Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aethon. —Angr 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethon

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

Incomplete nomination by User:Ifnkovhg. This is an unsourced article about the eagle who ate Prometheus' liver, but according to Ifnkovhg at Talk:Ethon no ancient source gives him the name "Ethon" (or any other name). Doubt has also been expressed about the other information in the article, such as the eagle's parentage. My recommendation is to delete redirect to Aethon, since even apart from the lack of sourcing I doubt there's anything to say about the eagle that can't be treated at Prometheus. EALacey 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) [Addendum: Hyginus possibly gives the name as "Aethon"; see below. EALacey 10:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)]

• Redirect and merge to Prometheus. Bearian 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merging of unreferenced information is absolutely out of question. It will be deleted on the spot. Mukadderat 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete' unreferenced and not verifiable quickly. Google for "ethon + prometheus -wikipedia" gives a handful of hits from nonreliable sources. Mukadderat 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable.^[1]

• • Comment. That thesis is mainly about Schubert and may not be reliable on mythology. It doesn't cite an ancient source for the eagle's name, and it's not clear whether the references to Thomson and Tripp are meant to cover the name either. (Could anyone with access to either of these check whether they use the name or indicate a source for it?) EALacey 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • How is it not clear? Why else would she say "Ethon, a giant eagle, continually feasts upon his liver, believed to be the seat of passion" and then stick in a reference to Thomson? Unless you have some reason to suspect Angert of dishonesty or incompetence, I'd say it's a pretty clear statement that Thomson says so. 35.9.6.175 04:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's clear that the reference to Thomson applies to any more than "the liver [was] believed to be the seat of passion". The eagle is not named as Ethon in the Prometheus Bound, and the only possible source anyone here has found for the name is over 500 years later and spells it differently, so I'm not sure why an introduction to the play would call the eagle "Ethon". But you're welcome to check the reference. EALacey 09:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, other language Wikipedia articles on Ethon have various references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Rabett (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Ethon" doesn't appear in the Oxford Classical Dictionary or Timothy Gantz's Early Greek Myth; if Ethon were a genuine part of ancient Greek mythology he would appear in these sources. Master's theses are not reliable sources, as they are not peer-reviewed. The thesis noted above, however, may be evidence that some post-classical source decided the eagle was named Ethon (which is perhaps an idiosyncratic translation of the Greek aithon). But without a reliable source that tells us so, this remains speculation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Starting out with requiring something to be a one particular book misses the point. I see mentions of other books from the 1970's above.Ryoung122 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The books by Thomson and Tripp aren't clearly being cited by Angert's thesis as using the name Ethon, and nobody posting here has yet checked that they do use it. We can't expect information to be found in a single specific book, but this name is consistently omitted by reference works one would expect to include it; in addition to those mentioned by Akhilleus, the eagle isn't named in the articles on Prometheus in Smith's Dictionary, Seyffert's Dictionary, Daremberg-Saglio or J. March's Cassell Dictionary of Classical Mythology, and none of these includes an entry for "Ethon". If the name has any ancient authority, why is it omitted by all these sources and mentioned only in a master's thesis on modern music? I also can't find the name in an search of the Perseus Project's English texts, which include translations of Hesiod, Aeschylus, Apollodorus, etc. ("Aethon" produces a few irrelevant hits, including a horse of Hector in the Iliad.) I doubt we're going to find stronger evidence against the antiquity of "Ethon" than we already have. If someone does turn up a reliable source for the name, it can always be mentioned in the Prometheus article. EALacey 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. IF the issue is 'verifiability' then perhaps the article should be tagged as such. If there is another spelling, that can be mentioned and a re-direct added.Ryoung122 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe I've found the supposed source for the name. Following Eli Rabett's comment above, I checked the foreign-language Wikipedias, and found that the French article cites Hyginus as giving the name Ethon, and Hyginus does indeed include in a list of Hercules' conquests "aethonem aquilam quae Prometheo cor exedebat". However, Oxford Latin Dictionary understands aethonem as an adjective (not a name) transliterated from Greek αἴθων and as probably meaning "red-brown, tawny".
  In summary, we have a late Latin source that can be understood to give the eagle's name as Aethon (although we still need a reliable source which interprets Hyginus this way). Based on that, I'd be happy to redirect Ethon to Aethon, and include a note about the eagle at Aethon. I maintain that (a) there is nothing to say about the eagle that shouldn't be treated at Prometheus and therefore we don't need a separate article, and (b) we should not use the name Aethon/Ethon in the Prometheus article, since it was clearly unknown to the major ancient authors and is ignored by modern reference works, except perhaps in a single sentence along the lines of "Hyginus has been understood to give the eagle's name as Aethon". EALacey 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. An unregistered user got there before me and noted the Hyginus reference at Talk:Ethon, also citing the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae which understands Aethonem as a name. EALacey 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks to EALacey and the anon for the research. Considering that a wide range of sources has been checked and only one ancient source possibly calls the eagle by the name "Aethon", I'd say retaining Ethon as a separate article is giving too much attention to a minority view. Redirecting Ethon to Aethon should be sufficient. I noticed in the google results that there's a Stargate episode that's titled "Ethon", after this eagle; I wonder what source they got their information from? I'm afraid it's Wikipedia, and that we've been spreading factoids. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or possiibly redirect) per EAL/Ak William M. Connolley 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence from any ancient source that this was the name of Prometheus' eagle. Note: eagle in Ancient Greek ’αετός, eagle in Modern Greek αετός, scientific name of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos. It makes more sense for aethonem aquilam to be a tawny eagle. In Apollodorus' story of Prometheus, the bird is just an ’αετός. I think by keeping this entry, even as a redirect, we will be retaining misinformation, so it is better to delete it. I think the note over at Aethon that this might be the eagle's name should also be removed, since we have no source that Hyginus intended the word to be a name. EdJohnston 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The standard ancient enclyclopedia (Pauly-Wissowa) has an entry for aithon. It says it is really an epithet to aquila, but Muncker (1631) to whom they refer for this view has this (after first playing with the mistaken idea that the word is αετος):

in mentem mihi veni, Hyginum forsan ... deceptum fuisse Graeco epitheto αἴθων, quo ἀετὸν ornant Poetae, ut Homer. Iliad. O. 685. putasse, inquam, proprium esse nomen, cum adjectivum esset τὸ αἴθων in Graeco scriptore, ubi hanc fabulam invenit.

it occurs to me that maybe Hyginus was deceived by the greek adjective aithon, with which the poets decorate the aeton, as at Homer Iliad 15, 685 [690 in current editions]. I mean that he thought it was a name, althought the word aithon in the Greek writer where he found this story was actually an adjective.

This seems plausible to me. The latest editor of Hyginus (Marshall) treats it as an adjective, but other good editions treat it as a name; and you would not expect Hyginus to have added a Greek adjective if he recognised it as such (you wouldn't expect any merely ornamental adj., and Latin has its own fulvus for this). If it was an error, it was most likely made by Hyginus or by someone before him. The other standard work for this subject, Roschers Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie has a brief entry s.v. Aithon 7. ‘Der Adler, der den Prometheus quälte,: Hyg. f. 31. Vgl. Il. 15, 690.’ --Nigel Holmes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.133 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George Clinton (funk musician) — Caknuck 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nubian Nut

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

"Nubian Nut" is a 25-year-old, non-notable song by George Clinton. The "substance" of the article, a single sentence, has not changed since the article was created a year ago. It is extremely unlikely that anything in the future will make "Nubian Nut" notable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: The only article that links to "Nubian Nut" is George Clinton (funk musician). Oddly enough, You Shouldn't-Nuf Bit Fish, the album on which "Nubian Nut" appeared, doesn't link to it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete artist's art already attribs this song to him anyways... Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect To the album. i ^said 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. InnocuousPseudonym 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per i. --Bongwarrior 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirected: Redirected Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sammie Rhodes

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

Non-notable porn actress. No coverage in reliable sources, thus no verifiability. Has not won any awards. Despite the 6 award nominations listed in the article, she has only been nominated for an award once ("Best Solo Sex Scene"). Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, on account of relative notability. The AVNs, according to the appropriate article, are comparable to the Oscars for the pornographic video industry - so that she was nominated certainly says something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The "Solo Scene" nomination is currently enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, plus the "All Girl" scene nominations currently count as actress award nominations. Reliable sources are provided in the article. Epbr123 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't normally like just nominations for awards as a qualifier of notability, but there are quite a lot of them; also I found some sources, and expanded the article a bit. Several different sources decided she was notable enough to write reasonable length articles about. Between the sources and the many nominations, I think she qualifies for an article here. Also, I am impressed that she is a former honor student who credits pornography for straightening out her life; that's not a notability qualifier, but interesting none the less. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Impressive expansion of the article by AnonEMouse. I had looked at her article today and was puzzled why the article was nominated for deletion. Then I looked at the history... Vinh1313 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ム 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double Image (comics)

Double Image (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

The Dumpster Killings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Nights of The Beast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable comics stories, consisting of two or four issues of a regular series with no particular wider coverage in the media, industry and arts in general, unlike, say Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, or Maus. ThuranX 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, The editor steadfastly refuses to even wikify the article to meet minimal standards, and has refused to provide any sources whatsoever. Corvus cornix 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the relevant information from the first two is already mentioned in the Jason Todd article, and the third story doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to me. (I'm not an uber comics geek but I'm steadily being converted) MorganaFiolett 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, Clearly. 'Ten Nights of the Beast' had a lot of wider coverage in the media. I, or indeed anybody else, can add this to the article - do not delete a valid article just because it needs augmenting - rather call for it to be augmented in the discussion area.

Also - to suggest that stories must be longer the 4 issues to be notable is laughable - and frankly a misnomer to today's generation. In the past for a story to be longer than 4 issues was almost unheared of. In today's market stories like 'Batman Meets the Monk' or whatever requires a 6 part mini-series. The original version of that story was told in one issue of the rgular publication. Furthermore, in the 1980s it was not common practice to create 'mini-series' to tell Batman stories. So to suggest that just because these stories fall within a regular publication they are not notable is also not true.

To suggest that only stories over 4 issues and outside a regular run of Batman comics should get an article fails provide reasonable coverage for stories which were shorter than 4 issues and were published inside regular runs. I direct you to the Doctor Who articles - where every single stoyline gets just about equal coverage - as I believe they should.

Moreover, both the Dumpster Killings and Double Image storylines contain key moments within the development of the Robin character. Until these articles were created the events which happened in these stories were not mention in the Jason Todd article. Furthermore Double Image was the last Batman story written for regular publication by Mike W. Barr - and was the final appearance by Paul Sloane before his post-zero-hour retconn. These are notable pieces of information that can be added if these articles are not deleted.

BTW: The original editor has not steadfastly refused to wikify the article to meet minimal standards. I considered it to be wikified. And indeed made several changes in order to appease my fellow editors. If you do not feel it is wikified please provide greater detail as to what could be changed - or indeed chage it yourself. OO7Samurai 09:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply First, refrain from the lousy attitude. A two part story is, does, and has occured in comics for decades, and my purpose in noting the length of the arcs was to show that the stories were not exceptionally notable for some percieved depth, which longer series like Watchmen, or Bone might be justified with. These were simple two part stories about non-notable events. As to the notability, most of that sounds like trivia relative to Batman, and only slightly more important in the Mike Barr and Two Face articles. Further, nowhere in there did I make any suggestion that "only stories over 4 issues and outside a regular run of Batman comics should get an article". What I DID imply was that these are non-notable two and four parters, which occur ALL the time in comics. If these are all notable, then EVERY story arc in every title is notable, because we lower the bar on notability. TO give that much free rein to the editors, to create that many articles, and it would be thousands, would leave a glut of unverified and likely unverifiable (in practical, not theoretical terms) articles on Wikipedia, hardly a desirable outome. These are ultimately stories of mild if any notability. ThuranX 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply 'Lousy attitude'? Sorry friend but that is subjective. I do not feel my attitude is 'lousy' - am I simply stating in my own terms the case for not deleting these articles. 'Please' refrain from making personal attacks on my personality - frankly this was uncalled for.

I do wonder why all the articles created by oo7samurai are up for deletion and not, say Broken City, Batman: Face the Face, Batman: The Man Who Falls, Batman: Nine Lives (in fact all the Elseworld stories which are mentioned - Elseworlds/Batman/Aliens are notable, but that doesn't make every etc. etc. 81.106.192.55 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I agree that the length of the story arc shouldn't be a factor; however at the same time the Doctor Who storylines are irrelevant- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yes, the Double Image and Dumpster Killings stories contain relevant developments in the Jason Todd character, but that is now covered in the Jason Todd article- without further sources the separate articles don't add much, in my opinion. I didn't notice initially that these articles are relatively new, so perhaps it might be better to give them a chance to be improved. I would still stand by a delete for Ten Nights of the Beast, though, since I don't see why this particular storyline is notable. (does this come under WP:NOTINHERITED? Batman's notable, yes, but that doesn't make every Batman storyline notable).Also the information there is covered in the KGBeast article. MorganaFiolett 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Actually Ten nights of the Beast is probably the most notable of all these stories. It was published as a stand alone TPB. at the time TNOTB was something of an event - I'm sure I can dig up some outside sources for this.

Regards other sources of information, I think it must be noted that during the 1980s there were significantly less trade publications, and no Internet. Very few people discussed comics. Should we delete all articles about Batman stories from the 70s and 80s because there was no TGN or Wizzard?

In fact, I would like to draw your attention to the Batman Storylines category. how many stories do you see from the 1970s? None I don't think. How many from the 1980s - about 4 or 5? for the 90's it goes up a bit and the 2000s pretty much loads.

