Mr. Rhodes has done this, and had his article deleted so, delete. Unterdenlinden 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)I know Derek Rhodes, and this is just about all made up

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zarrentin

Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. website de wiki (all these towns have perfectly fine articles in German) --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep real places are notable. Hut 8.5 11:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria

looks like an ads Chris! _ct 06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article reads like a commercial. No sources to back up any of the information, or indeed, the article's notability.James Sugrono_{Contributions} 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Just needs rewriting. the national organization of each religion should be considered notable--in general not the state, province, etc, but the national. I note in the official geographically organized religions we keep even dioceses. Avoid cultural bias. DGG (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly notable national religious association. Needs better sourcing. Sources are there per google. Wikidemo 14:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per DGG and Wikidemo. Perfectly good stub. Bearian 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Meets WP:N. See Google books and Googal Scholar. The name of the article is a concern. The media usual calls them Shalom Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria, but there is one hit on Shalom - the Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria. They call themselves Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria "Shalom". The word Shalom needs to be in the title of the article. Since the English media calls them Shalom Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria, the closing admin should move the article to Shalom Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria and redirect Shalom - the Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria and Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria "Shalom". That will make it easier for others to find reliable source information for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zierzow

Per WP:N and WP:V. Only one real contributor. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. website de wiki --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep yes, real places are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 11:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gumfer

Violates WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NEO Chris! _ct 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as complete nonsense. Popular in the UK? Where's the evidence of that? Unsourced and probably made up in school one day. Cruftbane 10:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Perhaps keep it in mind for the day you create WikiSchoolKidsLexicon. But I agree with Cruftbane, it sounds like one kid's nickname. Brianlucas 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zülow

Per WP:N and WP:V. Only one real contributor. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. de wiki --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep real places are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Rancho Hotel & Motel

violates WP:NOT#DIR Chris! _ct 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable for being used as a location for a lot of old Westerns [40]. Bláthnaid 17:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion criteria standards than Wikipedia does and everything they consider is heavily researched. If it's listed there, it's very notable here. --Oakshade 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Haugland

Not notable ~~- no sources~~ Chris! _ct 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Was a successful WRC driver (see here) which is enough for notability in and of itself. --Mkativerata 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment WikiProject Motorsport has been apprised of this AFD in lieu of a DelSort option. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Very weak keep Fails WP:V with a solitary non-independent source, but I suspect that the rally school is more notable by our definition and therefore could have an article. In which event, Haugland will of course be mentioned in it and a redirection can be made. Adrian M. H. 14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. He drove in a very well-known world racing series from 1973 until 1990. I find very many reliable sources. The article needs to be worked on to get it out of stub status, not deleted. I look beyond the current state of the article to determine notability, and I see great potential. Royalbroil 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the article from the first 15 hits that I got on google here in America. I will look at more links and continue expanding if it needed to convince people to keep this article. Royalbroil 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kumar Malavalli

Not notable - no sources - part of the article looks like an ads. -- Chris! _ct 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G12. The part of the article below the stub template is a copy of [41]. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 11:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The infringing text has only been recently added by Navadeep007 (talk · contribs); I am removing it and the speedy deletion request. - Mike Rosoft 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Article does assert notability, but badly needs editing. Edward321 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The topic meets the general notability guidelines. Google web, Google news, Google patents provides sufficient reliable source material for the article. There's plenty of other material Malavalli's new dream for India, Kumar Malavalli picks up stake in Apara Enterprise, Visionary Zeal: Kumar Malavalli, K Malavalli donates $1 m to Indian community centre, Malavalli to head InMage Systems, InMage Co-Founder Kumar Malavalli to Give Welcoming Speech at the Data Protection Summit. -- Jreferee t/c 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Lucia Chase

No sources - subject at hand not notable Chris! _ct 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: This woman appears to be a founder of American ballet (many many many google hits) - obvious notability. This would be a good topic for a much more detailed and referenced article. --Mkativerata 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - as a contributor Elmao 06:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, co-founder of the ABT, one of the foremost ballet companies of the world, is absolutely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Obviously notable figure in American ballet. Did the nominator do any research [42] [43] [44] at all before nominating this? Nick mallory 08:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "No Sources" is not a valid reason for nominating this article for deletion, particularly when sources are so readily available.--Michig 11:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:BIO and WP:N. References would be nice. --Sc straker 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kidnap and ransom insurance

sounds like an ads - no sources Chris! _ct 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Google search demonstrates this is a large industry. The page could do with much more detail and referencing, but it clearly is an appropriate subject for an article. On what basis is it suggested this looks like an advert? I cannot see anything to support that allegation. --Mkativerata 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, good non-spammy summary of a major industry segment that you thank your appropriate deity you don't have to buy. Needs sources, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Dhartung, needs sources, but this is a worthwhile topic. There's actually a Dick Francis novel describing this industry from the inside. Accounting4Taste 14:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Not to mention a recent major motion picture. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I don't have anything to add about this. BASE101() 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and WP:SNOWBALL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - SNOW I have added references, notable topic. Fosnez 08:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South ogden jets

Presumptively non-notable youth American football team, with no sources provided. A Google search found no reliable sources, just mentions on a single message board. This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Clear delete. No notability whatsoever. --Mkativerata 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (notability, sources ...) Elmao 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zane (hairstylist)

Only reference appears to be a single, human interest interview. Article full of trivia, and notability barely asserted (just enough that I wouldn't put it up for CSD). — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Clearly fails to establish notability other than being an 18-year-old hair stylist. Only hair stylists of recognition for their abilities would be notable - neither the article nor a quick google search suggest any recognition. --Mkativerata 05:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Being "most known for his presence in wildly diverse social circles" or owning a few salons isn't much of a claim of notability, even if it's true. Like Mkativerata, I was unable to uncover any additional information on this person or his salons via a Google search. --Bongwarrior 06:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment WikiProject Fashion has been apprised of this AFD in lieu of a DelSort option. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Promo without any real assertion of notability (innovative stylings, product line, prominent clients would all help, but I have a feeling we've seen what we're going to see). Daniel Case 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not have enough experience as a wikipedia user and there is not enough information or references on the article from external sources. I agree that the article does fail WP:N and I understand why it is an AFD.--D4rkljcv73 04:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boulevard Mall

Non-notable mall in New York, fails WP:RS. A search for reliable sources online found nothing of note, just another ordinary shopping mall (except for a somewhat bizarre layout). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep reliable sources are provided to demonstrate that this is a notable super-regional mall, satisfying the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 04:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. Tim Q. Wells 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Links not included in the article: [45], [46], [47], [48] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Q. Wells (talk • contribs) 04:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep referenced. Just barely notable enough to be kept. The Wikipedist 04:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. If kept, rename to Boulevard Mall (Amherst, New York) since there are other malls with this name, at least one of which is probably notable. Vegaswikian 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That other mall is the largest mall in Nevada so I agree with the name change and turning Boulevard Mall into a disambiguation page. Tim Q. Wells 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
KEEP I started this article to complete a set of the other malls in the Buffalo, NY area. I can see by the editing that others have considered it important enough to work on. It is historically one of the first malls in the area, but it has lost some status due to newer, larger malls. It has undergone renovation and enlargement several times to remain competitive. It is also a favorite for Canadian shoppers because it is relatively close to the border. My feeling about deletions is that Wikipedia seems to have articles on many trivial topics, such as every damned single ever cut, so I think that an article about a mall that services an international clientele, deserves a little space. Otherwise, I have no further interest except in keeping Wikipedia informative on every topic possible. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf 02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC).
Keep As a super-regional mall with a gross leasable area of 904,000 square feet. 'Nuff said. Edison 02:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per AlanSohn and Vegaswikian, respectively. GlassCobra (Review) 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Conditional weak keep Combination of size, age and cross-border location seem to confer a semblance of notability. However, no verifiable and reliable sources, neither in the article nor here corroborate this:

(in the article) Article subject's homepage
(by Tim Q. Wells above) Amersht Record article about restaurants in mall, not mall.
(ibid) 10best (a travelguide) gives adress of and shops in BM.
(ibid) Buffalo Business First article about valet parking (at BM)
(ibid) Coffee Beanery's homepage (establishment at BM, does not mention BM other than being its location)--Victor falk 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to be a significant regional mall that is important to its community and therefore an encyclopedic part of covering that community. Wikidemo 12:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent. Agree with other Keep comments here.139.48.81.98 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human chemistry

This seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to get publicity for a book and/or website. There are also other articles such as Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, and Human molecule, but I don't want to spam AFD with a ton of nominations. Ggreer 10:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to write an encylopedia article, and it looks like a very good effort as well. The author has cited a variety of sources, ranging back to the 1800s and up to today, and each paragraph is referenced. The article looks well researched, and the sourcing is very good, far better than the majority of articles. I see no evidence of any promotional stuff whatsoever in the article. Personally, I am skeptical of attempts to make analogies between human beings and atoms, they tend to be stretches of a theory to domains where they no longer hold, and I think this is more of a social science, rather than natural science article. Such concerns have no influence on the encylopedic validity of the subject in a general purpose encyclopedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While the articles are well-referenced, most of the references are to papers either unrelated or only tangentially related, similar to what is going on at Thermoeconomics. This user seems to be writing many articles about fringe theories related to thermodynamics. The book Human Chemistry and the websites humanchemistry.net and humanthermodynamics.com are linked to in serveral articles (Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, Georgi Gladyshev, Chemical affinity, Entropy and life), mostly authored by User:Sadi Carnot. These websites and books were created by Libb Thims. This makes make me think this character is pushing his or her pet theory. Also, this talk of applying thermodynamics to sociology/psychology comes from a fictional story called Elective Affinities. Doesn't anyone else take a look at all of this and think it's fishy? The user may be well-intentioned but many of the claims in these articles range from dubious to nonsense. Ggreer 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice that the strongly-positive review of "Human Chemistry" at Amazon is also by this Libb Thims link. I think this is connected. Tim Vickers 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep- may be eligible for B now, and GA-class a llittle improved.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Even if kept, this is not even close to B class. It is well-laid out and on the surface it looks impressive with all those sources, but the article is loaded with POV statements ("groundbreaking," "revolutionary," etc.) and other editors have called into question both the content and validity of the sources. I don't have the time right now to check on all those sources, so I'm not gonna propose keep or delete either way... but in any case, this only superficially looks like B-class, but it's nowhere close. --21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysweet (talk • contribs)