The problem we seem to have here is that people mistake recent for relevant - and consider old to be irrelevant. I assue you, that at the time of publication these stories were as relevtnat as 'Hush', 'Broken City' 'Batman and Son' etc. Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless. We write eveything in the present tense - that which happened in 1987 is as important as that which happens in 2007.

These articles which are proposed for deletion are intended to shift some of the weighted bias that is apparent within this category. They are also intended to provide wikipedians with knowledge of that which went before. to delete them would be to support the practice of only positioning 'new' within this category - which surely can not be right?81.106.192.55 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply As they stand, none of these three articles seem to meet notability guidelines ( WP:BK )in and of themselves; if they do, then the sources that show they do are missing. Your argument seems to be that because articles on more recent storylines exist, older ones should, which comes back to WP:OTHERSTUFF. MorganaFiolett 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Ok - I've dug out one smallreference - let's see if this will help the case for the Dumpster Killings article.

Mark Cotta Vaz uses an extract from Batman #414 to demonstrate that the Batman of the 1980s (to quoute) "is no longer the grinning crime buster who wisecracked while landing haymaker punches". Below the extract Cotta Vaz writes; "In the inferno of Gotham, each tragedy is more than a statistic to Batman". This is published in 'Tales of The Dark Knight' (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Books/Nonfiction/Movies-TV/auction-116403301.htm) I can fully reference this with more time. 81.106.192.55 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't a very notable story arc. Compare this, for example, to Batman: A Death in the Family, which is referenced (relatively) widely both within comics and in the mainstream media. Cogswobbletalk 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply The problem with this argument is that there are very very few stories which are as notable as 'A Death in the Family'. And because this is such a notable story from the eighties, stories from that period are often overlooked (or deleted) despite their importance (in that period). To delete these articles would simply perpatuate the situation - and once important stories become relegated to insignificance / nothing at all. Very 1984. 81.106.192.55 17:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, you just made our cse. There were very very few stories as notable as DitF, which is covered here, and frankly, gies us some gauge of where notability drops off. As to the length of the story arc, perhaps I said it poorly, but i wasn't saying length or arc exists in direct proportion to notability, length equals notable. What I meant was more like this: Not every single case Batman goes on is notable. Some cases cover 2 or three issues. that doesn't make them more or less notable, since a two to four issue arc is standard, more so the longer four and even six part stories now. Because there are fewer arcs now with deeper stories, the impact of single arcs may wiegh more on a character, but that belongs in the character's article. Here we have three cases, whose length shows that they weren't the more deeply written, convoluted, character changing tales we've grown accustomed to in the last ... 20 or so years since Year One. These were simple 'an adventure of batman and robin' style stories. Without good sources for why they're particularly notable, they aren't notable. As mentioned, the character article incorporates the relevance to Robin. beyond that, there's little but trivia in Double Image, and similar cases can easily be made for the other two. ThuranX 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with ThuranX. There are very few stories as notable as 'A Death in the Family', and there are relatively few stories that are notable enough to deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. Cogswobbletalk 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to make people aware as to changes that have been made to two of these articles. Ten Nights of The Beast and The Dumpster Killings now have 'Critical Interpretation' sections detailing how Mark Cotta Vaz viewed these stories within his book (Tales of The Dark Night - check it on Amazon). Also I have added just a brief note about Mike Zecks covers to the Beast story arc. And also that the Dumpster Killings marked Jim Starlin's inaugural storytline. Also a couple of external links for TNOTB. Plus a readership resonse section.

I'm pretty sure if left up for a short time longer more people would be able to add more extranal sources verifying that these storylines as worth recording. Certainly Mark Cotta Vaz considered them significant enough to make direct reference to them in his works & I'm sure some people out there must have more sources than I. Yes they are not a widely discussed as DitF, but let not the light from that story blind us to the existance and importance of others.81.106.192.55 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to the 'new exxpanded version' of Dumpster Killings, and had to remove an entire section of OR psychoaalysis of a fictional character, so the 'improvements' aren't all positive, and some aren't scholarly encyclopedia writing at all. ThuranX 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Seems strange to me that you mark articles for deleting before even having read them. The section you deleted was always in that article. It simply recounts some of the dialogue from the story-line and positions it within a wider context of the Batman mythos. No OR. How do you feel about the changes to TNOTB? 81.106.192.55 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. I read it. I was surprised that no one had removed it during the improvements. ThuranX 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW - Added reference to Bob Ingersoll's 'The Law is an Ass' article in the Dumpster Killer article. Ingersoll devoted the whole of installment #158 to this story lines and the legal issues dealt within. [1] I've also added a reference to this story arc made by Durwin S. Talon in his book on sequential art. [2]I hope everybody can see that these articles can be (and are being) expanded (and yes 'improved' - love the sarcastic speech marks :). They discuss significant story lines which have been discussed at some length in books and in journalistic articles, and that given time such references can be found and added. Just because 'you' might not already aware of their importance does not make them unimportant - the truth is out there (so let me put it on here).

I move the TNOTB and the Dumpster Killings articles be removed from this proposal for deletion. Through recent changes to these articles it has been shown the that events, themes, and the art of these story arcs are all of publishable noteriety. These story arcs are referenced in multiple publications - journalistic and scholarly - and on multiple Internet sources. Several external sources have been added to these articles in order to verify this. The claim that these are 'Non-notable comics stories' has thusly be proven to be incorrect.

I've only just begun digging up references for the third article proposed for deletion. so far I've only found one recent (2006) blog reference to the story arc. However, more should be forthcoming. Already though, the story is found to be of some note to people. Still, until I can dig up more check this >[3]

One last point - The Batman Storylines category was set up as part of the 'WikiProject Comics' which is (quote) "a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia". When I last checked a dictionary (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - no less) I found 'comprehensive' to mean "covering completely or broadly", thats c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y (or broadly)81.106.192.55 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is also not a miscellaneous collection of stuff, either, hence Notability guidelines. ALthough you have added some citations about the discussion of the issues, and they are individually trivial, and slightly more important together, you fail to tie them together in any way which coheres the ideas to the notability. Perhaps if you can find some way to introduce the themes of the stories to their notability, it might squeak through notability. That some folks in the industry point to it ina some minor discussions seems only slightly more notable than pointing them out in an art class on writing or scripting. There's no wider notability going on yet. Although I do see some improvements, I remain unconvinced that these are truly notable stories yet. Of the three, DK is the one I'm most willing to reconsider my nomination on, if it continues to improve, but I continue to stand unwavering on the other two. Finally, I note that one of the external links added seems to basically be a fan site. ThuranX 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So that is now a weak delete for DK from you. The way I read the above MorganaFiolett ultimately gave a weak don't delete on the grounds that these are new articles and should be given time to prove themselves (a slow - but clearly active process) - certainly for DK and DI. Only one out and out delete by Cogswobble. And one out and out don't delete from myself. So far I'd say its at best a 'weak call to delete'.

Anyhoo. I honestly find it amazing that people don't consider TNOTB to be notable. I have no sources to back me up here, but when this came out it sold out in seconds. I collected at the time and couldn't find a copy of any part anywhere in the UK - eventually I bought the complete collection for about £30 - which was a lot of money for 4 comics in the early 1990s. It was, at the time, (and in terms of when it was originally published in the comics)the first (earliest) Batman story set in 'present day' (i.e. not Years One and Two) to become a TPB (I guess Strange Apperitions now takes that gong). Due to popular demand it became a TPB some 6 years after it originally ran in Batman - Reagan was no longer president, but the themes of the story still resonated with consumers. It dealt with real political issues of the time, Star Wars, etc. and actually featured the then president (notably Reagan had also recently appeared in DKR - coincidence?) It introduced a new major villain. Spawned a direct sequel in the NKVDemon story arc. It ended with the strong suggestiong that Batman had finally killed a man in cold blood. It was an EVENT. I don't have many books about batman, and I never read industry magazines at the time. But i will be damned if there is not a wealth of notable writings about this story somewhere. Maybe I won't be able to add them in the next few days or weeks. But eventually somebody will. Unless the article is deleted ofcourse. 81.106.192.55 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you created an account, you could always work on them in your userspace. shoy 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's till a solid delete. I see some minor progress. I see that it may be possible to expand it further. I don't think that's going to occur. I'm a solid delete across the board, do NOT put words in my mouth. ThuranX 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Vehicles with Event Data Recorders

List of Vehicles with Event Data Recorders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List that consists of only one blue link, and does not have any other helpful information, non-encyclopedic. Tiptoety 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unmaintainable list Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:IINFO. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Not encyclopedic. i ^said 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this list is unencyclopedic. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, weakly, not for any reason stated above, but for the reference at the bottom: This article contains text from Harris Technical Services and is used with permission of the author. It isn't clear that this is being released as a freely editable GDFL text. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Cogswobbletalk 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 08:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velocity Rewards

Velocity Rewards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Search (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw)

Obvious advertisement, but not so blatant as to meet speedy deletion. I removed the speedy delete tag, and am posting here. Maintenance tags removed by others. Velocity Rewards has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the program or company running the program to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, notability is not inherited, and there are insufficient third-party, reliable, non-trivial sources which would establish notability of this program in it's own right. Whilst it has no bearing on this AfD, Asia Miles did not survive AfD and Skywards was speedied as advertising. It is also common practice within Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for FFP to be covered within the main article of the airline, such as AAdvantage which is now covered inline within the AA article. Additionally, the FFP articles seem to go against WP:NOT. --Russavia 06:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as notability not demonstrated by article. --Gavin Collins 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete While this entry would need plenty of work to remove the advertising feel, nonetheless this frequent flyer program is the second major program in Australia behind Qantas program. However, agree with previous comments that the subject is best handled within the main article of the airline (as is the case with Qantas). Murtoa 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge This should be merged into the parent article or just plain deleted. By itself, the article looks like a big ad describing the frequent flyer program for the airline. Just noting that there is a frequent flyer program within the parent article is probably enough said about it. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Virgin Blue I created this article and have tried hard to make it not sound as much like an advertisement. However I have found that there is not a lot of material to work with to substantiate a full article. Note that the prescence of this program is important, as it is the loyalty program of Australia's second-biggest airline. However I agree that it ay be better served featuring on Virgin Blue's site until it grows in stature. --Stuartfaz 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creatures in the Metroid Prime series

The article has no notability or reliable sources, so it has no out of universe information, so its just a game guide to all the creatures from the game, and should be transwikied pronto. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Important ones. Delete the rest. And you should format your AfDs correctly. Helps. i ^said 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki if needed and Delete Now that I see there is a Metroid fan wiki already existing I can't see why we need to fight this out. I like the idea of decentralizing the info from wikipedia anyway.--Torchwood Who? 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete for various reasons. This fancruft is long on plot summary, but lack of secondary sources fails to demonstrate notability, or worse still, indicates that this is original research. --Gavin Collins 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palpatine's chancellorship

Palpatine's chancellorship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hopeless cruft, which occassionally reads like an eassy and is full of origincal research and unverfied claims. Without out-of-universe commentary, only serves to reiterate plot. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge with Palpatine, per nom. Redundant; and I don't think it can be saved from the original research. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe, actually, the problem began when the info was split from Palpatine during FAC. Putting it back in might not be a very salient option. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's completely OR. i ^said 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm suprised anyone could care so much about a fictional character. --RucasHost 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources beyond plot of the films, fails WP:FICT. Jay32183 02:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, because concerns notable character from incredibly notable media. Plus, nominating the article as "cruft" violates WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it. And I'm surprised Jay would say no "sources beyond plot of the films" when Palpatine's chancellorship would also appear in the video games and comics of the Expanded Universe. Finally, the nomination seems incomplete as this page should also link to the earlier discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Video game and comic book sources are still not real world sources as required by WP:FICT. While you're linking to WP:ATA, you may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED. Jay32183 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Per the note on WP:FICT about an example in which "The information was already available on Wookiepedia", if the same could be said here, then I see no problem with linking from the Palpatine article to the Wookiepedia article (IF one exists) on Palpatine's chancellorship. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Then you're saying transwiki or delete, not keep. Jay32183 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I'm saying keep if there is not a Wookiepedia aticle, redirect without deleting if there is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research as well a violations of WP:FICT. -- Whpq 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mukadderat 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve Article could easily be improved to address in universe style and OR concerns, Articles that can be so easily fixed should not be deleted. It is obvious the topic is notable. Listing it as "cruft" is essentially saying "I hate it it should go" and there for is not a valid argument. The author of this AFD should have talked to the articles main contribs to solve the problem rather than delete it without trying to fix anything. Viperix 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me which reliable, verifiable and 3rd-party sources can be found commenting on Palpatine's chancellorship? I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if these were found, however I found no such results before AfD-ing the article. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I can try, I am not good at finding sources, but I am sure that someone who was could find at least a couple. http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/palpatine/ OR http://imdb.com/title/tt0121766/plotsummary OR http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chancellor+Palpatine+V+Jedi+council OR http://movies.about.com/od/starwars3/a/starwars101205_2.htm Viperix 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Urban dictionary and IMDB are not reliable sources for this kind of thing. In addition, while the about.com article certainly has good information, I see no part that is commentary on Palpatine's chancellorship in particular; its all about Palpatine's character in general. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not sure, but I am going to say Delete as per all of the above. This article violates Wikipedia:No Original Research. Greg Jones II 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case

Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#NEWS this is little more than tabloid rubbish and is not fit for an encyclopedia. The "article" is also problematic under WP:BLP as much of the facts surrounding this case are not fully known. This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article. Burntsauce 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- Enough complaints about the tabloid nature of the case. Irrelevant. This is front-of-mind for millions of Americans and a seminal moment of pop culture colliding with our justice system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.138.227.25 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because of constant media coverage and easy availability of sources. This case seems to be quite major. Eventually a merger with O.J. Simpson, may be possible, but it's just too early to delete or merge at this point. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now - the AFD is premature. A footnote, are you serious? OJ is mainly known these days because of that other incident. This one may likely contribute to his ongoing infamy. While Wikipedia is not a newpaper, this is a significant incident and I don't see us not having an article about it. Friday (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is puerile tabloid material Friday, and everything printed right now is "allegedly" anyhow. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, let alone a newspaper. Once the facts of the matter have settled we can place that material in the O. J. Simpson article. We don't need this, though. Burntsauce 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Problems that can be solved by editing should not be solved by deletion. Friday (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Except when they are WP:BLP problems that are potentially defaming someone, I completely agree with you. Burntsauce 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If there's really a blp issue here, the solution is to fix it immediately. This AFD shouldn't have anything to do with blp- that just doesn't make sense. Friday (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is not Wikinews. If the incident becomes very prominent it may warrent inclusion in the Oj simpson article. If not simply delete. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Its nice to see you throw AFD around so easily and the onus is on everyone else to say keep it. Anyways, as I said if nothing comes of this case by Wednesday September 19th, I will delete it.--Anais1983 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Where did this deadline come from? I could see an eventual merge if this doesn't turn out to be of lasting significance, but why would we pick such a soon date for this? Friday (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Frday, I said Wednesday because he will see the judge Wednesday. Charges will either stick and a trial will be set or this may die down Wednesday --Anais1983 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whats the big deal? People made a quick article for Michael Vick right? This story will not go away and we should keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.130 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews - it's not significant enough to be a Wikipedia entry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Currently a notable chapter in his ongoing legal troubles with verifiable facts. Makes sense to keep as a separate article for clarity. If it all blows over if can be cut down or merged later. —dgies^t_c 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, transwiki & redirect, chapter in his life sure, but it doesn't need a separate article. KTC 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki/delete WP:NOT investigative journalism, thats what Wikinews is for. Minor mention in the OJ Simpson biography is sufficient, a link to wikinews can be placed there. That is sufficient per our policies.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The only thing sufficient under our policies is comprehensive coverage of notable events, and it is impossible to provide that without a separate article. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Alkivar. Encyclopedias provide summaries of people's lives, not select incidents in the lives of contemporary celebrities. It should be part of a general article on OJ Simpson, but the fact that it is occurring now does not mean that it merits separate mention. -- Danny 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia provides comprehensive information about notable events. It does not warrant coverage depending on when it takes place; it warrants coverage based on its notability as confirmed by the sources. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge + Redirect + Wikinews A lot of the stars incidents doesn't deserve individual articles - and most of those doesn't have one since they aren't notable enough even though it a extensive news coverage (i.e Paris Hilton's drunk driving case or not even Phil Spector's murder trail case). A robbery is a robbery nomatter who did that. Like how mainly robberies are happening every day. No it should in Wikinews and merge to O.J. Simpson's article in a section about the incident.JForget 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's the classic "another article about a similar topic does not exist, so neither should this one" argument. The two cases you mention should have articles, but the fact that no one has written them yet does not reflect on the notability of this topic. A thing has or lacks notability based on the attention it receives from people and the importance they attach to it. If some non-celebrity robs a convenience store and the media decides to make that front page national news, then it should have an article; if a celebrity robs somebody and the world doesn't care and nobody reports it, then it does not warrant such treatment. Whether it's a robbery or whatever is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument. Everyking 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete : Wikipedia is not a newspaper (again). Should be part of the general article on OJ Simpson as stated above. Later on, a stand alone article could be created depending on the long term notability of this event. Tomj 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There's probably little question that some amount of content about this incident belongs in Wikipedia, right? There'll be something in here about this this week, there'll probably still be something here in a couple years. The details remain to be seen, of course- which content, how much, what article does it belong in- that sort of thing. I submit that AFD is a poor venue for such discussions, and this stuff should be worked out on the talk page instead. This is why I commented above that the AFD is premature, in my view. Friday (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and I think to say otherwise is a little naive about the world. The content, as Friday says, is subject to discussion. DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a news item of trivial social importance. Only the "celebrity" element lifts it out of a one-paragraph article in the local paper. MarkBul 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There has been a lot of news coverage on this (and I'm sure there will be more in the future). The media seems to be in love with OJ. --RucasHost 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't news though Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia isn't a news site. This story should absolutely be featured on his own wikipedia page, but notability has not yet been established enough to warrant its own article. Its possible this article will be necessary at some point, but not yet.Slapshot01j 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree Michael Vick got an article why not OJ. The third person just got arrested now. This will just get bigger.--70.71.13.87 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it is certainly notable for the OJ Simpson page but would be too lengthy to put there, so it's correct to have split it into another page. CoolGuy 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with CoolGuy above, plus there are certainly enough media sources to establish verifiability. Steve Carlson^Talk 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable event in a notable person's life, not to include it would be highly POV, it doesn't belong in the main article, it will disrupt the article with the constant flow of new information. Let's keep this here, and merge it later if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedant (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the Michael Vick references, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and avoid using that argument. I agree with Anais in that we won't know until Simpson faces a judge if this story will continue and I'll withhold on voting until then. MrBlondNYC 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, highly notable. Everyking 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Delete later. The fact is, as long as this is fresh, people will come here looking for this page. I have little doubt that a few months from now, this page can be easily merged into O.J. Simpson and deleted with little opposition, there's no harm in waiting until then. Cogswobbletalk 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not how it works. If it's notable now, it's always notable and should always have an article. If it's not notable, then it should be deleted now. Everyking 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no reason it can't work that way. The longterm significance of this incident has yet to be seen- yet, for keeping the main article stable, it may be useful to split this out for now. Friday (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Friday. This may not be how it should work, but the fact is that for now, it's somewhat impractical to delete the page. People will be looking specifically for this page, and the fact is that on its own, it stands up to WP:N. In a few months, after the furore has died down, it will be easier to objectively judge whether or not this page should be deleted or simply merged into his main page. Cogswobbletalk 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Notability never degrades over time, however... • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into OJ's ever expanding page, but consider creating a category for OJ's criminal activity in the future if he keeps up this pace :-) Irishjp 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly notable as an event, and can anyone honestly assume that coverage, reporting, and information on this event will reduce any time soon? Also, once notable, notability does not degrade over time. So, keep. • Lawrence Cohen 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is a (or even THE) go-to source for information; AfD this just seems to me to be a waste of time. Merging it would make the OJ article even more unwieldy, so it might as well be split. --mordicai. 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I probably would've gone for delete originally, but keep now that he's been officially charged. Seems pretty likely to be a huge news story of the year, and coverage of it will easily meet WP:N in the future, if not already. Although I must admit the article needs a bit of a re-write in some areas... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• This is not comparable to Michael Vick's Bad Newz controversy. Look at the two articles - the controversy page is massive! And this? It's a new controversy that we don't even know will be that much bigger than it is right now, and it's not even half the size of Michael Vick's article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability of an event or person is not decided on whether other pages exist or not. The fact it's small is not a reason to delete, either, it suggests expansion -- and the page you're saying it's small in comparison to is tagged for being too long(!). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Since most of the argument for keeping is exactly that, why are you telling me? - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't understand your argument then... It sounds as if you're saying that because it's not as big as the Michael Vick article, so it doesn't deserve one of its own? I dunno, seems I've misinterpreted. My apologies. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Simpson article, wikipedia isn't news Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, high notability overrides the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source, just like the hundreds of other ex-current-event articles here. Notability arises not just from celebrity fame, but the possibility of O.J. being jailed for life on these charges as a "fix" to his infamous acquittal. Merge if there is no court case or charges are dropped, otherwise treat it like any other article about notable court cases. Sabar^Cont 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an issue people will come here to learn about, and it will be in the media for a LOOOOONG time. --JaGa 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly at this point with state kidnapping charges and a potential life term this is not something that is going to blow over (as I might have thought even 48 hours ago). There may not be a trial, but if there is one, it's guaranteed to have global coverage (though live is unlikely this round). It is very rare when a celebrity of this fame or infamy is charged with such a serious crime. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - It would be premature to delete this article at the moment. Give it some time to play out. It could easily turn into a major event, akin to the earlier murder trial. Like it not, the public is fascinated with this kind of stuff.VincentValentine29 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article" - Huh, I think not. - hydnjo talk 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just saying no, please state your reason. Chris! _{my talk} 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge: Per WP:NOT#NEWS Chris! _{my talk} 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with Simpson's own article. This hardly warrants it's own article. Do these "Celebrity does something stupid" articles ever hold up? I usually see them merged onto the appropriate articles (i.e Michael Richards' Laugh Factory incident is mentioned on his article, the laugh Factory's, and a certain South Park episode's). This case is only notable because it involves O.J. Therefore, the appropriate article for this is O.J.'s. In fact, having just checked, a good chunk of this is already on O.J.'s article. This article is superfluous. EDIT- From WP:NOT#NEWS- The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. Also- Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.Onikage725 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Tabloid rubbish is stuff that is only covered by papers like the National Enquirer, Star, etc. This story is getting major air time from CNN, MSNBC and others. These are America's major news outlets. They are not tabloid rubbish. Also, much of the facts surrounding many things are not fully known. Take, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Big Bang. Many of the facts surrounding these are not known, yet they are important Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment That doesn't address the fact that this is covered on OJ's article already. What is the sense in having this article when the info is already covered? Onikage725 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of the fact that this article may well be the size of OJ's main article soon, and we should then make this seperate? The same the murders article for OJ is seperate? • Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly the same as the murder case. Onikage725 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, anyway, but we can't say what will happen. He's facing life in prison in this case; that is notable. Also, good thing I never called them the "OJ murders"! ;) I referred to murders, yes, because two people were murdered... • Lawrence Cohen 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread you. I removed that part of my response. All the same, the fact that OJ "might" go to jail for life (and I might as well cite the whole "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" thing, cuz if I don't someone else will) does not make this case notable beyond OJ himself. Hence why O. J. Simpson#Las Vegas theft allegations is entirely appropriate. That section could be expanded a bit, but the only key difference between that and the article is the "Timeline" and "People involved lists. And last I checked, lists were discouraged on Wikipedia. I don't dispute that this info should be represented, but noone has said how this article satisifes the requirements for the article beyond the section already on OJ's page. The vast majority of people with articles who go to jail have this written on their page, not a whole new article on the crime itself. Only especially notable cases do, and I fail to see how OJ holding some guys up for sports memorabilia ranks with something like, say, the Zodiac killings or OJ's own trial for murder. Onikage725 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note the lack of an article on OJ's civil trial. That case was heavily talked about, though not to the degree of the murder case. The verdict was against him. Fred Goldman still pursues damages related to that ruling (even involing this case we're discussing now). Yet this is not considered notable enough for its own article. It is outlined in OJ's article. Onikage725 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now per Everyking, Friday and Dhartung. MrBlondNYC 06:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keeeep per all the keeps above!--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 09:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if the O.J. Simpson murder case was a notable event, how is this one any less? Though it's known that WP:NOT#NEWS, "if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sessh, you really think that OJ shaking down some guys for sports memorabilia compares to the double-homicide case? If everything that the news media sensationalized got its own article, then we would have to write articles devoted to Paris Hilton's legal problems and Britney Spears' failed marriage to K-Fed, erratic behavior, and custody issues. These all receive much media coverage, yet they are represented within the articles on the persons involved. Without looking, what's the name of the people OJ held up? Most people neither know nor care, and plenty of newscasts I've seen haven't even mentioned. The only reason this is getting coverage beyond a spot on the 11 o'clock news is because OJ is involved and the media loves a celebrity scandal. Onikage725 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's 'news' right now in the sense that new details of the case are coming in, but the case itself is notable. It could be merged into O.J. Simpson later, but there should be a separate article right now for clarity. Revolutionaryluddite 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is an article on his murder trial, there is one on his book, so why delete this one? Let's keep it. --Zealander 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While it is tabloid-y, it's news and people, like me, come to wikipedia to get a good understanding of the situation. This has value, if only to devalue all the hype. --Effoveks 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Constantly developing. Could be merged later. To call it tabloid is irrelevant. I bet I can pick out a dozen "tabloid" WP articles. DragonFire1024 00:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's an Egg?