I read it ovr, and change to neutral.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Sjak Mandsford 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ per Sjak. Note that Ggreer has no edits outside this afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Change my vote to delete. The delete people have presented a good case and Ggreer seems to be willing to "walk more softly" as seen in his talk page--Lenticel ^(talk) 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: I had closed this as a non-admin closure, but due to concerns on my talk page I'm re-opening and relisting it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I believe there is notability for these concepts, but it may be better treated in one article than several that have unclear borderlines, and I suspect that article is interpersonal chemistry. I definitely think this article needs renaming at the least and rescoping at best outcome, because as is it seems to be about human biochemistry rather than a metaphor for interpersonal relations. There's something here, but how to organize it is the question. Right now there is an element of synthesis throughout that doesn't seem backed up by a comprehensive secondary source review of the material. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ following much needed improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Review of sources shows that improvements are chimerical. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Good article, and definitely not a publicity stunt. The Wikipedist 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note ~~The above account made his first edit after this AfD was listed.~~ sincere apologies - I was confused because the account was created on the same day as this AfD [49]. I should have been more careful. Sorry --TreeKittens 10:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked for disruption. Tim Vickers 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete An excellent example of gaming the system. Enormous numbers of references, mainly citing things that don't have anything to do with the article, by people that would be revolted if they were told that their work was supporting such dreck, all leading up to a misleading cite of a National Geographic article that uses the same words to mean a completely different thing, making it appear that the theory has some modern credence. Delete. Salt. Block the author from further creation. Kww 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It might now be appropriate to put a book cover right at the top of the article, but that doesn't mean the whole article needs to go. It looks like there are several books on this topic so I don't see why you think the topic is inappropriate. --Zvika 11:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I am changing my vote to delete. I am not a deletionist, but the evidence gathered in the later votes below does seem to support the appearance that this is a fringe theory. It appears that what I previously thought were reliable sources are actually misrepresented in the article and have no relation to the theory described here. I invite Sadi Carnot to point out a single peer-reviewed article which directly addresses and promotes the idea that inferences can be drawn from chemistry to human relations. Right now I see no such reference. --Zvika 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Good article. Colonel Warden 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think we should pay serious attention to the concerns expressed by User:Kww and User:Ggreer. I am not voting yet, but I am concerned that much of this article is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Observe this paragraph, for example:

In the groundbreaking fourth chapter, the characters detail the world’s first ever verbally-depicted human double displacement chemical reaction. The chapter begins with description of the affinity map (reaction map) or ‘topographical chart’ as Goethe calls it. On this reaction map, we are told that on it ‘the features of the estate and its surroundings were clearly depicted, on quite a large scale, in pen and in different colors, to which the Captain had give a firm basis by taking trigonometrical measurements’. This is equivalent, in modern times, to the use of trigonometric measurements of approach angles and topologies on free energy maps when modeling the encounter complex between two or more molecules on a receptor surface grid.

Now this is referenced to a chapter on protein binding in a book called Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics. I have not read the source, and I am assuming good faith, but I find this highly suspicious. We need some expert help here. --TreeKittens 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —TreeKittens 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - About half of this article is original research of the worst kind - semi-plausible twaddle with references that support a few of the facts, but none of the syntheses. The remainder of the article is true as it goes, but merely charts a few uses of an analogy, rather than describing a genuine field of study. This is junk. Tim Vickers 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

"One of the first to state that humans react according to free energy principles was American computational chemist David Hwang, who in his 2001 article "The Thermodynamics of Love" argued that a theoretical chemical reaction exists where two elements, male (M) and female (F), combine to form a new compound called "couple" (M-F):" - reference is to a student magazine. This is by no possible stretch of the imagination a serious scientific publication.
"In 2006, the view that love is a purely chemical reaction was so prominent that National Geographic magazine published a full cover-story article on "Love the Chemical Reaction." In this article, it is argued that to create or drive the human chemical reaction of love a "cocktail of brain chemicals", e.g. dopamine, sparks romance, but that these are different than those, such as oxytocin, that foster long-term attachment." - Article is not about regarding people as molecules, it deals with brain chemistry and neurobiology. This citation is highly misleading.

Comment. User:Sadi Carnot, the primary editor of this article claims via this link on his user page to be Libb Thims, the author of Human Chemistry which is cited as a reference in this article and others. There is also a prominent picture of this book at the top of the page. My concerns deepen, especially given Tim Vickers' analysis above. WP:COI is not grounds for deletion in my opinion, but I think we need to hear from him to see if he can help to clarify matters. I have informed him of this debate. Thanks --TreeKittens 06:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be shown that this is not a violation of WP:NOR - particularly WP:SYNTH. There seems to be no serious third-party analysis of this concept cited in the article now that the book Human Chemistry can no longer be regarded as independent. I was being overly cautious - many of the citations are misleading and I question the encyclopaedic intention of this article. Nevertheless, User:Sadi Carnot is obviously an intelligent guy, who may have many useful contributions to make to Wikipedia. --TreeKittens 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for phrasing the arguments in a way that made people listen. I do think, however, that you are being awfully kind to User:Sadi Carnot. Once a user has perpetrated such a massive intertwined piece of fraud, how can you trust any of his other contributions? All of the related articles to this one need to be deleted as well, and User:Sadi Carnot should be blocked indefinitely.Kww 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. This article is out-and-out fraud. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of Sadi Carnot continuing to contribute to Wikipedia - how can we trust him after this? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per TimVickers, as much as I like Sadi Carnot and his many excellent contributions to Wikipedia in the area of thermodynamics. This article and its siblings are great research, but it is still original research. They are advancing a thesis (that "humans behave like molecules") based on historical sources, analogies, slightly-out-of-context scientific articles, and even a newsletter article that IMO was meant as a geek joke and is taken way too seriously (similar to the famous joke on the thermodynamics of hell [50]). The thesis itself is either pseudoscience or a fascinating and potentially useful analogy, depending on one's point of view. But it is still an original thesis. --Itub 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Human Chemistry by Lib Thims (not to be confused with the 1914 title) is self-published by LuLu according to the ref, but published by Institute of Human Thermodynamics Publishing LtD here. The ISBN doesnt seem to work on WorldCat. The "institute" describes it's self as "...a leading international professional body and learned society with over 75 members, which promotes the advancement and dissemination of a knowledge of and education in the science of human thermodynamics, pure and applied." It was founded by... Lib Thims. It issued this rather interesting press release about the book. The press release quotes Georgi Gladyshev as saying "(Thims) brilliant book symbolizes the beginning of a new era (epoch) in human history." The article Georgi Gladyshev was created by... User:Sadi Carnot and cites...Human Chemistry by Lib Thims. Now I don't want to read too much into this - it could be perfectly innocent - but I think some kind of investigation is needed. --TreeKittens 09:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep in spite of the COI, but rewrite rather drastically. Possibly the book which is the present focus of the article might not be in the revised article at all, considering it isnt even in OCLC as checked in several different ways as well as ISBN, which is sometime wrong. --but perhaps it only exists as a book jacket at this time. Gladyshev is real --and notable--enough, but his relevance to the present topic may not be. -DGG —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 10:52, 8 October 2007

Note: the paperback versions were published Sep 13 and the hardcover versions Sep 24, i.e. about two weeks ago, but they are available in Amazon, as well as via ISBN search at BookFinder4U: (Volume One), (Volume Two) at about 35 book stores around the world. From what I have been told, it takes 6-8 weeks for ISBN numbers to enter all the various databases. In any event, this is not the first book on human chemistry, as mentioned below (it was Fairburn in 1914). As for Gladyshev not being relevant, he is a strong proponent of the subject of both human chemistry and the human molecule, see the following article (pg. 107):

Gladyshev G. P. (2006). "The Principle of Substance Stability is Applicable to all Levels of Organization of Living Matter" [PDF], Int. J. Mol. Sci., 7, 98-110 - International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IJMS) (ISSN: 1422-0067 Online; ISSN: 1424-6783).

as well as here:

Thermodynamics: General Theory of the Existence (2007) (English) (Russian), International Academy of Creative Endeavors.

Also, Gladyshev will be lecturing on his theory of hierarchical thermodynamics, human chemistry, and human molecule concepts at the 15th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine (Las Vegas) this December:

Gladyshev, Georgi, P. (2007). The invited and guest speakers. The lecture: "Hierarchical thermodynamics – general theory of existence and living world development: model of aging and anti-aging quality of foods and medicines." The 15th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies, held at the Venetian Hotel, Las Vegas, NV on December 12-15, 2007. American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.

He also lectured on human chemistry at the 2006 American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine conference in Chicago. I hope this helps? --Sadi Carnot 13:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG, with the greatest respect, from which reliable third-party sources should we rewrite the article? I also strongly suggest you take another detailed look at the sources for Georgi Gladyshev - but I agree they look impressive. Anyway the claimed quote I mentioned is in a press release by the author himself - not the article - and seems to me to be based only on this user-submitted comment on the sale website of the vanity publisher which publishes the book. --TreeKittens 11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep: I am obviously well aware of conflict of interest, being that I recently published a 824-page, two-volume book on human chemistry, but since when does that preclude me from writing up a short overview of the topic, in terms of what others have done, who originated the subject, who wrote the first book on human chemistry, etc. In other words, I wrote a short history on the topic, not at all referring to my own work, except for one or two sentences, with references, to tie the article together. In short, Johann von Goethe originated the subject, see, for example, Adler, Jeremy, ‘Goethe’s Use of Chemical Theory in His Elective Affinities,’ in Romanticism and the Sciences, ed. A. Cunningham and N. Jardin (Cambridge University Press, 1990), and William Fairburn wrote the first book on it. I wrote the overview article presenting their views (among others), not my own. --Sadi Carnot 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

* Keep. Fine article, and worth having. • Lawrence Cohen 13:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Update Per the changes that have gone through, stubbify this radically. I think there is still a germ of an article here, fake science, junk science or not, that would be just notable enough. But what has been revealed as the current sham of an article needs to go away and start over with lots of supervision. • Lawrence Cohen 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Database results

PubMed search for "Human chemistry" - Phrase not found

Google scholar search for "Human chemistry" - 1,820 results with subjects ranging from metalloprotein structure to viruses. But none I can see that deal with this subject.

ISI Web of Knowledge search for "Human chemistry" - Phrase not found

PubMed central search for "Human chemistry" - Phrase not found

JSTOR search for "Human chemistry" - 20 hits, none dealing with this subject.

This is original research. It is not a real subject. Tim Vickers 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Tim, you are trying to confound unrelated subjects, i.e. biochemistry or medicinal chemistry and human chemistry, together to disparage this article. It obviously appears to be a subject to Goethe (1809), Fairburn (1914), C.G. Darwin (1952), Gladyshev (1978), or in recent times, the conception that humans are molecules that react and evolve together has been professed by Venezuelan chemical engineer Erich Müller, with his human molecular thermodynamics (for which he was interviewed in the newspaper for), or more recently, e.g. physicists Ingo Müller and Wolf Weiss with their 2005 book Entropy and Energy – a Universal Competition (ch 20 “Socio-thermodynamics: integration and segregation in a population), or in Ingo Müller 2007 book A History of Thermodynamics, which covers the history of the views of socio-thermodynamics, i.e. the thermodynamics of the reactions between human molecules, as well as many others. In sum, in 1914 American naval engineer William Fairburn has published a full book on human chemistry; hence it is a subject. --Sadi Carnot 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to confound unrelated subjects is exactly what this article attempts to do. Why else would it cite a National Geographic article about neurochemistry and dopamine/oxytocin as an example of "Human chemistry", in article that actually states specifically in the introduction that "This analogy of an "interpersonal chemistry" should be distinguished from discussion of actual biochemistry involved in human bonding,". I am in no mood to mince words and try to be polite about this. The article is in my opinion deliberately written to mislead and is one of the worst examples of original research posing as genuine science I have seen. Tim Vickers 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, while I understand that you disagree with the premise and theory of this article, but it is a published view with books and references going back to 1809. --Sadi Carnot 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It is at best pseudoscience, and, by being at the extreme fringes of kookery, completely undeserving of five articles. Perhaps footnotes under Pseudoscience, Fraud, and Crank (person). Kww 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Commment, specifically regarding Müller and this link referenced in Human molecule: [51] This is again a perfect example of taking an analogy someone else made way too seriously, and indeed more seriously than the author himself. Pay attention to this quote: 'Dr Müller hopes his analogies will not be taken too seriously: "Obviously people are much more complicated than molecules—cartoon science is just a way to help someone understand something. One molecule may form strong bonds to another of the same type but I would hope that your decision to marry would be a little more complex than that!"'. This is just a case of a professor using entertaining analogies to keep his students awake and to help them visualize the material better. Professors do that all the time. I have taught organic chemistry and used metaphors of atoms fighting one another over who gets to be bonded during a substitution reaction, complete with a dialog between the atoms. Does that mean that I'm postulating a theory that atoms behave like people? Nope. Just trying to get the attention of the students! I give this just as an example of how these articles take ideas out of context. And then saying that this "science" was founded by Goethe when he wrote a work of fiction! That frankly doesn't make any sense. --Itub 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Itub, Muller seems to have taken the subject seriously enough to write a 1998 article, i.e. Human Societies – a curious application of thermodynamics, in the journal of Chemical Engineering Education. --Sadi Carnot 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In that article Muller describes the idea as a "loose analogy" and that these ideas are "basically similes" - this is NOT a scientific theory as this article claims. Tim Vickers 16:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Most of the article seems to be original research compiling the various studies or sources into some sort of essay type article. As Tim mentions, Nothing of this phrase "Human Chemistry" is mentioned on pubmed or google scholar. This article is a hodgepodge of various pseudo scientific theories which, when added together, would equal Original research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a vanity article by Sadi Carnot meant as a self-promotion for the book. There are other articles where worthwhile content can be kept (such as interpersonal chemistry). Because of the self-promotionalism, I argue for a complete deletion with no prejudice towards recreating a disambiguation or a redirect to interpersonal chemistry. ScienceApologist 16:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. I must concur with Tim Vickers on this. The sources are being misrepresented and too much of the authors own work is being used as a source. I can't even lay my hands on a copy of the book, so verifying the content of the book isn't possible, which isn't great. Nick 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as above~~, or chop down massively to stub and rebuild if the topic can be shown to be a genuine one, and~~ Tim Vickers' searches quoted above lead me to believe that ~~it isn't~~ this is not a genuine topic. I am also concerned about Sadi Carnot's activities, as described above regarding misleading compilation of unrelated sources, and support the imposition of a ban. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edited above comment.] -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Inflate Gibbs free energy contribution of this article to +∞ and sit back and watch. Any content which is not original research, promovertisements, or peotic metaphorical whimsy can be added to interpersonal chemistry at one's discretion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have just spent some time breaking up the walled garden of links that Sadi Carnot has been building for his articles, and have removed them from Interpersonal chemistry, William Armstrong Fairburn, Elective Affinities, Chemistry (disambiguation), Charles Galton Darwin, Georgi Gladyshev and even Love, where he'd added the cover of his book. I see that Kww has already edited human molecule down to the basics; if this article is deleted, that should also be (along with several redirects - check "what links here" on both). -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Libb Thims claims to be user:Sadi Carnot and this article is an advertisement for Thims' book. --Kkmurray 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Fix it! I think that there is definitely a lot of grey area here and that the best way to proceed is to meet some middle ground. Human chemistry and human molecule appear to be relatively new terms and thus special care must be taken not to define the term beyond what is currently out there. I think that Sadi Carnot may have crossed the line by putting too much of his analysis into the page without revealing it. Also the prominent placement of his book cover could be interpreted to be promotional. My suggestion are:

~~1. Merge Human molecule into human chemistry.~~

~~2. Provide a very basic definition of the human chemistry at the top revealing the fact that it is a relatively new area of study (even if the terms have been used in the past).~~

~~3. Summarize Goethe, Fairburn, and C.G. Darwin's usage of the term to remove any analysis of Thims.~~

~~4. Add another section to summarize Libb Thims ideas based on his published work.~~

~~5. Remove book cover.~~

I would like to assume good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot. He has obviously spent a lot of time studying the concepts, but I think that he needs to clearly reveal what new ideas and analysis he has contributed to the area. It just makes sense to take credit for your work! Perhaps Sadi Carnot could take some of the steps I suggested. I believe that they would address most of the concerns that have raised. M stone 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that assuming good faith in this case is ridiculous. Such a massive piece of fraud cannot be perpetrated in good faith. One outcome of this discussion should be an indefinite block on [[[User:Sadi Carnot]]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I confess to being completely out of my depth here, but I am going to make a bold statement: Someone is being taken for a ride here. I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia. Can someone who is familiar with analysing web links please look into the websites of this "International Academy of Creative Endeavors" and its claimed relationship to the Russian Academy of Science as well as some of the links above just to be sure? This Gladyshev chap - its president - is credited with making the following claim in this article: "Diets including evolutionary young animal and vegetable foods stimulate longevity and improve the quality of human life. The degree of evolutionary youth of a food product is determined by its chemical composition and supramolecular structure. The chemical composition and supramolecular structure of a product depend, in their turn, on its ontogenetic and phylogenetic ages. An important quantitative measure of the gerontological efficiency of a food product is the Gibbs function of supramolecular structure formation, which characterizes the thermodynamic stability of its supramolecular structure." If this is peer-reviewed science (which it may be) I am just going to give up and live under the sea, but this is exactly why we amateurs have to rely on secondary sources. It should also be noted that Thims' self-published book references many of the wikipedia articles he has created. preview. OK, maybe I am ignorant or paranoid, but this reminds me of the Sokal Affair. --TreeKittens 06:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Note also that humanthermodynamics.com also hosts the Journal of Human Thermodynamics which is run by Lib Thims and publishes his own work and that attributed to Georgi Gladyshev amongst others. The same domain also lists the books of these and other authors here. The website of the "International Academy of Creative Endeavors" prominently refers to the article in this journal in a manner which stands out from Gladyshevs' many other publications in other journals. link. Additionally, this page on the same site has a picture of Lib Thims' book, but possibly an earlier version and is layed out in a style which is... familiar. It also links to some of the wikipedia articles Thims has edited. I find the prominent display of a self-published, newly published work like this very strange on the website of an "International Institute" presided over by a 71-year-old soviet professor. I think these websites may be related in some way. Maybe I am just mad. I confess to being completely new to this kind of enquiry but I feel I should air these possibilities. --TreeKittens 12:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Very strong delete; what little bits of this article that aren't synthesis or hyperbole are dubious at best. I've looked through every single "reference", and those that aren't completely unrelated (or even flat out contradictory) are either in COI or not reliable. The author is being either severely misguided or gaming the system. — Coren ^(talk) 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment; I tried. I really tried to evaluate the article on its own merit (hence the delete above) but this is Time Cube-grade stuff. Only without the notability. Salt this and related articles, please. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - OR totally unsupported by references. Keeping crank stuff like this makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia project. Bigdaddy1981 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus update

I really think this entire situation is very ridiculous, both human chemistry (Goethe, 1809) and human molecule (C.G. Darwin, 1952) are not my views, they are historical concepts. To prove this, going on the deletion suggestions, I will merge human molecule to human chemistry, add a few new book references (to the works of others), and splice out references to my work to a “further reading” section. I hope this clarifies my intentions. --Sadi Carnot 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(Consensus update? Whose consensus?) Your intentions are quite clear. Do not add any references to your work to Wikipedia. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 08:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the suggestions of M stone, sjak, DGG, kfc, mansford, Zvika, Colonel, Wikipedist, among others, for which I count 12 keep or fix, 1 neutral, and 9 delete, I have completed the merge and removed the two books on human chemistry to a further reading section. The article now has 53 references (verses the 23 previous), none of which are my own except one reference related to the function of elements in the chemical formula for a human, and it is now a stand-alone article, none of which is based on my theories. --Sadi Carnot 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Most of the keep comments don't have any reason other that "it is a good article", "has many references", or "per someone else", while failing to address the concerns given by others. Namely, that this is "not a real subject" and that the references have been used misleadingly to give the impression that it is. No amount of rewriting can save an article on a topic that is not notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

Just from a quick look I found two more references that have been abused. The article says "Central to this process is the supposition of the existence of a human chemical bond, "A≡B", that can be quantified by terms such as bond energy, bond length, and bond strength.[7][8][9][10]" I looked at refs. 9 and 10, the ones I could access ([52] and [53]) and they absolutely make no such claim. They actually talk about biochemistry, hormones, and such, which is a legitimate subject, but they never say that "human chemical bonds" can be quantified with bond energies and such.