Totally non-notable video game made by the chapman brothers at homestar runner. Great site, but does a video game they made up in one of their emails deserve its own article? No. Judgesurreal777 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep. "nonnotable" is nominator's personal opinion. References that discuss the game exist. The game is notable for at least three criteria:
  • created by notable developer
  • nontrivial discussion of the game exists
  • nontrivial caterory for games: parody/computer humor
  • 2,290 google hits

The nominator writes themselves "great site", and it is confirmed by reliable sources. `'Míkka 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am confused by the statement: "made up in one of their emails". What does this mean? I've seen reports that someone actuall played the game. Or this is part of the joke as well? `'Míkka 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Two sources of brief discussion, that's really about it. Mikka, I hate to say it, but the only thing I can even hedge on is that there is any discussion of the game - and the two first sources appear to be nothing more than brief and trivial discussion. Other than that, yeah, it was created by the Homestar Runner people, and it's in a category - but those are not at all criteria for notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would not call this reference "brief and trivial": it fully satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. `'Míkka 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While not great, his is enough of a coverage to make it notable. i <sup>said</sup> 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Borderline keep, for reasons given above. 86.56.23.88 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• That one minor reference should be used to bolster the main Homestarrunner article which needs more references; one reference does not make notability or an individual article. Judgesurreal777 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the " main Homestarrunner article" is already large. Wikipedia is not paper, so the text in qestion is valid content for Homestarrunner. And it is in wikipedia custom it is normal to spin off parts of big articles into separate pages. It is not a standalone "individual article", printed separately in a magazine. It is a part of a series of encyclopedia articles about HS-runner. `'Míkka 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a concern, except that that article can be trimmed, and one more reference, which is about the real size of this article, could be fit into the main article pretty easily. Judgesurreal777 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"can be trimmed": wikipedia is not paper. Why would you want to trim? Why would one squeeze "four in one"? IMO bloating main articles with detail is bad idea. `'Míkka 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as much as I love Homestar, this doesn't have sufficient reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a verifiable, reasonably standalone topic. Since it is a product of the notable homestar runner folk, I see no valid reason for exclusion of this information. Mukadderat 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Most H*R pages were just merged. --(trogga) 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems fine to me. - Lex 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy fetishism

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

Non-notable, non-existent topic. Unsourced since June 2006. No evidence of coverage in WP:RS, no evidence of notability. Valrith 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple search of google proves its existence. This website makes reference to the fetish under "EROTIC LITERATURE MARKET" (denoted R). mattbuck 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep distasteful as it may seem this pornographic niche exists, there was a segment on it in Channel 4's "Pornography: The Secret History of Civilisation" for which there is a [4] I haven't seen this book (not that I'd admit to it even if I had) so I can't add it as a source. KTo288 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination, this falls under the category of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Burntsauce 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The relevant question is: can the article be referenced properly? Given the other linked pages in the box at the bottom of the page, I can't see how you keep this one out. It's certainly hard to find anything with a Google search, considering the topic. MarkBul 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep not per other junk exists, but because it seems we have one good source listed above already.DGG (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to prove validity due to a lack of reliable sources including those discussed in this deletion debate. Someone's private sexual fetish may exist in their own mind, but be no more than original research and thus not qualified for an encyclopedia article. Note: women usually do not lactate during pregnancy, so there is also a lot of nonsense in the article, further qualifying it for deletion. Edison 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's a bit harsh to call it someones private sexual fetish, it is more wide spread than that, however the only respectable looking site I can find for it is this one from Psychology Today which discusses fetishism in general and pregnancy fetishism appears in the list of fetishes.KTo288 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to assert notability. Cogswobbletalk 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment bear in mind that there are also French, Russian, Portuguese and Japanese versions of this page, so the charge of being "someone's private sexual fetish" is clearly unjustified. (The French version does quote a book as a source, but it's apparently a translation.) Also note that there's quite a lot of articles linking to this one [[5]], although most of them are about other types of fetishism, presumably even less notable than this one -- Sneezing fetishism, anyone? Henrik Ebeltoft 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Amazing, the stuff Wikipedia contains, you learn something new every day!
• Keep. Not my thang, but certainly notable. Don't you read Savage Love? Haven't you seen Little Miss Sunshine? There's a scene with bizarre mags. Bearian 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete THere is no soruce. Marlith ^T/C 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maieusiophilia seems to be the term for attraction to pregnant women: [6]. Perhaps the article should be moved there--Victor falk 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)?
• Keep I conducted the Google search and indeed, pregnancy fetishism does exist. No offense, but maybe you should start Googling stuff first before you say it's nonexistent.

--Gp75motorsports 11:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Gp75motorsports

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Philosophers' Football Match

The Philosophers' Football Match (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed by anon, stating s/he needs the article for a paper s/he's writing. Unfortunately, the article does not pass notability on its own and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by the sketch. It also fails WP:PLOT as it is a plot description. The sketch is available for viewing on YouTube and the transcript is available from many sites including this one so our anonymous student will still have access to the information. Otto4711 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While not as famous as the Dead Parrot Sketch, this article still remains far more valuable and worthwhile than the obscure anime fancruft that permeates the wiki-annals. if by nothing else than by virtue of it being produced by Monty Python, by whom it was deemed noteworthy enough to make it onto a compilation DVD, whereas a multitude of other Flying Circus sketchwork did not meet such a standard. hellenica 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The existence of other articles that you don't like does not justify the existence of this article that you do. Otto4711 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because it is a well-organized article, we have a category for Mont Python sketches, the references show that the article is not a hoax, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The best organized article in all of Wikipedia still needs to meet all relevant policies and guidelines and this article fails several. The existence of a category for Monty Python sketches does not mean that every Monty Python sketch is independently notable. "Not a hoax" is not the standard for keeping articles. You have made all of these arguments previously many times and many times you have been advised on the lack of merit of them. Your continued insistence on making them forces me to question why you keep making them. Otto4711 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You just haven't persuaded me that my arguments are weak, that's why. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• One would think the number of articles that have been deleted despite your belief in their well-organizedness and not-a-hoaxitude would serve as clues to the weakness of the arguments. "How could the Titanic have possibly sunk? The deck chairs are arranged so beautifully!" Otto4711 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the reverse of course is that a good deal of articles I thought should be kept also have been kept and consider for example in this discussion that the only other post beside you or I is a "keep" as well. Oh, by the way, I posted a reference of a new book on your talk page that I thought may be of interest to you. If you are interested in those kinds of topics, I have a couple other suggestions that you may like. Let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As with the overwhelming majority of Python sketches, the only thing that seems to be notable about this one is that it was performed by Messrs Cleese, Palin, Chapman et al. That means, in other words, that there's no coverage I can find out there exlusively about this sketch. As Otto argued above, the article is very attractively written and patently not a hoax (I'm a die-hard Python fan and can vouch for its truthfulness), but that doesn't make it notable, which is the threshold operating here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep clearly notable, beyond a doubt. There are at least 3 published academic articles dealing with this sketch. The nominator seems to be confusing the process for cleanup with the process for deletion, as his position is that 'it needs more to make it fit' not that it will never fit. --Buridan 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And which criterion for speedy keep does this match? For that matter, where are these articles? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep this sketch often gets mentioned to/discussed by philosophy undergrad students. I think that suggests notability requirements are met. I know that the article gets read and is found a useful intro. Anarchia 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Inclusion in a book^[1] satisfies my threshold for notability. Or perhaps in Monty Python's case, notariety. RussNelson 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And which criterion for speedy keep does this match? Additionally, the link you've provided simply points out that there are books written by a particular individual, one of which is about Python and philosophy. It doesn't show that this sketch is mentioned in the book. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

it meets nominator does not want to delete, cause he seems to want it to be improved by his statements--Buridan 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that at all from Otto's comments. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

he provides no evidence that it is not notable, which is the basis of his nomination. he says there is no inheritance, which seems to me to be false. and it fails wp:plot, which is his only real critique that i can see, and that can be resolved with cleanup.--Buridan 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that notability is not inherited is a pretty common one to make. You're welcome to argue against that idea, but I wouldn't go saying that it invalidates Otto's argument without a reasoned explanation of why. He also indicates that it doesn't seem to have any independent notability, which is hardly evidence that he wants it cleaned up. It is, rather, evidence that there aren't any reliable third-party sources predominantly about the sketch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - humorous work that is very well-known to philosophy students and the like. Does need some sources though... see if I can dig some up. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ Monty Python and Philosophy

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moshpit Tragedy Records

Moshpit Tragedy Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable record label. Few claims of notability, trivial references (based on their press releases). Company website has no Alexa rank; while there's a fair amount of Google hits for "Moshpit Tragedy Records", only 79 unique ones among the first 1000 (Google never displays more than 1000 search results). Delete, unless notability is independently established. - Mike Rosoft 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: on 15 September the creator made some edits to the article and removed the deletion notice; I am re-adding it now. - Mike Rosoft 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• ---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Page has been updated and now contains scanned review of label's release from magazine, mp3 link in which radio show host speaks about label and free downloads for 36 second segment, entire show and segment are both linked as well as urls. Also quotes from third parties, interview snippets, bands which are recognized by wikipedia and mention the label on their pages, references, etc have all been included. Do you know how long it will take to have the deletion tag removed? Has notability been proven enough? If anything is done improperly please just let me know here. Thank you. Moshpit tragedy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unfortunately we still don't have reliable sources (independent from Moshpit Tragedy) for this one. We have blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net that were probably written by the record label itself. Admittedly we also have an mp3 file supposed to contain a radio show episode where they're mentioned, but since the file is more than 50MB, I didn't check it out. Even worse, none of the sources we have tell us much about the record label itself, more about the bands signed to them (or not - an entire paragraph is about a deal that didn't happen). Seems non-notable. The fact that it's massively edited by User:Moshpit tragedy and thus a possible conflict of interest doesn't help. Huon 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Huon, there are two links from the radio show. One is a smaller snippet, please have a listen to that one. It will help, as the host says the label is giving away free music and how people can get it. I haven't included any of the label's press releases as an actual reference, only as an outside article for more info for readers. I am just a fan of the label but have done too much work to let it go. The Extinction of Mankind release is high profile, and so was the Eyehategod cancellation, thats why it is noted, it was a talked widely about among metal and punk fans. If it is decided more is still needed please let me know, I know it can be proven because the label's stance on the current record industry and their actions are at the forefront in terms of direction for small labels.Moshpit tragedy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudic for later recreation. I have reviewed the audio and even so, it is still falling short of what is needed. Basically we need mutiple newpaper articles/tv show segments/National radio show segment/books or other such mentions from reputable, reliable, third-party sources. While I applaud the effort put forth in this article, it does not meet the standards wikipedia has set. Blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net are not valid sources to base an article on. This is a non-notable label, at this time. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have begun an article on co-founder Rayny Forster who is a notable singer and was written about in many magazines and other sources. Included there is a link to his old band's label's (Cargo Music) site about the band which mentions him and also a review which mentions his singing style in Heckler magazine which is another reliable source. I am determined to find enough info for this as it is out there. Will add more magazine ads and expand on the founder and his other notable projects. Thanks. Moshpit tragedy 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have by now heard the short version of that show, but I remain unconvinced. For example, Google News gives precisely two hits, both from blabbermouth. As for Rayny Forster, I'm not sure whether that very short review makes him notable - compare WP:MUSIC - but this is the wrong place for that discussion anyway. Even if he is, the record label he co-founded need not be so. Until something "high-profile" gets at least some independent news coverage, this label just isn't notable. Huon 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I have been in touch and have received word that there is such news coverage being published very soon and I will link that up immediately. Thanks for your patience with the newbie. Moshpit tragedy 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem to be very notable, no really-known acts are working with this label.--JForget 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just added another reference which has a short writeup for a magazine's website and not a press release. It contains the founders names, and has some of the bands listed here. Also Extinction of Mankind are very well known, they had a split record with Doom, who sold 15,000 copies of one EP ("Police Bastard" number one selling crust record of all time). I am also going to add some more scans from magazine coverage. Moshpit tragedy 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Have added over 12 reviews of the label's releases from reliable independent news sources. There is more coming. Can we take the deletion notice off?Moshpit tragedy 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - concerning process: The Article for Deletion process takes five days (in this case counting from the September 17 relisting), and in the end an admin will have a look, determine consensus (not counting the number of votes, but weighing the reasons given for keeping/deleting), and initiate the appropriate action (either remove the deletion notice or delete the article). So no, we can't yet take the deletion notice off. Concerning your added reviews: I still don't see notability for the record label. Of the reviews I checked out, two didn't even mention that label at all (one claiming the release was "independent"), and but one did more than just mention the name. They may possibly serve as indications for notability of the bands whose music is discussed, but such passing mentions won't make the label notable even if there are thousands of them. By the way, the one non-trivial review was this, which claims to be a blog. I'm not sure whether it really is; blogs usually are not accepted as main sources for articles. Anyway, it already was a reference before it was added among the reviews. Huon 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Added new Review link, its in Dutch I believe, and roughly translated says something pleasurable about the label for putting out the release. Probably still not enough for you but there is more coming if I can get it up in time. If not I will recreate the account if that is allowed when there is something even more concrete if all this is not enough for you, and I'll leave out all the small link stuff if its of no use anyhow. Thanks to everyone for their time.MetalPunk013 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• In general, an article which has been deleted after a discussion like this one should not be re-created in article space without a very good reason; otherwise, it may be immediately deleted again in accordance with our speedy deletion criteria. If (even after the deletion) you believe Wikipedia should have an article about the recording label, consider creating the page as a draft in a subpage of your user space (such as User:MetalPunk013/draft) first. (When ready, you may notify administrators at admins' noticeboard or otherwise ask the page to be reviewed.) And uploading scanned articles from newspapers etc. will not be particularly helpful, because they probably can't be used on Wikipedia anyway - see the image use and fair use policy. (Instead of uploading them to Wikipedia, you may link to them from the article if they are available online.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Added section about the label's ridiculously limited edition T-shirt for the band Fuck The Facts, a very well known working band on a large label, Relapse Records. Includes quote from bands website and reference. http://ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm It is about three quarters of the way down their news section, Dated Jan 1. Also in their links section they call Moshpit Tragedy a "Punk Grind label from Windsor ON" These shirts were of special interest because of the groups status and the fact that only 20 were made. MetalPunk013 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KIV-AC-types

KIV-AC-types (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This goes against WP:NOT, it is a loose list of aircraft seen at Kishinev Airport, an aircraft spotters guide which squarely belongs on any other site, just not WP. Russavia 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it's fascinating. It's even sourced. But still it's not a Wikipedia article since it doesn't serve any of the purposes for lists at WP:LIST and doesn't have anything to say about the subject except just listing the planes seen. Huon 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as WP is not a place for lists like that.--JForget 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Not noteworthy. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - seems more like a fan listing appropriate for airliners.net. The aircraft that take off and land at KIV can change from month to month based on when schedules change. Some day, those little Fokkers won't be landing at KIV any more. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackmail (Monty Python)

Blackmail (Monty Python) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed without comment. The sketch is not independently notable as there are not reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch. The notability of Monty Python is not inherited by every segment of every episode or film. Also fails WP:PLOT as it is nothing but a description of the sketch itself. Otto4711 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless someone can link this article to some kind of cultural reference or "fad", or otherwise show why this particular set of sketches are noteworthy passed the fact that they are Monty Python sketches, it fails WP:Notability. Pharmboy 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• It also was done at City Center, and was on the Instant Record Collection compilation. And I thought it was silly. Too silly, in fact. And a bit suspect. But it's still not notable and should be deleted. Signed, --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (not dead)
• Delete per nom. I can see this one going down the exact same path as any of the other Python-sketch AfDs, and hopefully with precisely the same result. No independent notability out there for this sketch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see any sort of notability tied to this sketch beyond the fact that it's a Monty Python one. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 20:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Rock & the Medicine Show

Dr. Rock & the Medicine Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Twice speedily deleted as advertising and as no assertion of notability; it doesn't seem yet to have any notability Nyttend 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable local radio show. NawlinWiki 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although I'm sure theres some nonsense precedent that every radio station, show and DJ are inherently notable, they're not. i ^said 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Local show. Not notable. Cogswobbletalk 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, notable radio show. Not just local. Streams worldwide. Features non-mainstream music including unsigned artists. Worldwide fanbase. Bradroenfeldt 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, Notable show. Great selection of signed and unsigned talent. Personally know of two non-U.S. acts that greatly increased their fanbase and got U.S. gigs directly because of this excellent radio program. Deletion would be a shame. Bluesrockrich — Bluesrockrich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Nyttend 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, The radio show is notable because it is streamed worldwide and as such has a much broader audience than a local station.--Josephkirstine 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — Josephkirstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merrily We Roll Along (musical)

Merrily We Roll Along (musical) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)The complete text of this article is included in Merrily We Roll Along. There was no reason to create a separate article for it. ConoscoTutto 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• One of them should be redirected, though it appears the musical was the more well-known and popular of the two versions - it may be better off for that to be the remaining article, with the information about the play merged in. (is that confusing enough?) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• The article appeared as it is now under the title Merrily We Roll Along. For some reason, an editor thought it was necessary to divide it into two articles, one for the play and one for the musical, but by doing so the play article ended up being only a few lines long, which doesn't make sense. Since Merrily We Roll Along (play) contains ALL the information, shouldn't that article remain and just delete Merrily We Roll Along (musical)? ConoscoTutto 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I split the play and musical versions of this work into two separate articles. The play (by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart) was first produced on Broadway in 1934 and ran for 155 performances. The musical, with a book by George Furth and lyrics and music by Stephen Sondheim, was first produced on Broadway in 1981 and closed after 16 performances. I believe that by combining the two articles, it discourages editors from expanding the article about the play. I also note that User:ConoscoTutto recombined the two articles without notifying me or making any notation on the musical article's talk page. -- Ssilvers 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? I made a notation at [7]. You, on the other hand, split the original article without making any notation or putting it up for discussion first, so how am I in the wrong but you're not? As far as expanding the article about the play, that would be fine if there was considerably more that could be said about it, but there isn't. If there was, you should have written it when you split the original article. ConoscoTutto 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, blocked User:SFTVLGUY2, I see that you are back to your bad old ways, now posting as User:ConoscoTutto. -- Ssilvers 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Why is it so hard for you to engage in a civil discussion and stick to the facts? Your implication doesn't have anything to do with this issue at all. Why are you throwing up a smoke screen instead of admitting you were wrong in accusing me of not making any notation on the musical article's talk page? ConoscoTutto 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit, including moving the relevant links - a very substantial job. You undid all my work without discussing it first. This violates Wikipedia policy on edit warring. -- Ssilvers 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All I "undid" was the division you made. Looking at the history, I would have no way of knowing you had moved relevant links. Please stop trying to make it look like I acted maliciously. That wasn't my intent at all. And once again you raise the issue of making edits without discussion, even though you split the original article without making any notation on the talk page or putting it up for discussion first. Why do you keep accusing me of not following a procedure you ignored yourself? ConoscoTutto 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true: I put a disambiguation notice leading readers of each article to the other. That is the most prominent way to note that there is a new article with a simlar name. -- Ssilvers 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The 1981 musical is a re-working of the original play with music and lyrics supplied by Stephen Sondheim, who has 15 major Broadway pieces to his credit. This addition makes the work a completely separate piece of art. One would not combine Pygmalion with My Fair Lady either. I support maintaining separate entries permanently. --RayBirks 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• One would not combine Pygmalion and My Fair Lady because there's enough to say about each one to warrant separate articles. Looking at the history, it seems the original article about Merrily We Roll Along was strictly about the musical and didn't even mention its source. That information was added to the introduction and the article remained that way for months until Ssilvers divided it and left the play article only a few sentences long. As they say, why fix something if it ain't broke? ConoscoTutto 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: While I hesitate to wade into the SFTVLGUY2 - Ssilvers feud, I tend to agree with SSilvers that separating the two articles encourages expansion of the article about the play. The last time I had seen the article, there was one sentence on the play in an article about the better-known musical. It seems to me that the play is notable enough (notable creators, played on Broadway, etc.) that it warrants its own article. Just because it currently exists as only a few lines does not mean that a full, well-written article couldn't eventually be created. Why not start it now? —  MusicMaker5376 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI would have made the selfsame point about Pygmalion & My Fair Lady had not Ray Birks anticipated me. The defence made by the proposer for deletion seems to me self-contradictory, tending in fact to underline the desirability of an article about the play as well as one about the musical. Tim Riley 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

• Keep both articles separately, they are both notable enough. Trim text properly, if the play is a stub then it's a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both articles, (in fact three, there's the song too) clearly different entities - and disambiguation is needed in any case. Kaufman and Hart are an important collaboration and their history shouldn't just be conflated with Sondheim's. Surprised that the play article seems to have been reverted to include all the info about the musical, after this AfD was posted. Conosco did the right thing to list it here for discussion and (I think) the wrong thing by anticipating the outcome, but I don't attribute any malice. The play article should be extended beyond its (now non-current) stubby state. Kbthompson 09:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both articles. The play one is several paragraphs long, not several sentences. BTW, I hope I'm adding this right, I guessed on how and imitated other entries.

--Waladil Surewood (not a username) 7:35 PM 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both. Common sense suggests that the play and the musical should have two separate entries, cross-linked or disambiguated at the top, and cross-referenced in the notes or in the body of the article. Significantly, perhaps, I came here looking for the Eddie Cantor song, "Merrily We Roll Along," (AKA the Merrie Melodies cartoons theme) and discovered that there were also a play and a musical. Who knew? That's WikiPedia, folks."````

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Keep Not a deletion debate. Shyamal 13:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IDN Email

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

This page has been moved to International E-mail Derekalexanderwilliams 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this looks like a cut-and-paste move. Pages should be moved by clicking 'move' at the top of the page. Can an admin sort this out? Hut 8.5 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The information from this page has been moved to Internation E-mail. Admin please delete. Derekalexanderwilliams 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Haemo 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kitzta

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

No references; no relevent Google hits. Probable hoax. Delete —Salmar ^(talk) 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons, likely hoax or imaginary critter that no one except the author has heard of. Pharmboy 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of referencing, amongst other reasons. Search results return nil in relation to article (including a search for "kitsta" in case of mispelling). Likely a hoax or a descriptive term used amongst a minority with nothing to back it up. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Given the vague description, I think a kitzta is a hoax, or perhaps a foreign tongue for Delete. Mystache 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and ban the user responsible for creating the hoax article in the first place. Uncyclopedia is three doors down. Burntsauce 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Google results only gives results related to a Myspace.com page - totally unrelated to the subject here.--JForget 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a hoax. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Marlins Ballpark

Perfect example of a crystal ball, which violates WP:NOT, who knows if a ballpark is going to be built, info already mentioned in the Marlins article, wikipedia isn't news nither, prod removed for no reason Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Fabrictramp 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete When they actually decide on a new stadium and begin construction this could be turned into an article, but right now it's just rumor and guess work... Spanneraol 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a textbook perfect violation of 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.' At least it is perfect in some way. Pharmboy 21:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator nails it, and this is a textbook violation of WP:BALLS to be sure. Burntsauce 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No indications when the building will be completed - if it is going to happen or if the Marlins will be still playing in Florida too (their attendance record is often indications that there future in Florida is in doubt).--JForget 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If a stadium is approved, then an article is appropriate. Cogswobbletalk 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per reasons already given. The legislation/debate surrounding it has received a lot of press over the team's history and does deserve its own article. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Office Pirates

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

Procedural nom; I've deprodded this since - as it has at least one significant reference (from Media Week) and was owned by the decidedly notable Time, Inc and not a two-guys-in-a-basement operation, this may warrant keeping; however I'm not certain we really need to keep articles on defunct websites, even those run by major corporations. Procedural nom so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. The article doesn't really claim any notability besides being owned by a major company--which itself owns many websites, large and small, and thus I don't see any notability really being inherited. Chasingliberty.com, for example, is also owned by Warner Brothers and is about as non-notable a site as you'll ever see. The article is mostly about the website getting shut down, and the Media Week link just leads to a server error. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Arrr! tis notable indeed, matey! Billgordon1099 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep under WP:WEB criterion #1, multiple reliable sources about it. Bondegezou 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rule 5 draft results

Unnessary list, info can be found most other places in the web, it's already 32 KB and only about ten years out of more than 50 is listed, Wikipedia isn't a list of stats, which I consider this to be, also fall under WP:LISTCRUFT, and no prose really can't be formed out of this list, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. All of the things that Jaranda cites are either inaccurate or insufficient reasons to delete. Taking them one at a time:

1. found most other places in the web: In theory, ALL the information in Wikipedia can be found elsewhere (that's the point of WP:V in the first place). Furthermore, even if a particular piece of information is currently found on another site, there's no guarantee that the information will continue to remain there in the long run. The site's operator could get bored, or run out of money, or die. If it's here, we know that it's going to be here for as long as we need/want it.
2. it's already 32 KB: The length of the list is irrelevant. There are much longer lists in the encyclopedia, and even if people decide that the list's current format is unworkable, it could be broken down into subpages (as with List of Major League Baseball players) for a cleaner page display.
3. Wikipedia isn't a list of stats: There are no stats on this page. Names, teams, and positions, but no stats. The section dealing with this in WP:NOT#INFO is meant to deal with telephone directories and such, not an ordered list such as this one.
4. also fall under WP:LISTCRUFT: WP:LISTSCRUFT (an essay, not a policy), states that lists are permissible when they are closely tied to a topic which has its own article, and are discouraged when they are tied to a topic that does not support a standalone article. As such, this list appears to pass the standard, not fail it, since it is an extension of material covered in Rule 5 draft.

Given that the reasons cited in the nomination are therefore invalid, it should be kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• All are relevant, wikipedia it's an encyclopedia. This is a topic for a sports alamac, not here, the list is far from complete, when it does get completed, it will easily be 200 or more KB, and the topic, while it meets WP:V, it isn't notable for individual articles on it's own right. My fault on the stats, but it's just a directory of players who really doesn't have anything in common other then that they played baseball and that they were drafted, it meets 2, 3, 7, and especially 8 of the listcruft criteria. The players who played major league baseball is already mentioned in the Rule 5 article, everything else is a list of nn minor leaguers. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. The only bit that I can really follow, about all the MLB players chosen in the Rule 5 draft being listed in Rule 5 draft, is incorrect. Most are not listed there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Jaranda keeps using his "not a sports almanac" reasoning, but an almanac actually is a type of encyclopedia. In any event, this list seems perfectly within the realm of other baseball related lists. Spanneraol 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• I should also add that we already have articles for a lot of the red links; they just aren't crosslinked properly because someone used the guy's full name instead of his common name (or vice versa). Going through with just a casual glance a few minutes ago, I blued misnamed links to Dave Maurer, Steve Andrade, Alejandro De Aza, Dewon Day, and Willie Collazo. Many more of the redlinks are guys who had short ML careers, but haven't had an article created for them yet (Joe Valentine, Mike Neu, Jose Morban, Chris Mabeus, Jeff Bennett, Rodrigo Rosario, Chris Demaria, Corey Thurman, Ryan Christenson, etc.) Many of the rest also meet notability standards for having been minor-league All Stars, or participated in international competitions, or played in top foreign leagues. There are a few who haven't done anything of note, but it'd be a lot easier to just un-link those names than it would be to delete the entire list. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I hate lists like these. At any rate, just put this in the article on the team that drafted the person. If it doesn't belong in the article, it doesn't belong in a list. i ^said 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Absolutely encyclopedic. List meets WP:LIST. It has clear, definable (and relatively unique) criteria and provides a service that categories or individual articles do not. I dislike lists too, but you can't argue when they meet the rules, and this one meets the rules. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's far from clear for a user who doesn't like sports, the list itself isn't really that useful, and doesn't really have a clear purpose that other sites like ESPN have. We are not them Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, of course the list isn't going to be useful for a reader who doesn't like sports. George Washington isn't going to be useful for a reader who doesn't like history, but we shouldn't delete that, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • But you are comparing obvious notable subjects to poor lists like this Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not every Wikipedian needs to find this list useful for it to stay. None of us are an expert in everything and we all find a sizable portion of the million pages on this encyclopedia uninteresting and not at all useful. Luckily the Wikipedia do not ask us to judge how useful or interesting an article is - they simply ask us to apply series of tests to the article, and if it passes, it stays. This is list with a finite number of entries (players taken in a rule 5 draft). Membership in the list is determined from an external source - Wikipedians do not use original research or their own judgement to add members to this list. The subject of the list (Rule 5 Draft) is notable. Many, if not all of the members on the list are notable as members of a professional baseball team. Even if you do not understand a thing about sports, you can clearly see that this passes WP:LIST, and thats all Wikipedia is asking of you today. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with CosmicPenguin. It's a list like any other. It should stay. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator is correct, this type of information belongs in some sort of sports almanac, not an encyclopedia. Not even an electronic encyclopedia, sorry. Burntsauce 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Its not unknown for encyclopedias of the traditional kind to have apendixes of stats and tables, the reason they have them and the reason why wikipedia should tolerate such pages is that it provides information that can illuminate the content of an article without disrupting the trajectory of the prose of an article. KTo288 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you please WP:CITE some examples of any other encyclopedia including trivial data sets such as this? If so I will reconsider my delete view. Thanks. Burntsauce 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no knowledge of the subject myself, but is it possible that some of these several baseball encyclopedias might include lists like this? DHowell 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Baseball encyclopedias mainly consists of brief histories of baseball and their teams, and alot of stats. 131.94.22.243 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - the keeps all seem to be coming from SPAs; the consensus among non-SPAs seems to be a delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan O'Malley