Every single reference I have been able to verify suffers from these kind of problems. I haven't been able to look at Darwin's and Fairburn's, but given the precedent, I suspect that they have been cited misleadingly as well. Sure, Fairburn wrote a book titled Human Chemistry, but that doesn't make it a notable subject, and certainly not a science. All the connections between the primary sources are your own, which is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. If it were a "real subject", you wouldn't need to base your assertion that it is on works of fiction and historical texts. --Itub 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Itub, I’ve added 55 references to this article. Every reference is accurate and none of them are my own. The Miller and Rodgers reference, i.e. the 2001 book Ontogeny of Human Bonding Systems, discusses bond energy, “bonding effort”, “dyadic bonds”, among others, and refers to John Bowlby’s theories of variation in spatial proximity in attachment bonds, as in bond length. Thank-you: --Sadi Carnot 11:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who's making the inference that what he calls "bonding effort" somehow has something to do with the bond energy of the chemical bond, and that theories of variation in spatial proximity in attachment bond somehow have something to do with bond lengths. From what I've been able to read of this book (it's on Google books), it doesn't use chemical terms at all. Again, this is a metaphor or an analogy gone out of control, combined with a creative use of citations. --Itub 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged some of the unreliable references with the "fact" template and some of the obviously incorrect assertions and interpretations with "dubious". However the basic problem remains, some of the sources use this phrase as a metaphor, some of the sources are on related subjects and do not use this phrase at all, and some of the references are on completely unrelated subjects. It's like writing a article on "animal magnetism" with a mix of novels, joke articles and physics papers on real magnetism. "Human chemistry" is just not a scientific theory - it's an analogy at best. Tim Vickers 15:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify what I think a "fixed" article would look like. It would be significantly shorter. Perhaps about one quarter the current length. No Overview. No Precursory concepts. No 21st century applications. It is important that Thims analysis of other works that use the term, must be removed even if they are supported by a reference! Restrict discussion to how term was used, but not what it meant. M stone 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that not all sources use the same words, so how do you decide if it is the same "term" or not? Also, if you go all the way to showing how a term is used without saying what it means, you would be turning the article into a collection of quotations, which Wikipedia is not. Also, collecting primary sources of the use of a term goes against WP:NEO. The only way I see that some of this be reasonably kept would be by turning it into an article about the (old) book with the same title. The question would be whether that the book is notable enough. --Itub 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

its not the term that the article should be written about, but the concept. The idea of describing human interactions in these terms is notable, going back at least to Goethe's novel Elective Affinities . I see it as a metaphor--perhaps someone does take it more literally, and if so that should also be discussed. The book used at the lede image is very certainly not notable. I'm not sure the old books are notable either individually, but Human chemistry seems like a reasonable title for the concept. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget interpersonal chemistry. That article also contains copy and pasted chunks of the same original research synthesis by Sadi Carnot. It's a better title, but needs the editor's machete taken to it (which I may well do myself). -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just done that (and more besides) but these articles are still a mess. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article seems to be a synthesis of not notable references that are about the subject, joke references that are taken seriously and off-topic subjects that appear related but are not all brought together to form a original thesis (not counting the the article creator's recently published book). I had an impression of Sadi Carnot as being a good editor and find it disturbing that he would so completely misunderstand WP rules. Perhaps he understands them well enough to game the system. Many of the references are good references for closely related subjects such as the neurochemistry of love etc. There are sections of interpersonal chemistry that we need to keep. There may also be some place for brief mention of the various attempts to apply chemical theory to interpersonal relations within the context of the methaphorical use of the word chemistry to describe love. Such as "Various people have taken this metaphorical relation seriously and tried to apply various chemical theories to interpersonal relations but never to much success.ref ref ref ref--Nick Y. 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am more skeptical of this page now since I found a promotional page where Thims is featuring links to the wikipedias articles that he wrote (Thims' Storefront - Lulu.com). His book “Human chemistry” was self-published through Lulu.com which would seem to violate the Wikipedia self-published source policy for third party sources. He also promoted the page through the Wikipedia:Did_you_know feature on the main page. Based on this information I am no longer assuming good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot. :( M stone 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I just noticed the wonderfully ironic quote mentioned above that is in one of the references used to try to support the idea of "Müller's human molecular thermodynamics" It states:

"Dr Müller hopes his analogies will not be taken too seriously: "Obviously people are much more complicated than molecules—cartoon science is just a way to help someone understand something.link"

Curiouser and curiouser... many of the quoted testimonials on humanthermodynamics.com are attributed to Wikipedia editors, and link to their user pages. link. I find this guy hilarious. --TreeKittens 01:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete

As I am the author of both articles, I am putting speedy tags on both human chemistry and human molecule. --Sadi Carnot 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7 does not apply here. It requires "the page's only substantial content was added by its author." The pages in question have multiple authors. --Kkmurray 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is silly, we all agree that this needs to be deleted, but if we apply the policies strictly we can't do it? Let me sort this out. Give me half an hour. Tim Vickers 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remember to put an indefinite block on Sadi Carnot while you are at it. Deleting the article is of small importance compared to deleting the author.Kww 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete: I am the sole editor, no content (other than deletions or typos) has been added, other than by me, hence CSD G7 applies. --Sadi Carnot 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ülker

Fails WP:CORP. No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep A google search demonstrates substantial independent coverage. It is a large multinational corporation. The article needs to be expanded upon to reflect this, so I will put a stub. --Mkativerata 03:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article needs to make the assertion and not Goggle. Vegaswikian 03:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment So we amend the article, not delete it, where the notability is so obvious. --Mkativerata 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep After reviewing the company web page and several articles in independent media I can see that this company is one of the larger if not largest independent consumer food manufacturing multi-nationals in the Middle East. I agree with Mkativerata that the article is currently only stub class, and the company is worthy of notice. The article should be kept and then expanded with the pertinent facts and information. - Jeremy (Jerem43 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Keep. Major Turkish company. --Lambiam 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep . Even we in Hungary have Ülker products on the shelves. One of the major Turkish food companies. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Major Turkish company, even a natural monopoly in its sector. Highly internationally active. Sponsor of Turkish sports giants. See this as well, the European Kettle award winner, $3 billion sales in 2006 ... Needs expansion. Deniz^T_C 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it is a major corporation but the article does need work.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The company looks notable and the article is new. Let's give a chance for the authors to improve the article and assert notability. Pocopocopocopoco 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a major corporation. —Insanely Beautiful 07:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have xpanded a bit and added references. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 11:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines and that the article Reflexive Arcade should be redirected to Reflexive Entertainment. -- Jreferee t/c 19:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reflexive Arcade

Does not assert meeting WP:CORP and fails WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or redirect to Reflexive Entertainment; being a publisher of a number of (independently reviewed) games is a claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge BASE101() 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Reflexive Entertainment what little can be. D. Brodale 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Reflexive Entertainment certainly seems like the thing to do here. Marasmusine 08:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines, but needs clean-up. The title is incomplete since the reliable source material call it Mid Europa Partners. I tagged the article for clean-up and moved the article to Mid Europa Partners to better assist others to locate the article and improve it.-- Jreferee t/c 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mid Europa

Article does not assert that it meets WP:CORP. Also has WP:V and WP:RS issues. Vegaswikian 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The Wikipedist 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep A quick Google search reports back over 66,000 hits. The article looks decently well-written, just needs some sources. GlassCobra (Review) 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly how does it meet WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS? Vegaswikian 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep these mostly look like reliable sources... lots of news coverage. --W.marsh 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-RPG System

Fails ~~WP:FICT~~ WP:BK and maybe a copyright violation since most of the page is a quote pulled from the defunct RPGBlog.net. As good faith I've merged that text block in to the article Ironwood Omnimedia which I have previously tagged for several citing issues. Torchwood Who? 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:BK is a more appropriate guideline than WP:FICT, as this is certainly factual. A game system is not "in universe" by any stretch. --Dhartung | Talk 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I agree and have changed the grounds. --Torchwood Who? 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you disagree with there being entries for Ironwood Omnimedia Company; they are rather popular in circles here in Central Florida, also in Iowa. I am not affiliated with IOC nor have I ever been, I just love the system since I tried the free version and decided that there should be information out there for others researching it. IOC was nominated for several Ennies and, according to one of the judges "E-RPG is one that fell victim to that lack of theme for this category"; as he recognized that the books are solid but being universal hurt them in the running. --James Alderman 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

comment I don't have an issue with Ironwood Omnimedia Company entries that can prove notability, as I stated in the deletion nomination I even went so far as to move the quote block about E-RPG to the main Ironwood Article, however there are several redirects to the E-RPG system and E-RPG itself has little to no significant coverage in the media. I've asked the community to help imrprove the main Ironwood article here [54] just prior to my noms. As for the Ruel Knudson nom... he's not notable in any way other than as associated with Ironwood and as such should not have his own article. If the main Ironwood article, which still has multiple issues, can be salvaged in the near future I'll have no issue with it and won't support deletion of it. I'm also skeptical of the fact that you have no association with the company as the ONLY contributions you've made to wikipedia are the creation of Ironwood articles. If you would like to attempt to prove the notability of the E-RPG system or the Ruel Knudson article, please provide reliable third-party sources to support your research. For example, where can we see the quote from the Ennie judge listed in print by a source not related to Ironwood?--Torchwood Who? 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

follow up I've noticed the Ennie judge blog link and would like to quote it here for the sake of the debate,

"E-RPG is one that fell victim to that lack of theme for this category that I spoke of earlier. Mechanics and writing aside, it's very straight forward and to the point, not allowing much room for things like art and layout concerns. That doesn't make it a bad book, but it can hurt it when stacked up against some of the other great entires."

This quote noted by James Alderman clearly implies that E-RPG couldn't hold up to other books in the category, a category for which it was NOT nominated at this year's Ennie awards. For James Alderman, I can only find references that show E-Rpg was nominated in one single, non-juried category at the Ennies and did not place. This also seems to be the first and only nomination for such an award. I'm not saying that E-rpg isn't a fun system to use (I don't know, I'm not really a gamer) but I am saying that it's just not notable enough right now to make the cut. Maybe it will be in future, but I just don't see it yet.--Torchwood Who? 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Failing to win an Ennie isn't a sign of notability. Percy Snoodle 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game related fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Percy Snoodle. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Torchwood Who? 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The Wikipedist 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Apparently, this game is presently not notable. Were it to win a notable award, or to be covered by independent sources, it will well deserve an article. Goochelaar 14:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headplay

The article reads like a brochure and has not given grounds for notability within wikipedia. I always have trouble with non notable companies making articles for there own products for cheap google indexing. UnlimitedAccess 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. WP:COI? The Wikipedist 04:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, due to no assertion of notability, and the strong flavour of spam. Goochelaar 14:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Again, no assertion of notability, and also per this. While checking the revision history, I noticed that the first revision included a {{hangon}} left in probably by mistake when the user recreated the deleted page. I would tag it for G4, if it wasn't so substantially edited by the singular editor. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. Clean-up, COI, and advertising not reaching blatant advertisement level are not a basis for deleting. -- Jreferee t/c 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School of information studies

Pretty clear advertising, written by single-purpose account, a non-notable sub-school of Syracuse, which already has a pretty substantial article. Deltopia 02:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a likely violation of WP:COI. The Wikipedist 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless established that there is too much good material to be included in the current subsection in the Syracuse article.--SarekOfVulcan 05:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, advertorial content and the title is generic (there are many similarly named departments in colleges and universities). Cruftbane 10:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. As the article says, rated no 1 in the US by USN&WR, Schools, as distinct from departments, of major universities are notable. and this one really is notable-- may be the highest ranking one in the world, not just the US. Even if it were a department, one at that rank would be notable. If any library school is notable, they are. I promise to rewrite the article appropriately. There will be many references for their programs--and notability--, especially since they were among the first to offer distance education in the subject. As for the title, it just has to be made distinctive, we dont delete for that. And we dont delete for COI, we scrutinize & rewrite. Didn't anyone actually read the article to see the notability, or just judge by the way it looks?. By the way, the nom forgot to notify the author-- but I just did. He obviously needs some advice--and I just gave it in no uncertain terms. DGG (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per DGG, but I hope progress can be made soon. It looks like it could use help from the Intensive Care Unit. Ichormosquito 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, as the "Forewords by Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi to Irwin Stone's* "The Healing Factor"", and the sources cited in this comment by Thomjakobsen are sufficient to establish the notability of this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin Stone

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Irwin Stone

Delete: Per WP:PROF, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:BIO.