Dan O'Malley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Regional DJ, not syndicated, no independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. i ^said 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cap'n Walker 20 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: Cap'n Walker seems to have a personal vendetta against anyone associated with KLLI. Wikipedia is about information. There are a lot of people/things listed on Wikipedia that wouldn't fall under the "notable" guidelines. When you delete all of those, then you can justify this - until then, it's a vendetta. Are you really Kraddick in disguise? The fact of the matter is - if it's information for the public - and Wiki isn't getting complaints from the subject (and yes, Dan KNOWS about his Wiki entry) - then get off your high horse and go do something useful. If you delete Russ and Dan et al, I expect all these to be deleted as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radio_people_stubs - Tara — Prettypetal 07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP-Dan O'Malley is an important part of the Russ Martin Listeners Foundation for Fallen Police and Firefighters. He is also a co-host of a popular weekend radio show and a co-producer of the higest rated radio show in DFW, a top five market in the nation. Dan O'Malley deserves to be on here as he is a public figure and active in the community through his association with the charity. Captain Walker seems to have some type of problem with people from KLLI and has attacked other shows and personalities from the same station. KEEP Dan O'Malley on here!!!!....David. — 71.158.162.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP- Dan O'Malley is a public figure on 105.3 Klli Radio station. He is involved with the Russ Martin show and with the Hero's Parade. He is well known to people in the Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex and even more. There are less known people than him still on wikipedia, aim for them rather than Dan. He DESERVES to be on here. Next time use your time better than aiming for people who deserve to be on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikurik (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — User:Rikurik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE - Dan is not nearly as notable as Russ is. Just because he is somewhat famous from a radio show does not mean he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy listening to him on the show and I think he makes it better than without him, but he just is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwilson (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - minor radio personality - fails WP:BIO. Bigdaddy1981 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete; per discussion, article lacks sufficient sourcing to establish notability. I will userfy the article on request if an editor wants to work further on acquiring such sources, but even so, the final product would need to be based on reliable, independent secondary sources and thus would require a major rewrite. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. J. Dewey

J. J. Dewey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All of the references used in the article were published by the subject, so the article seems to be unverifiable since there hasn't been significant coverage from secondary sources. I've added the {{primary sources}} template twice; both times it was removed by Smithgiant without explanation. 17Drew 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails primary notability criteria since there are no WP:RS. Almost a vanity page but the claims to published books is a weak claim to notability. But since there are no refs to these books they still dont amount to WP:NOTE.Obina 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  In the future, please remember to avoid using WP:VANITY, "as the term can be considered insulting to the people it is applied to." The vast majority of Smithgiant's contributions have been to J. J. Dewey, but (s)he hasn't clamed to be J. J. Dewey, and there's nothing that implies it. 17Drew 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability cannot be established, proved, or disproved, through a list of wikipedia references. Notability and encyclopedic suitability are independent of whether or not the subject has a wikipedia entry and also independent of what the wikipedia entry looks like. "Notability is not temporary." See WP:NOTE. I don't know how high this would rank on the notable scale, but I do know that deleting this article without giving the newbie who's furiously working on it the chance to fix it would be a flagrant violation of WP:BITE. Flagging this article for deletion without any discussion flagrantly violates WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:PROBLEM which directly deals with the issue of badly-written articles. Fredsmith2 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry I agree with your comments on notability being permanent and all that, but what is the basis for your keep comment and this being notable? I and most others would love to reach consensus. I would be happy to change my mind on this. But the fact that we don't mean to bite a newcomer does not really mean that this person is notable. Notability in fact can be and is established by references - what we need are multiple non trivial WP:RS. If these exist, then this person is notable. Of course this page wont be deleted without discussion - this is the discussion. The basis for deleting is un related to whether the article is badly written or not.Obina 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not claiming this page is notable. I'm simply saying this page shouldn't have been nomiated for deletion, and that discussion of improvement to the article should have taken place on the talk page. Also, the fact that this article was nominated for deletion, seems to me to violate wikipedia's WP:BITE policy. I agree that notability can be established through references, but a lack of notability cannot be established through existing references on a wikipedia page. The thing I think we should do is remove this article from being nominated for deletion for a month, let the newbie fix the article, and then if nobody has esbablished notability yet, and if anyone cares, someone can re-nominate it for deletion. Fredsmith2 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire purpose of deleting an article because of notability is that the article cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. No amount of copyediting is going to produce secondary sources, which is the issue at hand; if you know of secondary sources not in the article, please feel free to share them here and/or add them as a Further reading section. WP:BITE does not apply to nominating an article for deletion; many articles are speedy deleted, prodded, or taken to AfD by recent changes patrollers. WP:BITE refers to "hostility or elitism" toward new users; adding a maintenance template to an article needing a specific improvement, or nominating an article that doesn't meet WP:NOTE does not fall under that category. 17Drew 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I appreciate the civil discussion and feeback; and I would, of course, vote to not have this page deleted. However, I now have had time to read just about everything that I can find on the various Wiki policies on notability, and for posting explanations for adding and removing the various flaggings. And while I have a clearer understanding of it all now, from what has been presented here in this discussion, I am afraid that despite the fact that I authored these changes, I am unable to logically give, or argue for any reason as to why this article (bio) should be allowed to remain as is. I realize that I still have a lot to learn, as I still can't quite figure out where, how, etc., as to post my comments and discussions as it relates to this action--and apologize for posting comments all over the place!? And, as I didn't have comments posted on this page, I thought that I would at least post to let others know that I am paying attention, reading, and listening. Also, I was curious as to who makes this final decision concerning such deletions, and is there any other appeal procedure available before this action becomes final and permanent?

Smithgiant 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good questions, to which good answers can be found at WP:DELETE. Even if the article isn't deleted, it isn't lost and gone forever; you could still ask an admin to restore it to your userspace so you could work on it. shoy 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Melsaran (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Brown

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

Delete. Not noteable. Google search only comes up with her personal webpage. Endless Dan 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Let's keep looking for WP:RS. I note for example this UK website uses her art.[8] This is difficult because she may be well known in the fairy community - the struggle is finding mentions out side this.Obina 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Endless Dan 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the ref, Dan. That link refers to the (wrong) argument that other wikipedia articles exist, so this one should. Not the point I'm trying to make. I provided an external web site in another country (in a cyber sense *grin*)that uses her artwork. Since it is commercial site it may not be reliable but I'm thinking she may be notable if we can find the source. If you mean something else, sorry I dont understand your comment. And dare I say WP:GHITS? Obina 19:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Endless Dan, I'm not sure what google search you did, but searching for '"amy brown" fairies' came up with 420,000 hits [9]. Not that I think that google is a good test of notability, but lets at least show an accurate count. Murderbike 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Google search '"Amy Brown" faeries -fairies' came up with another 72,500 hits.[10] Her artwork seems to be sufficiently widespread and, as Obina has already mentioned, sold internationally. Since the notability is as a fairy (or faery) artist, most of the Google hits are fairy/fantasy merchants, but the artwork is also available at various merchants who specialise in other goods and services. One example is Herbalmusings.[11] Another website outside her home country is Australian Native T-shirts and Gifts.[12] I have the impression that she is notable.Coyets 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Internationally-known artist with two published books and a huge amount of recognition (among other things, her designs are heavily marketed by Hot Topic). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It amuses me that two three people in this discussion are using copycat signature designs. Burntsauce 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm off the fence. My basis is as above, and with the addition of these sources. I trust one of you kind editors will add a few to the page itself.Obina 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Milian's Fourth Studio ALBUM

Christina Milian's Fourth Studio ALBUM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Rumors. No known title, rumored tracks, and from the beginning sentence it appears she doesn't even have a record deal. And no sources. Corvus cornix 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:crystal ball.Obina 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another classic example of why the WP:crystal policy was developed. Pharmboy 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More crystal-balling.--JForget 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL and inappropriate naming conventions. Nate 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete! There will soon be news and it will have to be made again. Just leave it and keep on adding info as it comes! (Wikirocks2 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment She doesn't have a label currently, so unless there's PR put out by the label, we can't confirm it's coming out. Nate 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete there are reliable sources for this album however it is definitely not ready for an article yet. there's one or two blog posts and a leaked song, that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.145.174 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♫ 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nora Blansett

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

DeleteNot noteable Endless Dan 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more websites relating to the artist Nora Blansett than there are Kylie InGold, who has less credible information regarding her life and work. If artists such as Amy Brown and Nora Blansett are to be removed, with far more credits to their names (including winning prestigious awards such as the Froudian Art Awards), then should there not be a complete overhaul of current, living fantasy artists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. As for the other crap exists argument: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Cap'n Walker 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is still my opinion that while these particular artists are of no interest to you, it does not mean that their life and accomplishments which are highly acclaimed are not of interest to others. These are in fact notable, esteemed artists in their field of fantasy illustration and each have been published with documented awards by other noted artists and organizations. Their validity should not be determined by whether or not someone who's response is "As for the other crap exists argument"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete I really wanted to vote to keep her based on gut instinct (it certainly seems to me she's notable enough) but Google News and Google Books both came up with nothing, so unlike with Amy Brown there might not be any particularly reliable sources saying so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - It seems to me that the award ought to make her notable (at least it would if there was an article about the award) but in sheer Google terms she isn't. Deb 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, her award is only mentioned on the Brian Froud site along with other award winners. If you need information regarding the validity of her Froudian Award, the information is here, straight from the World of Froud website: http://www.worldoffroud.com/www/froudians/frdart/aug2006.cfm

I would also like to state that ones notoriety on the world wide web shouldn't be a factor in determining their notability. This artist's website clearly states that they have only been on the web since July of last year. Given that she has only had one year to press her work on the internet and already has 11,600 hits for Google, I'd say that her notability has skyrocketed and will easily be one of the more well known fantasy artists on the internet. I hate sounding argumentative -- but I feel that there are often artists that are very popular, but only in certain circles. There are millions of people who have no idea who Brian Froud is, and yet he's the most well known of all fantasy artists worldwide. Five years ago, you would have found *nothing* on the internet about him. I'd like to think that opportunities should be made to make information available about artists of quality that aren't painting poppies on a mountainside. We should be supporting the arts -- and including an artist that has gone from zero to 11,600 in a years time is certainly not a waste of time.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "support the arts". shoy 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN, at least for now. Marcus22 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ^♫ 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynx (protocol)