WP:PROF: A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no only a handful of publications in minor alt med journals, and a Google Scholar search yields only one communication (not even a full article) in "Amer. J. Phys".

WP:V: The article's citations are to Stone's own book and to sources on "http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/", which is evidently someone's homepage. Even this site only has four articles or so by Stone, none in major, peer-reviewed journals.
WP:PROF: The standard of "this academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. Indeed, Irwin Stone is less notable than the average college instructor as he has no publications in notable journals, only a few publications in non-notable ones, and only self-published references.
WP:FRINGE: And I quote, In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication. Minor publication in a small Alt Med journal and self-published books hardly count as extensive, serious, or major.
Per WP:BIO: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article.
Note that this nomination simply follows the precedent established in the Fred Klenner AfD, the Thomas Levy AfD, and the Robert Cathcart AfD. Though the orthomolecular community may wish to preserve pages on their idols, it does not preclude the requirement to meet WP:BIO.

Djma12 ^(talk) 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This claim, already once amended [55] to the detriment of nominator's claim, simply is not true, and is the THIRD time the nominator misrepresents what has been published. He / she has gone from asserting that A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no publications to A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates only a handful of publications in minor alt med journals. This despite the fact that the journals listed at pubmed include Med J Aust, Australas Nurses J, and Science (though the Irwin Stone in question would have been 23 at the time of the Science article. None of these 3 are "minor alt med journals."

I believe the Science article you refer to is this paper. If you will read the article, this is obviously not the same Irwin Stone as the one in AfD. Please do not misrepresent papers for the purposes of inventing notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The nominator then continues and a Google Scholar search [for "Stone I"] yields only one communication (not even a full article) in "Amer. J. Phys". My attempt to search for "Stone I" yields 6510 hits; a search for "Irwin Stone" comes up with 119 hits, including Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, and others. When a contributor with a doctorate and an unmistakable agenda misrepresents the publications on pubmed and google scholar four times, I do believe it smacks of vandalism.--Alterrabe 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the vast majority of the pubmed and Google scholar hits on "Stone I" are obviously not to the Irwin Stone under AfD. (Unless he had a second life in anthropology, general relativity, and medical economics that was not otherwise in his article.) It is dishonest to claim "6510 hits" without any clarification on which ones are actually relevant. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is perhaps an oversight but not intentional dishonesty as he simply reported the number of hits. On the other hand, you initially said that there were no hits, and have now edited the AfD rationale leaving no evidence that this claim ever existed. As the comments made here were in response to your original rationale, you should restore the original claim and add a supplementary correction. Drawing attention to good-faith mistakes in another editor's comment and labelling it "dishonest" while making cover-up revisions to your own comments is considered very bad practice. Thomjakobsen 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have included the original as well. However, I also grow weary of all these accusations of "smack(ing) of vandalism" just b/c Irwin Stone's minor publications are so difficult to pull up. Of the 6510 hits, mostly by completely unrelated authors, I overlooked three papers from such gems as Australas Nurses J. I'd appreciate some WP:AGF as well. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, per WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT, the burden of proof does not lie upon me, the challenging editor, to establish notability. If any of the participating editors have major, independent mainstream publications that directly address Irwin Stone (not orthomolecular medicine), please feel free to contribute. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Pocopocopocopoco 02:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per nom. Though certainly there are links to the article that prove that the article's content is likely factual (See here), that's not enough to prove notability. The Wikipedist 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry guys but just because he is not well-known does not make him non-notable.. How many articles in his particular field? Not many.. Does that make his field less notable? He had someone write an article about him in a journal of his field, so that means that his peers in his field felt he contributed to his field.Callelinea 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just b/c a person or a theory is not widely known does not make it non-notable. However, by the criteria of WP:FRINGE, there must be at least ONE mainstream reference. (Even negative references count to establish notability.) Furthermore, the requirement of WP:PROF is that independent academics verify his notability. Having a tribute posted by an unknown doctor on someone's homepagehardly counts as an independent or serious citation.

Strong Keep Very notable for being the originator of Vitamin C megadosage. Number of papers published is not a relevant criterion because he was not an academic but a research scientist for a commercial company. Colonel Warden 11:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? This article is heavy on claims and scarce on citations. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The reason that there aren't many other papers in this 'field' is that this is medically dubious and bordering on psuedoscience. There is precious little evidence that massive doses of Vitamin C are good for anything other than the profits of vitamin pill firms. Nick mallory 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep If it's true that he introduced the concept of Vitamin C megadosage to Linus Pauling, then he's notable on the grounds of his role in that highly controversial movement, rather than the usual WP:PROF criteria (besides, it seems he was a research chemist for a company, not an academic). WP:FRINGE doesn't apply because of the amount of criticism generated against that movement in mainstream sources. Megavitamin therapy, if accurate, suggests not that he was the originator of Vit. C megadosage (that happened in the 30s and 40s) but that he made a historical contribution to that field. And a contribution to a notable field does confer notability, regardless of how pseudoscientific that field is now regarded. Thomjakobsen 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Albert Szent-Gyorgi, who won a Nobel prize for his work isolating Vitamin C, writes in a foreword: "I think that mankind owes serious thanks to Irwin Stone for having kept the problem alive and having called Linus Pauling's attention to it." Various sources say that Pauling credited Stone with sparking his interest in Vitamin C; presumably, that's sourceable from one of Pauling's books. Also, it appears he was the first person to obtain patents on the use of Vitamin C as a food preservative — assuming that's true (results of a patent search), it's another claim to notability. Thomjakobsen 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see above criteria per WP:BIO. Notability by association is not a valid criterion.Djma12 ^(talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming "notability by association". I'm pointing out that notable figures publically acknowledge his influence on their work, which is an entirely different thing (in terms of notability) to being a mere associate or friend or family member. Here's a good source for it too — Linus Pauling writes that he and his wife first started taking large quantities of Vitamin C as the result of a letter from Stone, that Stone first pointed it out as a protection against the common cold. In other words, he played a key role in the controversy. Thomjakobsen 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PROF, Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page.

I appreciate the point that Stone introduces Pauling to Vitaminc C. However, the argument is still essentially "Stone is notable b/c he introduced Pauling to Vitamin C. Pauling is definitely notable therefore Stone is notable." All this establishes is that Stone might be worthy of note within the Pauling article, but does not establish notability for a standalone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djma12 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He was not an academic, he was a commercial research chemist and author, so WP:PROF does not apply. And your summary is a misrepresentation of the points I've made. In short: (1) Stone is notable for being the first to exploit Vitamin C as a means of food preservation, for which he held patents in the 1930s. This alone is a significant claim of notability. (2) Stone is notable within the controversial megavitamin movement for his observation that Vitamin C was produced naturally in large quantities in animals, and suggested that humans ingest similar quantities in order to make up for a supposed evolutionary loss of this capability. This is one of the key "theories" behind that movement. (3) Stone is recognized by two Nobel Laureates for his contribution to that movement, which again is a significant claim to notability. (4) Stone is recognized not just for introducing Pauling to Vitamin C, but for coming up with the idea that Pauling would go on to popularize, namely that huge doses of Vitamin C give protection from the common cold. This is not mere "notability by association": examples of that would include "Joe Schmoe is the brother of (famous person)" or "Band X once played as support act for (huge band)". Also note that are three separate claims here: the industrial use of VC, the theory based on animal physiology, and the common-cold idea that sparked Pauling's involvement. Only the last one would belong in the Pauling bio, the second one is used in Megavitamin therapy, and the first is in Vitamin C. So "it's better off merged into Pauling's article" is off the mark, because he's already spread among at least three separate articles. Thomjakobsen 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He was a biochemist whose notability is based upon his research and theories. That places him under WP:PROF, regardless of whether the research was under academia or not. For Point #1, where is the citation that he was "the first to exploit Vitamin C as a means of food preservation"? The only citation included is to a general search in the US Patent Office without any actual text. For Point #2, where is the citation again? Furthermore, where is the recognition within at least one mainstream journal per WP:FRINGE? For Point #3 and #4, again per WP:FRINGE, where is the mainstream notability? Even negative notability counts, but is conspiciously absent. Having a book forward in a self-publication, even one written by Nobel laureates, hardly counts as mainstream notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't fall under WP:PROF: the guidelines there are very narrowly worded because they were written specifically to solve the problem of, "We have lots of articles on academics whose only claim to notability is that they are professors. How do we distinguish a notable professor from a non-notable one?" It was never intended to be stretched to cover people outside the academic mainstream who deal in "research and theories", because their existing outside that mainstream means that the criteria of journal papers, citations and widely-used textbooks — useful in gauging the impact of a mainstream prof — are inappropriate.

Similarly, WP:FRINGE applies to theories, not people — the megavitamin theories have received lots of negative mainstream attention, partly due to Pauling's involvement, and they are responsible for a sizeable industry with products on the shelves of virtually every supermarket in the developed world.