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

Appears to fail WP:N. There seems to be only one implementation of this protocol, and no sources independent of this one implementation have been given. An expert review request to WikiProject Computer networking also did not turn up more sources. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently a YMODEM variant of some kind used for BBS file downloads. At least, intended for same, but aside from a couple of shareware listings I can't find anything about it. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have vague recollections of Lynx and Commodore, but that may be the years catching up on me. Is there a WP article on BBS file transfer protocols? If so, I'd recommend this be merged. I think this is of historical interest; given the time frame, it shows the volatile evolution of transmission protocols. Much of the collection is at [13]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, see List of file transfer protocols. It is more of a list than a comprehensive article, unfortunately. Burntsauce 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any reference that qualifies. I ran multiline BBSs in the early to mid 90s and was a BBSer since 1990, but never heard of this protocol. X,Y,Zmodem and many other varients (mainly reverse engineered or pirated Zmodem protocols for obvious reasons) "Links" was a terminal program (not Unix Lynx) and there were several different protocols that we SysOps had to support, but this is a new one. Googling "lynx bbs protocol" shows this article first and garbage afterwards. HOWEVER, the supplied links seem legit, and frankly, everyone and their uncle was coming up with protocols and programs for BBS's back then. It appears the protocol was developed and does exist, and you can still download and implement your own version of it. As to "notability", I fear the nom is correct. Unless someone can show me something more, I gotta say delete as just another protocol that no one used. Pharmboy 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If in fact you ran a BBS, I find it hard to believe you did not support this protocol. Burntsauce 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:AGF applies, especially since you could have looked at my user page and learned a bit. Google "Crash and Burn bbs Greensboro, NC" if you have any questions, and compare to my bio on my user page here. Again, this protocol exists, it was never popular (in the US anyway) and I researched it again to confirm this. Opinion stands as is. Pharmboy 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Guess what else applies: WP:AAGF. You just violated the first rule. Burntsauce 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You started a comment with "If in fact you ran a BBS", which is pretty obvious. Look, vote how you want, express your experience how you want. Insulting or questioning my integrity or questioning the honesty in my statement is not conducive to a proper debate, and this is exactly what you did. Just because my experiences are different than yours doesn't make it proper to make a comment questioning my honesty in a debate. period. Pharmboy 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a chill pill. My point is that virtually all bulletin board software supported this protocol, and if you did in fact run a BBS then you probably supported it too. Maybe you just don't remember, but that doesn't make the protocol any more or less notable. Burntsauce 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I (an Apple II user) have heard of this, but it wasn't popular in my area (area code 309). I think Lynx was one of those things that caught on in pockets geographically. Where I was, ZMODEM was the standard "high performace", with BiModem on BBSes where the same people uploaded and downloaded a lot. (I'll bet a lot of people say they haven't heard of BiModem either.) There was also Punter for the Commodore 64/128 folks, whose terminal programs usually had that instead of ZMODEM. Strangely, I think Commodore folks used to use Lynx sometimes where I was also, but I don't think Apple or MS-DOS folks ever did; I could be wrong about Commodore users using it. --Closeapple 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carey Young

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

Delete. As per WP:NPOV, WP:RS --Endless Dan 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She has a work in the Tate [14], a review in ArtForum International [15], and is the subject of a BBC news story [16].--Ethicoaestheticist 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient notability is evident in the current version of the article. One thing though is that the demonstration of notability has left a badly-structured article which needs pruning/restructuring if it survives. AllyD 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Major exhibits, media attention. I moved some parts of the article text around, but as AllyD says, it could use more editing: particularly, a stronger connection should be made between the text of the article and its references. —David Eppstein 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenn Cricket Club

Kenn Cricket Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable village cricket club, playing at the very bottom level on the league ladder, with no over-riding claims to notability fchd 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable, absence of reliable secondary sources. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't look to be notable at all and fails the WP:V--JForget 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, created by someone who almost certainly has a conflict of interest (User:KennCC). League they're in is nn too probably, and the entire team seems to be part-time. I find it slightly odd that the village doesn't have an article yet but the cricket team does, though, heh. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linton Johnson (BART)

Linton Johnson (BART) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Being a spokesperson for a transportation utility is not notability. Corvus cornix 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect relevant info/sources to Bay Area Rapid Transit. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Non-notable person, but use the opportunity to Redirect to Lyndon B. Johnson. Some people aren't sure how to spell the 36th president's first name. Mandsford 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This simply is not notable and I feel it would be too contentious to make it a redirect to Lyndon B. Johnson, the misspelling is not plausible, and thus would itself qualify for speedy deletion as an implausible redirect. Burntsauce 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete And I agree with Burtsauce (Or is it Starblind? Or Endless Dan? :) It would not be a good redirect. Not plausable misspelling. i ^said 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Possible keep I saw this quote in a website for a newspaper " transition to one of the highest-profile positions at the Bay Area's largest public transit provider ..." So if the position is high profile and notable, then the person holding it is potentially notable.Internet Response Office of the Republic of One (population 1) 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But there needs to be reliable sources to write a biography from. Corvus cornix 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 17Drew 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Whig Party

British Whig Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I know this is going to be very contraversial... but this article has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore fails WP:NOTE by not asserting its notability, plus WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go. There've been nearly 16 months for somebody to deal with it, and they're clearly not planning to. Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Regardless of assertion, being one of the major political parties in England for hundreds of years is certainly notable. Further, the question isn't is it sourced; it's can it be sourced? Plenty of history books should be around, so this isn't a deletion issue -- it's a cleanup issue. Lack of interest isn't grounds for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Speedy close I added the appropriate Encyclopedia Britannica entry as a reference, and this is most certainly a topic worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously needs references, but clearly passes WP:N. AFD is not the way to deal with unreferenced articles. Use {{unreferenced}} and see WP:CLEANUP for other avenues at getting an article improved. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball keep, clearly notable political party if it's been around for hundreds of years. We do have the {{unreferenced}} template to fix lack of references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable.--Michig 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as very notable political party; this should be rather easily verifiable and referenced. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, AfD is not cleanup. Article tagged for references, which is all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cloven hoof

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

Has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore fails WP:NOTE, WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go. Rambutan (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, important anatomical classification, as well as one with cultural referents, thus more than a dicdef. Sure, it needs references. Is AFD the best way to go about getting them? --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. AFD is not cleanup, and are you seriously trying to argue that cloven hooves are non-notable?! Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close WP:RS and WP:V are grounds for cleanup not deletion, and clearly needing references does not mean it fails WP:N (which is a guideline anyway, not a policy). Inappropriate venue for request for references. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, "unsourced" doesn't mean "should be deleted". Article simply needs cleanup. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chancellor of China

Chancellor of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore doesn't pass WP:NOTE, WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go, basically. Rambutan (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, important historical office that obviously CAN BE referenced. AFD is the wrong venue for going about this. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close WP:RS and WP:V are not grounds for deletion, inappropriate venue for reference request of clearly notable topic. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Senshi Sole

Ryan Senshi Sole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as hoax. No sources can be found for "Ryan Senshi Sole" or "Senshi Sole" or even Senshi+Kunkanti. The article for Kunkanti, the settlement he supposedly founded, has already been deleted as a hoax. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sources found. Having delt with the article's creator's vandalism and disruptive edits, I must conclude this article is certainly a hoax. --Evb-wiki 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely nothing out there to indicate that this is true. Not even sure he would be notable if it were. --UsaSatsui 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed seems to be WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I guess he yearns holiness, seems plausible enough at first sight, with the lack of ghits I was worried about the possibility of a non standard tranliteration of an Indian name, however a look at this editors edit history suggests multiple hoax, disruptive and abusive edits. There is nothing in this editor's record which suggests that this is not a hoax.KTo288 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Google gives outside of Wikipedia: Zero, zip, zlich, notta, aucun results - a big doughnut. Obvious hoax.--JForget 23:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhea Hughes

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

Delete. Vanity, not notable. No WP:RS Endless Dan 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, fails wp:bio, and is pretty much just a vanity piece to boot. If you check original author and his talk page history, he seems to upload lots of copy issue pics and such. Pharmboy 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another non notable radio personality. i ^said 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warhammer 40,000 conflicts

Warhammer 40,000 conflicts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Long list, very "in-universey", and debateable as to the notablility of the listed fictional conflicts (there are many other "conflicts" that, withing the GW universe, should be included on this list) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft ffm 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft extreme. Burntsauce 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete & salt — Caknuck 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Casino (collective)

Big Casino (collective) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although the lead paragraph makes this sound like an impressive organisation, on closer inspection none of these projects actually seem to exist. The magazine has yet to publish a single issue, while I'm unable to locate a single release of any kind on the record label; assuming those fall down, all that's left is a COI piece (written by User:Timbouckley about his own organisation) about a student art club, plus an unsourced statement that the group "plays an important and active role in London's arts and cultural scene". While the un-Googlable name means there could be sources out there I'm missing, there's certainly not anything I can find to suggest that this group has had any coverage in reliable sources whatsoever - the sole "reference" is merely to a collection of photos of an exhibition in Area 10 Project Space (itself long deleted as a non-notable venue) and — while I'm well aware this is unscientific — I would expect to be aware of any organisation of any note operating in this field in London, and I have never heard of this group. Bringing it to AfD instead of prodding, in order to give more people who might be able to find reasons to save it a chance to rescue it — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the creator's talk page the creator's talk page prior to their blanking of the previous deletion notifications for this article it appears this article may have already been deleted twice - any sysops could take a look at the history & see if this qualifies as a G4? — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment Since nominating this, an anon has deleted the mention of Tim Bouckley from the article — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt, originally deleted as an A7 and now it's back. Somehow I doubt that a school art club formed in 2007 and which doesn't seem to have released anything really "plays an active role" in the arts scene of London. No references either: the linked page doesn't even mention them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt, blatant vanispamifragilisticexpialidocious. Page already deleted twice as an A7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and apply liberal amounts of sodium chloride. Burntsauce 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not meet WP:N. Also, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL However, A7 does not seem to apply. The article asserted importance/significance. This AfD may determine whether such assertion is reasonable for future speedy deletes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles are about MMORPG player characters, so I am deleting them due to a lack of a claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darius Dracia

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

Eirra (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Two non-notable characters in a non-notable RPG called Eon (not to be confused with Eon (role-playing game)). Eirra + eon returns ~70 ghits (link) (the majority of which are someone's user name on deviantart, sheezyart, and a proboards forum); "darius dracia" returns even fewer hits (mostly wikimirrors and, again, deviantart user pages). Precious Roy 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both. Possible hoax. Hits for the 'creator' only turn up the Eirra article. If not a hoax, utterly non-notable.--Sethacus 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above ffm 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - no assertion of notability. Hal peridol 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. I think these are someone's personal role-playing characters. Either way, definitely nn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy closed after merge & redirect. Non-admin close. KTC 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Thursday (2007)

Black Thursday (2007) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability of this event not established by cited references, seems like recentism. Ronnotel 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Dow Jones Industrial Average#History. Appears to be a valid event, but should not be called "Black Thursday", surely needs copyedit, and other issues (stats)... Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with your proposal to merge, rename and copyedit. Ronnotel 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Does not need its own article. ffm 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merged: WP:BOLD - done. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Tatiana of Leiningen

Princess Tatiana of Leiningen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article fails to cite sources, the subject fails WP:BIO. No proof she's an actual royal, and even if she is, she's still not notable. Delete GreenJoe 14:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to House of Leiningen. Someone should check the articles of her sisters as well.--Sethacus 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They've now been tagged for speedy deletion. GreenJoe 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One of them was already declined as it was tagged with the wrong db tag. I'm removed the rest, they're not speedy candidate as there is an assertion of notability, even if one think they're not notable enough. KTC 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect The nobility = notable argument has between used before, but this person is so incredibly minor that her only important place on Wikipedia is in the article Line of succession to the British throne and possibly in an article on the House of Leiningen. If the only thing making someone notable is their ancestry, put them in the articles that make them notable, not one of their own. Charles 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to House of Leiningen, which has plenty of room for a listing of important members. Note that the word Princess is used to translate the German Fürstin, a title of nobility ranking below a Duke. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think you are confusing the German title Fürstin with Tatiana's would-be title of Prinzessin, which has no bearing here anyway. Charles 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: There are 650 or so people in line to the British throne, all but one of whom are bound to be disappointed (probably including Prince Charles). They don't all deserve their own articles. Much better to be divided by House or however the European royals are divided than have hundreds of worthless articles. Watchingthevitalsigns 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect to her father's article. The only non-boilerplate content in the article is one sentence about her schooling, which could just as well live there. Choess 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John R. Bacon

John R. Bacon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unable to verify any of this article's claims via Google. Accurizer 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete possibly a hoax. unverifiable. ffm 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Sethacus 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Additionally, the article claims the Financial Times as a source, but the only John Bacon in their online archives is a member of Parliment. Delete. -Toptomcat 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like a self-written resume with no demonstrated and verifiable sources. Hbomb phd mom 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Celebration Company

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

fails to meet WP:CORP Rtphokie 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Celebration, Florida. It's basically equivalent to the city government anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect As per Dhartung. i ^said 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent

List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Why does this matter? NE2 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't. Max ^{- You were saying?} 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The auxiliary numbering scheme allows for highways connected via another auxiliary route. The list as a whole is not particularly meaningful. All this information can be noted on the relevant auxiliary route articles. --Polaron | Talk 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete useless listcruft ffm 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, roadgeekery of no significance. The article doesn't even mention the non-standard mile-markers on I-117, so it's obviously incomplete. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Now THAT's a good word... "roadgeekery". Even I, a proud road geek, find this list to be of no use. At first, it appeared to be a list of those highways that encircle a major city to bypass the through-town traffic, but it's highways that meet a definition that most travelers would not notice, and it's narrowed further because it "does not include Interstates that violate the numbering rules, such as I-278, I-678, or I-238". Mandsford 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete meaningless list. This is not how the Interstate Highway system works, and this information should be noted in the individual auxiliary Interstate articles. —O (说 • 喝) 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. It is not uncommon for an auxiliary interstate to connect to its parent via another "sibling" spur, and there's no need to have a list of the ones that do this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decomission - erm Delete: per above master son^{T - C} 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• List of auxiliary Interstates unconnected with a Parent Interstate- just found this. Should this get deleted as well? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun democracy

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

No reliable sources to demonstrate notability. 3 google hits for "Shotgun democracy" "Adam Champ" not indicative of significant notability. — Swpb^talk|edits 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BAND. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article as well from third-party reliable sources. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above ffm 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. Redirect to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 (I'm only half kidding.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I was hoping to see an article on sort of political theory, instead it's an article for a band that nobody cares about. Furthermore the article is filled with MySpace link spam. --RucasHost 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Destinations, Inc.