As for lack of citations: the references could certainly be improved but unless you have reason to suspect they're false, or have better sources contradicting them, it's not a deletion issue. The "first patents..." claim is made in the tribute article, and are backed up by the results of the patent search (you can read them by clicking on the patent numbers), so unless there's a counterclaim of an earlier patent we have no reason to doubt that source (the window is short: Szent-Gyorgyi made his discoveries in 1932 and Stone's patents were filed in 1935). Pauling can be considered a reliable source on the issue of where he got the common-cold idea from, and the "orthomolecular" publications can be considered as sources for his notability within that movement. Note the qualifications on these last two points: the scope of the claim being backed up determines how "mainstream" the source has to be in order for it to be considered reliable. Mein Kampf is not a reliable source on Jewish culture, but it is a reliable source for Hitler's views as of 1925. Thomjakobsen 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi both wrote a forward to Stone's 1972 book "The Healing Factor". That is two chemistry Nobel Laureates noted his work and endorsed it. This alone surely meets Wikipedia's criteria. Note this extract from the book is hosted at the University of Washington which is also evidence of notability. Lumos3 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, per WP:BIO: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, to clarify, the extract is not hosted by the University of Washington, but on someone's homepage at the University of Washington. For all I know, this could be your homepage. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

True, being hosted under a UW domain isn't really significant, but the fact that Pauling and Szent-Gyorgyi wrote the foreword is verifiable in case that's an issue. Thomjakobsen 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of his actual scientific work. . His basic genetic work on vitamin C is almost certainly respectable--His review HYPOASCORBEMIA GENETIC DISEASE CAUSING HUMAN REQUIREMENT FOR EXOGENOUS ASCORBIC ACID in PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 10 (1): 133& 1966 has been cited 33 times That he got involved with Pauling's notable eccentricity is another matter, but he was in fact one of the major orthodox scientific supports for that theory. Having a forward to ones book written by a famous author is not necessarily significant., but that Szent-Gyorgyi supported his work as well as Pauling shows respectability. Szent-Gyorgyi has his peculiarities, but he did discover the metabolic role of Vitamin C, and a great deal else. He counts as an orthodox authority on that subject. DGG (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. More and more I fear these nominations are in bad faith. The nominator states "A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no publications" yet searching for "Stone I[author] AND ascorbic" comes up with 13. The nominator also states "a Google Scholar search yields only one communication (not even a full article)" yet searching on "Irwin Stone" comes up with 115 hits. Espresso Addict 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The nominator wrote:A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no publications, when in fact, a pubmed search for "Stone I" turns up at least 7 publications by an "Stone I" with ascorbate, Stone's area of expertise, in the title. Whatever the intent, this erroneous assertion about medline is part of a very regrettable pattern of behavior. In a previous edit to a page, the nominator had deleted a valid reference to pubmed, and referred to a search for a different term as "proof" that the reference to medline was not relevant to wikipedia.

Here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Pfeiffer&diff=160466499&oldid=160448388

Why are these concerns overcome please? A simple pubmed search for "Carl Pfeiffer" brings up none of the citations you claim, and the specific article citations are not included in the bio. Furthermore, simply being published does not grant you WP:PROF criteria. (Otherwise, every single published author would be notable.) What is required is, and I quote, "an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."Djma12 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_R._Klenner

--Alterrabe 20:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Not one of the 5 arguments advanced for the deletion of this article holds water. To wit:

* WP:Prof does not apply to non-academics,

* the argument to WP:V blatantly misrepresents the references in the article. There are no "citations", but rather references, external links, and his book.

* the argument that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply blatantly overlooks the many mainstream sources that debunk Pauling's proposing the theory,

* WP:Bio badly misconstrues what Stone accomplished in his life. Here are the criteria: *

Creative professional: (scientist, academic, economist, professor, author, editor, journalist, ::filmmaker, photographer, artist, architect, engineer, or other creative professional):

o Is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

o Is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

o Has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, ::or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length ::film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

o Whose work has either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of ::a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the ::permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant ::libraries.

Pauling and Szent-Gyorgyi regarded him as an important figure, he originated a significant new concept, Pauling wrote books on the subject, and the topic is still discussed today.

In sum, the arguments for deleting this article make no sense to me.--Alterrabe 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Refocus This AFD is not about Orthomolecular medicine, nor is is it about the notability of Pauling or Szent-Gyorgyi. These same arguments were addressed previously in the Fred Klenner AfD. (But I guess I need to go through them again...) Simply because Pauling or Szent-Gyorgyi were notable does not mean that they can broadly be used to impart notability for anyone with their blessing -- they still to go through the criteria of WP:BIO, WP:V, (and yes) WP:PROF. Self-publications on vitamincfoundation.org, self-filed patents (which don't even have text), and minor alt-med publications do not fit the criteria of WP:V, much less WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The patents, granted in 1939, are evidence of the "first commercial application..." claim. They are evidence to back up an assertion that has some inherent notability, so the fact that they are "self-filed" has no bearing given that they were granted by the USPO. If you click on the numbers you should get an image, not working on my browser due to problems with Flash, but if there's still no image when you click then that's a technical problem with the USPO website. Thomjakobsen 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Patents are treated like self-publications for the purposes of WP:V. They may be used to supportan individual's achievements, but they cannot be used as proof of an individual's achievements. Just like any individual can publish a their own book, anyone can create their own patent. The USPO evaluates patents based upon uniqueness, that efficacy. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The contents of a patent would not be considered independent sources to back up claims in the article: for example, if we added statements such as "company X is the leading provider of..." or "this new technique is considered the best..." and sourced them to the company's self-descriptions in the patent document, that would be a situation in which they would be considered self-publications as per WP:V. In this case, the reference is to the granting of the patent, as attested by the USPO. This is perfectly admissible as it provides objective evidence of first commercial application and provides a means by which the claim can be falsified if you disagree (namely, a search for earlier patents). Unless there is good reason to believe the claim is controversial — e.g. another source claiming that he wasn't the first person to use ascorbic acid in an industrial setting — then this is not a problematic source in the context in which it is being used. Thomjakobsen 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PROF This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements....An alternative standard, "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted and determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the six more detailed criteria above. Stone was not a professor, which makes it appear badly misguided to subject him to a "professor test."--Alterrabe 10:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of academic: Per Academia. An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution. Research institutions, even in a private setting, count. I find it highly disingenuous that one would try to sell notability on the basis of an academic theory, but not be willing to hold an individual up to an academic standard. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you're quoting continues: "at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education". Commercial organizations engaged in research for commercial purposes and filing patents on their research in pursuance of those ends are never considered as academic institutions, so let's be careful throwing around the "disingenuous" tags. I have no reason to be dishonest here, I just find the given grounds for deletion to be invalid and am explaining why to the best of my ability. Thomjakobsen 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I don't mean to be personal. However, if we are going to evaluate an individual's contributions to academic thought (i.e. research), you must also evaluate his notability on academic grounds. It simply isn't consistent to claim that Stone was important in the development or Vitamin C theory and not evaluate on the grounds used for medical researchers. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We can use analogous criteria, but not WP:PROF: they will exclude by definition anyone who is not working within mainstream academia, or part of a movement which is explicitly shunned by academia. They were framed in order to keep more articles on academics: we use their "internal" criteria for notability because they frequently have little or no coverage in general media. This is the opposite case: he's part of a movement which has triggered much mainstream coverage and controversy, but has a pariah status in academia and the medical establishment. We wouldn't expect to find references in journals and textbooks, so their absence proves very little. So, where would we expect to find mainstream coverage? Pauling has at least five mainstream biographies — given his acknowledgement of Stone's influence, it would be odd not to find it in those. Likewise any mainstream books covering the history of the megavitamin craze, since his idea that humans need such doses to make good on an evolutionary defect seems to be one of the major theoretical influences on that industry. Sources on the internet tend to be from vitamin advocates, but there's every reason to believe mainstream printed sources exist. Has a good faith search for these sources been carried out? Thomjakobsen 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair, actually. So the crux of the issue boils down to, has mainstream media/journalism given enough coverage specifically to Irwin Stone to warrant notability? (After all, this AfD is not about orthomolecular medicine.) Concerning your question, the search for mainstream sources is a topic that is currently being addressed in the conversation bullet beneath the initial nomination. If you have mainstream citations that would aid discussion, please feel free to contribute. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The only Pauling bio with a "Search Inside..." at Amazon is Linus Pauling: A Life in Science and Politics by Ted and Ben Goertzel (covered by the NYT). p.197 backs up the influence of Stone's theories on Pauling and the circumstances involved:

It was at this point in his life, at the age of sixty-five, that Pauling traveled to New York City to give a speech at the Carl Neuberg Medal award dinner. He casually mentioned that he hoped to live for another fifteen or twenty years in order to observe new developments in science and society. A few days later he received a letter from a biochemist, Irwin Stone, who had been in the audience. Stone promised him the chance to live for another fifty years if he would take massive doses of Vitamin C. Perhaps because he was not absorbed with anything else particularly pressing, Pauling decided to take this suggestion seriously. At the very least, it was a scientific question, and one that could have significant social consequences as well. Thus began Linus Pauling's last great crusade, one that was to be every bit as controversial as his crusade against nuclear fallout. Linus and Ava Helen followed up on Stone's suggestion, became true believers in his theories, and threw the full weight of Linus's scientific reputation behind them.

On p.206, Stone is the only other named proponent of the theory besides Pauling:

In fact, no one had suggested that vitamin C was a specific treatment for cold viruses. Rather, the theory advanced by Pauling, Irwin Stone, and others was that the vitamin contribues to the body's ability to resist infections in general.

A result from Google Books, A History of Medicine by L Magner on page 238 in a chapter on vitamins, gives Stone a key role in their recent popularity and backs up the claims that he was behind the "humans have a genetic lack..." theory: "The mystique of Vitamin C has grown exponentially since 1966 when Irwin Stone, an industrial chemist, made the claim that primates suffer from an inborn error of metabolism which could be corrected by consuming large amounts of Vitamin C (about 4000mg per day for an average man)." It's an independent source, as he goes on to criticize megavitamin therapies and advises "a hearty dose of skepticism and caution".Thomjakobsen 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I discovered and read his book nearly 20 years ago, long before Wikipedia, and it certainly influenced me! It appeared from the book that Stone was merely promoting Pauling's theories and belief in the eficacy of ascorbic acid megadoses, but if in fact it was Stone who influenced Pauling about this matter, then his influence is indeed significant.

An important addition that should be made to the article is detail about what caused Stone's death at age 77 - after reading his book, and being in the ecstasy of a new convert, I was very disturbed to find out that he had died! Adam Marchant 11 October 2007 Sydney Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.134.237 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Celtic mythology. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic legends

no sources, might not be notable Chris! _ct 02:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Celtic mythology, which would serve as an entry point to the subject. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Though the article itself is unsourced, the linked articles are well-sourced. Per WP:LISTS, this list serves a valid purpose outside of the auspices of Celtic mythology. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually I do see a couple of valid lists that could be created, after using categories to navigate which can prove awkward, but Celtic legends would probably too broad a range to work from. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. The Wikipedist 03:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Might not be notable?! Way to give a convincing rationale for deletion. At any rate, just convert it into a category. i ^said 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per User:Flowerpotman. I think the template in Celtic mythology handles the job better than this article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Flowerpotman.--SarekOfVulcan 05:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. Guliolopez 12:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect and WP:SNOWBALL this. Totnesmartin 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Settibalija

not notable, lack of sources Chris! _ct 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's an Indian Caste, one of the lower ones apparently. An entire tribe of people is inherently notable. [56], [57]. Although I admit it will be difficult doing this properly without foreign language assistance. -- Horrorshowj 06:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The topic meets the general notability guidelines.. Google books and Google scholar have some hits. In addition, here is some reliable source material:
- The Hindu (June 15, 2002) 4 more castes included in OBC list.
- The Hindu (June 16, 2003) Gouda-Settibalijas seek major share of BC seats for polls.
- The Hindu (February 7, 2004) Gouda, Settibalija conference.
- Rao, R.Jagadeeswara. (March 5, 2004) The Hindu Election Dhamaka: Where election results are trend-setting.
- The Hindu (March 23, 2004) "Rice bowl" voters may tilt the scales.

-- Jreferee t/c 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above. Ichormosquito 19:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Large Vehicles of BC

listcruft - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information NeilN 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete- Yep. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not only indiscriminate, but it makes no effort to link the objects to BC. Acroterion _(talk) 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this article even about? Large vehicles made in a district in Canada? At any rate, not notable. Delete. i ^said 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Indicriminate and no inclusion criteria, how large is "Very Large"? The P & H Power Shovell doesn't seem notable enough for an article either. Crazysuit 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - the RMS Queen Elizabeth wasn't built there. If the rest of the list is that reliable...--SarekOfVulcan 05:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate, no clear inclusion criteria. Note that to be included a something has to be used in British Columbia, not made there or have any connection with British Columbia whatsoever. If ever completed it would be almost useless. Hut 8.5 12:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Kind of ironic that someone who is proud of "very large" vehicles from a certain province, finds that it's too awkward to spell out the very large name "British Columbia" Mandsford 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete worst topic for a list I have ever seen. Might as well make a list called "These are things I see driving to work".Ridernyc 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment since everyone else missed this I want to point this out. The editor is not saying vechiles built in BC, they are just saying vehicles used in BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hitman (series). PeaceNT 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitman 5

violates WP:CRYSTAL, not enough info for even a stub Chris! _ct 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The entire article relies on one announcement made in January 2007 and even then the mention of the game is trivial. Definitely violates the crystal ball policy. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 02:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect To the Hitman article. There is already a mention of it on that page. Until there is more information to bring it out of the depths of Madame Cruft's Crystal Ball, it should stay redirected. i ^said 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Redir per I.--SarekOfVulcan 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, incorrect nomination. Properly sourced = not crystal. --MrStalker ^talk 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Hitman, that's it. BASE101() 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete If we delete this article we will eventually have to remake it once we get more information, but as it stands now, it is effectively useless and tells you nothing you can't find in the hitman (series) page.Father Time89 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So then why not just redirect it (Since it would in fact be a legitimate search term) and unredirect it when we have more information? i ^said 20:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article has no content. ("Hitman 5 = 5th Hitman" is not content.) Brianlucas 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Redir makes the most sense IMO, since the title has been confirmed, so there will be an article eventually. Once there' more info just turn it back into it's own article, as was suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.87.83 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kacey braker

No sources. Prodded, but later removed by creator. No google hits. (Even checked for Kacey Baker but still found nothing about this person.) Fails WP:BIO and is likely a hoax. -WarthogDemon 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think that's a good enough reason for deletion. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Reid

Being a council official and leader of "citizen action groups" (read: QUANGO on a council level) does not make you notable, according to what i remember of WP:N Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree this punter is not notable (unlike Wilson Goode Jr below). He is on a small local council and is a local activist. --Mkativerata 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article also says that he is a Leesburg, Virginia town council member. Per WP:BIO, just being a member of a town council does not make you notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, well below WP:BIO standard. (And action groups aren't even QUANGOs.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Sc straker 17:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as called for by WP:MUSIC W.marsh 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Eclipses EP

Group is notable, EP is not - no indication that this received independent coverage or charted per WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 00:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and notability is not inherited. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per NF24. Also, the article has very little content, so delete, please.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^♫ 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. Wilson Goode, Jr.

article about a councilman in Philadelphia who is the son of a former mayor. WP:BIO states for politicians: "Has held an international, national or regional office. Member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Being an elected local official by itself does not ensure inclusion in a list or general article." A city councilman, even of a large city is not sufficient to be notable by those standards, and since notability is not inherited his father doesn't take the son over the line. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BIO and since notability is not inherited, they are not notable enough to be here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep In my view, councillor-at-large of a very large city is for all intents and purposes a 'regional office'. This is no mere local council. I think the purpose of WB:BIO has to be kept in mind - should wikipedia exclude articles about persons of substantial political and policy influence? I agree that being son of a former mayor does not in and of itself establish notability. --Mkativerata 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Mkativerata - however, the article as it stands is horrible and needs a bloody good rewrite.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A search of Google News Archive suggests that he would pass the "significant coverage" criterion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I gotta agree with the above reasons. He is a councilman of a large area, maybe as large as some congressional districts.. Callelinea 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. In fact, he represents the entire city of Philadelphia, which is more populous than any Congressional district. --Metropolitan90 05:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Davies

Delete unsourced BLP about an author whose two books are ranked 278,416th and 452,125th in sales at Amazon.com - there is no indication that this person meets WP:BIO, so nn that we don't know when he was born - odd for a modern biography of a supposedly notable person. Carlossuarez46 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BIO horribly. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. --Sc straker 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somatic Education

Delete - non-notable trademarked techniques promoted by a non-notable organization - products that have no 3rd party RSes coverage.
Also nominating Clinical Somatic Education (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Carlossuarez46 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - however, can education techniques really be trademarked? However, certainly fails WP:N.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I am an admin and was working on this as the AfD was close. I want to post it so that those who address this issue in the future have an overview of the area. Since it was posted after the close of this AfD, it should not be considered part of the close consensus. There is plenty of reliable source material for Clinical Somatic Education and Somatic Education. A trouble with this topic is that everyone wants in on the Wikipedia action with their own article and/or their own twist on the topic. The "techniques" and businesses latched onto the legitimate terms of somatic psychology and/or somatic cell and ran with it. There certainly is enough info for at least some article the somatic techniques and one or two of the businesses. Someone needs to search out all the players in this area and determine which meet WP:N and which have only enough reliable source info to be mentioned in existing articles. Here is the related family to the somatic education topic (red links are provided in case the articles are created in the future):
- Alexander Technique - No opinion
- Feldenkrais Method. Keep - Merge into it or redirect Feldenkrais Method of Somatic Education, The Feldenkrais Method of somatic education, Institute for the Study of Somatic Education
- Feldenkrais - Keep as disambiguous page
- Hanna Somatic Education Centre - Redirect to Somatic education along with The Hanna Somatic Education Centre
- Somatic anxiety - Merge to Somatic psychology
- Somatic disciplines - Merge into Somatic education
- Somatic education Keep or merge to Somatic psychology - The topic for this article would be the overall "Somatic" education/technique system. It could mention the business off shoots of this system, and some of those businesses could have their own Wikipedia article (such as Somatics Systems and Feldenkrais Method). Also, it is not spelled as Somatic Education, which is actually Somatics Systems, Inc.
- Somatic Experiencing - Merge into Somatic education.
- Somatic psychology Keep This seems to be the source of all the "business" developed around the topic. It seems to include the Somatic education concept.
- Somatic Responses - Delete as non notable band.
- Somatics Systems - Keep. It's actually known as Somatics Systems, Inc. Merge into Somatics Systems /redirect to it: Somatic Education (with the capital "E" for Education), Clinical Somatic Education, Clinical Somatic Education Training Program, Clinical Somatic Education Society, The Clinical Somatic Education Society, Clinical Somatic Education Professional Training Program, Somatic Systems Institute

--Jreferee t/c 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♫ 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street fiction bibliography

Is this encyclopedic?? To me, it just looks like a list of books with their ISBN's, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Georgia guy 00:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Looks like someone had way too much time on their hands. What exactly is this article here for? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. I am also unsure if it passes WP:NOR.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The Wikipedist 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No encyclopedic value. -WarthogDemon 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not a directory. Crazysuit 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this should be transwikied to wikibooks? VoL†ro/\/Force 04:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge what can be salvaged to Sesame Street, per nom.Blueboy 96 13:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this school per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inverclyde Academy

This article about a non-notable secondary school has become a target for massive amounts of childish vandalism (check history). The institution itself is far too new to have any notable alumni and has not earned any significant recognition. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: My impression (correct me if wrong) is that high schools satisfy the notability criteria. This page is now protected from vandalism, so that should hopefully no longer be a concern. --Mkativerata 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- High schools are not granted a privileged status, they must satisfy criteria set fort in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's simply nothing notable about this particular school and the article on it is little more than a useless liability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Then just about all the secondary schools on this page with full entries ought to be deleted. --Mkativerata 00:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Some should, some shouldn't. It's certainly not true that every school in that list should have an article about it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      - The deletion discussion for this article appears to have established a consensus that high schools are generally notable. --Mkativerata 01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Sorry, no. We're here to deal with the merits of the subject as it relates to the meaning and intent of WP:NOTABILITY. For what its worth, there have been hundreds of prior deletion discussions concerning individual schools with varying results, but there isn't a lasting consensus in favor of automatically keeping an article about every school. Crappy articles don't get a free ride based on a selective reading of unrelated discussions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Mkativerata, please don't generalize from one discussion to assume a broad consensus. There have been multiple attempts by the community to establish a firm schools guideline and all have failed. We can only say that the community often votes in favor of high schools. Dhartung | Talk 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Hence the word generally in my above post. I do not suggest all schools should be kept. Of course some high schools are not notable. But there is nothing separating this school from the general position that articles about high schools are kept. And just because this article is substandard (although not substantially) does not mean it should not be kept. --Mkativerata 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment (2) There is also substantial independent coverage of the school - notability could be established by referring to media-reported controversies such as this. --Mkativerata 00:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    - The controversy may be notable but I don't think that this article establishes the school as a notable educational institution. Considering the scope of coverage and the significance of the controversy, I would find it hard to write anything more than a two paragraph stub about a local news story. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Delete per above. I didn't know WP:CORP covered schools, but I guess it does. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:CORP doen't apply but WP:N does. TerriersFan 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Malcolmxl5 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Sadly, this could be made into a good article, but it's not likely to be able to pass WP:N for some years yet.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - This is a very significant school formed by a merger of two other notable schools. The merger has been beset by controversy. Yes it's a poor article that needs sourcing. We don't delete because of vandalism nor because an article needs expansion and sourcing; we delete if an article cannot be sourced and a G search shows that this one easily can. TerriersFan 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have added sources so that the article now meets WP:N, cleaned it up and added encyclopaedic content. TerriersFan 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Adding a few references and an image is not enough to assert notability enough to keep the article from being deleted. The nom mentioned a lack of alumni and recognition due to being too recently constructed, as well as a common target for vandalism, not a lack of references. Despite your best intentions and your attempt to assert notability, the article should still be deleted. The Wikipedist 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the nom grounds are not a valid basis for deletion only failing WP:N is; and it now passes that. TerriersFan 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only links are from User pages and Wikipedia-specific pages. Notability is asserted, but not evident. However, I do see this subject eventually being notable enough for inclusion, but right now, it is far too new. Also, too often targeted for vandalism. The Wikipedist 03:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this is simply wrong - there are several external sources. Vandalism, as I say above is irrelevant and the constituent schools have individual notability. TerriersFan 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC) TerriersFan 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
CommentAgree with the above - the notability of this school (even if not presumed for a highschool) is established by the size of the school, the impact on the community, the controversy surrounding its establishment, and the coverage it has received. --Mkativerata 04:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Constant vandalism definitely isn't enough of a reason to delete an article - if that were the case, New York City, a commonly vandalized article, would be deleted (recently Today's Featured Article). The real reason this article should be deleted is that the subject is because, well, exactly as the nom said. It is too premature to have had anything significantly notable coming from it, whether alumni or merit. A student strike like the one it had is not enough of a notability assertion IMHO. The references you provide back up the article somewhat, but not enough to change the nominators reason to nominate. Notability is asserted, but not enough to keep, for now at least. The Wikipedist 04:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, The school is new, no architectural reason to keep it. No notable alumni. The schools that it merged into also have not notable alumni.. sorry but I think it needs to go. But it was well researched and written. Too bad. Callelinea 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Above and beyond the clear consensus that articles for high schools (and their equivalents) are retained, this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] standard. Alansohn 04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article may be sourced, but it's not notable. The general consensus is that high schools are NOT inherently notable (it's just a small group of people who think they are). The general consensus for schools that are not notable is to delete them or merge into a article sbout the school district it is in (if such an article exists) or article on the city its located in. TJ Spyke 06:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This school is not notable. As noted above, schools do not have a special exemption from WP:N--Victor falk 11:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The school was opened by Scotland's first minister which testifies to its importance. It has already receive substantial press coverage. The school was formed by a merger between two other schools, both of which will have substantial histories which will need to be incorporated into this article. The old schools will also have their own notable alumni. A lot of expansion is still required but the article as it currently stands already demonstrates the school's notability. Dahliarose 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per above. BASE101() 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This particular school is reasonably notable, if only for the student strike--which is sourced. In fact, most high schools are; if enough work was done on the article, perhaps 90%. I have therefore come to the conclusion that all high school articles should be kept, in order to avoid these debates. I dont know how many people make consensus for this, but i think we're getting there. Incidentally, all school articles attract vandalism. we have good ways of dealing with that, without needing to delete them. DGG (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Our management of vandalism is far less effective with articles on schools than almost any other subject due to the inherent liability of bored kids. I'm not saying that this potential is enough to stifle the creation of high school articles; indeed, it was after attempting to repair the vandalism to Inverclyde Academy that I began to notice the paucity of interesting or notable context. A student strike, by itself, is hardly notable outside of the local stage, as evidenced by the lack of coverage of this event in national Scottish newspapers. The events leading up to the strike are minor footnotes in the history of Inverclyde Council as a whole and would be better served through a brief treatment in a general article on the history of the educational district. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It would be quite inappropriate to include this school in a page on Inverclyde Council. UK schools do not operate in the same way as American schools. Funding would have been provided by central government. Very few new schools are built in the UK and the fact that so much money was provided for the new school is notable in itself. The local council would only oversee the admissions policy and provide administrative support. Furthermore local council boundaries change on a regular basis. Dahliarose 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and the fact that many of the arguments are based upon the mistaken notion that WP:CORP applies to educational institutions. Smashville 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:N applies to them; and, by it, it is not notable.--Victor falk 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it is a mistaken notion that essays overrule policy in deciding what is and isn't worthy of consideration. Assuming that all schools deserve articles is equivalent to taking a stance which stonewalls actual discussion. Would you care to make a non-vague comment about this particular educational institution? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What's "vague" about citing WP:OUTCOMES? It's called citing precedent. Smashville 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's citing the essay author's opinion, one based on a series of deletion discussions which took place in 2005. Your comment is vague because it doesn't really say anything about this school. And yes, schools do fall under the specific purview of WP:CORP. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The school is not only notable, it is more notable than most, and has the third party sources to show for it. The "childish vandalism" cited by the nominator is ludicrous, when articles are vandalized we revert the vandalism and block the vandal, not delete the article. Get real. Silensor 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable school as established by article, confirmed in discussion. Wikidemo 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per TJ Spyke and Voxpuppet. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Wow, the discussion is exactly split. I'm leaning towards keeping in such cases. Bearian 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The school is reasonably notable, and the rationale for deletion is misguided. RFerreira 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♫ 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebound relief

No evidence that this is used as a basketball statistic at all; see [58]. Essentially similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunk production and created as part of a heated debate on espn discussion boards[59]. --Rumping 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The Wikipedist 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. "The stat is not well known as of September 27th, 2007", says the article - so it fails WP:N, WP:V and in all probability WP:OR and WP:NFT too. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and WP:OUTCOMES, all major league players are notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Franklin

Wont pass WP:BIO its only a 2 inning in the major league . β^_command 02:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep From Wikipedia:Notability (sports): Baseball figures are considered notable if they (...) Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues (...) Major League Baseball. He only threw in two innings, but clearly meets the threshold. Deltopia 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Deltopia. The Wikipedist 04:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Regretful Keep I strongly disagree with that part of WP:N, and do not think that just appearing in a MLB games makes them notable. Until that changes though, that makes this guy "notable". I would support changing that notability requirement though. TJ Spyke 04:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:N is a guideline. Guidelines are flexible and should be applied with common sense. That means, if you disagree with a guideline or its application, don't become a slave to the rules! - Che Nuevara 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I'm a big fan of IAR, usually, but in this instance, I think having him included adds to the encyclopedia. Being able to say, "We have -everyone- who ever played in the bigs," I think, is better than being able to say, "We have most people we consider notable that have ever played in the bigs." It makes this a more complete reference. (Just my opinion.) Deltopia 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Deltopia. Even though he appeared in only one game, I don't have a huge problem with the policy. Appearing in a game in a major professional team sport is a pretty difficult thing to do, and I'm sure there are some baseball buffs who find this information useful. --Bongwarrior 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO for athletes via criteria. Playing in a major league game may not be the most appropriate place to draw a line, but it's an easy, bright line to draw. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep The nominator's reason is nonsensical as Franklin clearly does pass WP:BIO Nick mallory 09:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♫ 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skype Journal

No assertion of notability made inside the article Computerjoe 's talk 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, it isn't even official. Non-notable magazine. BASE101() 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. Operating 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability, no secondary sources whatsoever, seems a bit spammish to me.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Regardless of the fact that other stuff exists CitiCat ^♫ 01:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Is My Savior II

In addition with East Coast Resurrection

Completely has no sources, unorganized. I tried to find info on it but haven't found one. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources can't be found, and why would the second album be renamed sequel style? I've never seen it with any artist. Nate 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete As pure crystal ballism. No sources whatsoever. Spellcast 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not finding any reliable references, whereas there are some references to East Coast Resurrection, though we might want to delete that too as I don't know if there are any particularly reliable ones.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - has no sources at the moment, which is a big problem. However, if it's due for release in December, I think it can pass WP:CBALL - certainly, given that we've kept Chinese Democracy, I don't see why not!--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No source to both and i believe they are just internet rumors. West Coast Ryda 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] H-World

[edit] List of Dish Network channels 000-298

[edit] Mark R. Mendoza

[edit] Mourning portrait

[edit] Christina of Valois

[edit] Companion (Firefly)

[edit] Mohamed Mooge Liban

[edit] Owen Davien

[edit] Bruno crosier

[edit] Book of Life (Book of Revelations)

[edit] Sifu keith tv

[edit] Lila Turjanski-Villard

[edit] Manetas

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate college

[edit] Columbia traditions

[edit] Byron G. Highland

[edit] 1015 East U

[edit] It's Happy Bunny

[edit] List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects

[edit] List of Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Media

[edit] Intintuator

[edit] A56 (software)

[edit] North Andover Middle School

[edit] Sphinx C--

[edit] Indian Campaigns

[edit] Phyxius

[edit] List of historical people portrayed as villains

[edit] Hardy Jackson

[edit] Kevin Muller

[edit] Estudillo Center

[edit] International Marketplace (San Pablo, California)

[edit] Sierra Vista Mall

[edit] Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[edit] MadV

[edit] Post Oak Mall

[edit] Clanton, Mississippi

[edit] Michael Madonick

[edit] GoAsm

[edit] SjASMPlus

[edit] Peach (film)

[edit] Tasty planet

[edit] Captain Fateh Singh

[edit] Deer Park, Co. Leitrim

[edit] The Lost Tapes 2

[edit] B'nai Elim

[edit] Usha studios

[edit] Generic terminology

[edit] Winningest football coach

[edit] Editor war

[edit] Noochie varner

[edit] MacArthur Study Bible

[edit] Depulso

[edit] Bitterwood (novel)

[edit] Robert Traynham

[edit] Enterprising Westmeath Network

[edit] Coedit

[edit] Gothic-Americana

[edit] Wuya

[edit] St. Louis Twang Scene

[edit] Steven karahan

[edit] The Raven King

[edit] Jena Sims

[edit] Immanuel Lutheran Primary School

[edit] PAWNGAME

[edit] Brighton fuzzbox

[edit] SFSOC

[edit] Steve Williams (blogger)

[edit] Sweet Transvestite

[edit] Bela Kiss (band)

[edit] Philippine mastiff

[edit] Anne Beverley

[edit] Seomra Spraoi

[edit] Spagmumps

[edit] Lucky Ashley

[edit] Russian translation

[edit] 1 AH

[edit] Residual income