Campus Destinations, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, local company has only been in operation for a year, article offers no useful info and reads like an advertisement. carlb 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability guidelines. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable sources for this company. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ffm 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant advertising. Keb25 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Ghits per Siva1979. Bearian 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete Rewritten article. ABAN84 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.202 (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Gargano

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

Delete. Vanity, not notable. No 3rd party sources. --Endless Dan 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A quick google search shows up no third-party reliable sources for this personality. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above ffm 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Soesbe

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

Property transfers, births, and letters to the editor are the only information I could find. While he, himself, has produced published material, no third party has reported on such events or on his life. Seems in need of a good publicity agent. Until then, it appears that Douglas Soesbe has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Douglas Soesbe to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Although I'm sure it's another Automatic Notability!! situation for people who write movies, I don't see him as notable. The COI doesn't help either. i ^said 00:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless links are provided. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the IMDB. Alba 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Pickering

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

WP:Autobiography of n.n. academic - no 3rd party bio identified on the web - "DIO" website appears to be self-published fringe journal Cutler 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Fails WP:BIO ffm 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I dont see this as a notable academic. i ^said 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment based on their web page, I am reluctant to classify DIO as fringe. Unconventional, maybe. DGG (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dell Schanze

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

Non notable Servicenetbest 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Reliable sources for this character are cited. He has some notoriety on a state wide level. Also, I am curious as to the nominator's intentions. According to Servicenetbest's contribs history, initiating this AfD is the only edit I see. That's an uncommon first edit. Am I just imagining this, or is something fishy going on? OfficeGirl 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing fishy going on here. It is true that I am new to Wikipedia, I was not aware that being a new prevented me from suggesting an artcile be deleted. If I have overstepped my bounds then I apologize. My belief is that the subject, while somewhat notorious in Utah, is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. He is primarily known for childish stunts, run-ins with the police and a failed business venture. You might as well let every teenager in the land create an entry about themselves. Servicenetbest 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Servicenetbest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He might be an idiot, but if he's a well-known idiot receiving newspaper coverage for childish stunts and stupid behavior, he's got a shot at being notable. You are certainly welcome to participate in any part of the Wikipedia process as a new user. I hope you will forgive my query, as there has been quite a bit of edit warring over this article and it is not unheard of to see someone create a new account to initiate drastic action on an article just to prove a WP:POINT. OfficeGirl 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. I suspect that this nomination was sparked by Dell's appearance in the news last night for paragliding within feet of a ship at sea. The rationale behind such a nomination would be, "I can't believe this guy gets so much attention for doing such stupid stuff, I wish the news would take him out of the spotlight, so I'm going to do my part by taking away his spotlight on Wikipedia." Dell clearly meets the criteria for notability, this nomination is a snowball in my opinion. Reswobslc 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral based on my confidence in the other editors who have commented. Delete on the basis of no intrinsic notability. The articles are examples of the sort of journalism that deals with curious local events, even those of no real importance or notabilty. A string of minor misdemeanors does not make a notable criminal, and he's known for nothing else. News coverage about things that are trivial is trivia, in the real sense of things not worth writing about. Writing it as paragraphs doesnt make it more notable. DGG (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you're underestimating the magnitude of how well this guy is known (and hated by many, for better for worse). His stunts consistently make front page news because of how well he is known by name. Mainstream newspapers covering 1-million-plus metropolitan areas don't put some guy's cute little stunts on front-page news just for no reason. Per WP:N there is no question he is notable due to significant and ongoing media coverage over the last 5 years. Reswobslc 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite his antics, he appears notable. -Toptomcat 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reswobslc is dead on-the-money. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT a crystal ball.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martha in the Mirror

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

No content, therefor no context. WP:CSD#A1 was contested, so this is a procedural nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 11:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no info, not worth having. A prod was also contested.--Rambutan (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pub. date is May 1, 2008, probably no details known at the time, call it WP:CRYSTAL Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Yeah, I removed the {{db-nocontext}} tag as not quite accurate, but that doesn't mean I think we need an article about this book until after there's something to say about it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above OZOO (What?) 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we speedy this one?--Rambutan (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arachnocampa — Caknuck 04:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cave glow worm

Cave glow worm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article cites no sources, has no references, and furthermore, the glowworm page in existence more than suffices for this topic. DigitalCatalyst 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant to glowworm, unlikely use as a redirect. Marasmusine 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above ffm 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect the editor was trying to write about Arachnocampa, "Cave glow worm" would appear to be a valid redirect. KTo288 23:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. First we have to deal with unsubstantiated large faggot worms. Now this. Burntsauce 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arachnocampa. As KTo288 said, this is probably what he was trying to write about. i ^said 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, awesome article. Really interesting. David Q. Johnson 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arachnocampa. Redirects are cheap and it's reasonably likely that "cave glow worm" might be used as a search term. Waggers 11:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arachnocampa, per Waggers.--Victor falk 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect As the other users have citied, this article covers the same topic. Revolutionaryluddite 05:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Nicholl (neurologist)

David Nicholl (neurologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a living person notable for only one event. As discussed in WP:BLP this is unlikely to warrant an article. Itsmejudith 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this single event is not significant enough to warrant an article.--Rtphokie 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Just in case anybody else doesn't think being an internationally recognized human rights activist is enough, I've added a few more points to the article. I'm always amazed -- no I'm never amazed, but usually disgusted -- by the fact that deletion-crazed users rush to post their Google Search results when they favor whacking articles, but somehow those guys never respond on articles like this one. VivianDarkbloom 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thats a very good start. For as many Keep's as I'm seeing here I'd hoped to see more updates and learn more about this man from this article.--Rtphokie 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Reasonably notable as researcher (>200 Google Scholar hits) and clinician, in addition to notoriety from activism. Hal peridol 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the political notability needs some additional references beyond the BBC, which says only that he "co-ordinated" the letter -- agreed, a very important letter. But with respect to his academic work: I clarified the references and added a sentence about the topic he works in and his professional position--the inadequate article did not mention either. And they are not very impressive: he does not hold an academic position other than as an honorary senior lecturer, which I think is the UK equivalent of a US clinical assistant or associate professor; he has only 32 peer reviewed papers listed in Web of Science, rather low for a clinical scientist; his most cited paper (very heavily cited--one of a group who isolated an important gene) is one where he was only 13th of 21 authors, and similarly for most of the rest of his work. I think he is of very borderline notability as an academic. GS hits, like ghits, need analysis, not counting. And "notorious"; is a negative term, not a positive one. DGG (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe he's notable for his role as an activist, with several letters published in the Lancet and other medical journals on related topics, eg. [17], [18], [19]. Though as DGG points out, he seems to have published relatively few primary papers (Medline finds 19 papers, several of which relate to activism), most are in high-quality specialist journals eg Brain, Neuron, Ann Neurol. He has also co-written several reviews on Parkinson's, eg [20], [21], which tends to support the idea that his peers consider him an expert, and I believe goes towards satisfying WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doris Collins

Doris_Collins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete Not notable. A mention in Sharon Abbott would suffice. Kogsquinge 06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough to have seperate article. Merge if there is an appropriate place. i ^said 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by I. Bondegezou 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD a7. Non-admin closure.--JForget 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan murray

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

Fails WP:NOR, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:NPOV, and probably WP:AUTO or similar. Questionable notability and the content of the article at the moment is mostly nonsense. The article does, however, assert notability and Google does turn up hits for a young squash player named Dylan murray. I considered tagging the article for improvement, but as it stands no article is better than this article hanging around. Markdsgraham 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Drivel like this does not even need to be discussed on AfD. The best way to get rid of this sort of thing it to shove one of the several applicable "db" tags on it. --DanielRigal 18:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That is my instinct as well. I'm still a relative novice and could not see a criteria that applied directly, since there is a not incredible assertion of notability. What is the appropriate action in these cases? --Markdsgraham 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In theory, your approach is closer to following the rules than mine but my view is that Wikipedia is in danger of being deluged in nonsense unless we are quite tough with new articles. I would have put the best of the "db" tags on or just put db-reason with a short explanation. I know we shouldn't be too trigger happy but everything gets looked at by an admin before it gets deleted (so it isn't liek the person tagging it is judge, jury and executioner) and an article with no merit (even on a subject which deserves an article) is best got rid of as quickly as possible.--DanielRigal 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No merit but doesn't seem eligible for speedy to me. —David Eppstein 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, if not Speedy Delete. Clearly a hoax and/or COI, something made up in school one day. Approaches CSD G1 (patent nonsense) and CSD A7 (non-assertion of notability of a person). The whole school is getting a good laugh out of this one, and mostly at Wikipedia's expense. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is one fact that can be verified as a Dylan Murray did win a final at the Dutch and Pioneer Juniors, but he wouldn't pass WP:N quite yet. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Most of it is blatant nonsense.--JForget 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just put a CSD 7 tag on it, although I could have easily put a G1 tag too. Loks definitely nonsense after a second reading--JForget 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Oh please. This is such obvious bullshit I think we can all agree to skip the formalities. I imagine that WP:IAR was established for this very reason? Burntsauce 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Owen

Evan_Owen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Character was a guest who stayed on the show for about a month. Not nearly notable. Kogsquinge 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable enough character to have his own article. i ^said 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:SOURCES. Doesn't appear to be a notable character, only two incoming links there. shoeofdeath 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Shoe. --Gwern (contribs) 19:59 23 September 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was no consensus; therefore keep. Most of the comments were made prior to Noroton's additions, or it might have been a clearer consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natomas High School

Natomas High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article provides no notability for the subject. Rjd0060 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertation of notability. ffm 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notable alumnus makes for notable school. But there needs to be a source for the claim of the notable alumnus. Corvus cornix 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Natomas, Sacramento, California, or else keep. — RJH (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per RJHall. – Zedla 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Nothing wrong with having stubs. Experience shows that if enough work is done of any high school article, the school turns out to be notable. DGG (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Natomas, Sacramento, California. If it had better references I might be inclined to support the keep view. Burntsauce 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (and also expand) per Corvus cornix but this (notability due to significant alumnis only applies for High Schools and at the limit (or a few cases) Middle schools. Worst case, merge to the school district/board.--JForget 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Booooo precedent. Not every school in existence is notable. This is no exception. i ^said 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - High schools are generally notable and there's no reason to make this one an exception to most outcomes. It has over 3000 students and located in major Sacramento area. Stubs are much better than no article at all and they likely will grow. --Oakshade 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep article makes claim of notability, but needs additional sources. Based on precedent for high school articles, this article should be kept and expanded. Alansohn 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as this results page for Google News archives shows, the Sacramento Bee has given the school significant coverage far, far beyond Wikipedia notability standards. Too bad all the articles cost money to retreive. Unlike verifiability standards, WP:N does not require that information from multiple, independent, reliable sources actually have to be added to the article, but that it is demonstrable that they exist. The assumption that all high schools are inherently notable (because these sources always exist) is shown again here. Noroton 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found I was able to get information from the exerpts that the Sacramento Bee provides for its on-sale articles, so I added info from about seven of them to the article. It now meets all Wikipedia notability requirements. Not a great article, but it passes. Noroton 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silvermist

Silvermist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

• This article fails to meet WP:FICT. Also, this article has been tagged for cleanup since Feb 2007 but hasn't received much attention. --Rtphokie 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources, and if Silvermist is indeed supposed to be introduced in a 2009 movie, we're gazing deep into a crystal ball. Huon 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That was funny Huon. Delete per him. i ^said 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft. Bondegezou 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Newman Jr.

Victor_Newman_Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete This character is never seen and rarely mentioned. Kogsquinge 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable character. Mentioned in soap but that all. No info on page that is not on his dad's page. In fact better still redirect to Victor Newman. Obina 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ying Wang (actress)

Ying Wang (actress) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

IMDB lists only one role in some b-movie --Philip Laurence 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fails WP:BIO, so delete pending any evidence of actual notability. PC78 12:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per PC78. KTC 12:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -Yupik 19:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. Only a secondary or tertiary role.--JForget 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Marsh

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

Don't think he's notable. No record of him having played for Derby using NeilBrown site and nothing else came up on quick Google search WikiGull 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no sign of him on www.allfootballers.com either. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Also no sign of him on Pride of Anglia. Number 57 15:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it's actually his son who's meant to have played for Ipswich, rather than the guy whose article we're AfDing.... ChrisTheDude 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• A very good point - thanks for the correction. Anyway, his son hasn't played for Town either and the man himself doesn't seem to appear in any records - perhaps Mattythewhite is correct in his analysis. Number 57 12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ffm 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no record of anyone with this name in "Football League Players' Records 1946-1984" (Newnes Books, 1984, ISBN 0-6003-7318-5), therefore if the bloke does exist and was genuinely a footballer with Derby County in the 1970s, he never made it to the first team and therefore fails WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a hoax. Mattythewhite 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. -Yupik 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not on the "...definitive guide to every player to ever pull on a Rams shirt." either. --Malcolmxl5 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Amos (footballer)

Phil Amos (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, never played professionally WikiGull 10:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO - PeeJay 11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delet Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 57 11:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KTC 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above (Quentin X 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
• Delete not notable - shockingly - even if he does teach at Dormston School. --Dweller 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above ffm 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -Yupik 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Amos is a retired SEMI-professional football player. Emphasis on the SEMI. Burntsauce 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I guess the sentence Burntsauce mentions says it all.--JForget 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO as has not played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of GURPS books. Will be kept as a redirect (though not deleted) until reliable sources to notability are produced. CitiCat ^♫ 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS RebornRebirth

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

This article is long on plot summary and character description which reads like original research, but has no independent sources demonstating notability. --Gavin Collins 10:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of GURPS books. Although your statement about OR once again shows your misunderstanding of the subject material, I do agree with your analysis of notability, and believe a redirect would be best in this circumstance. Turlo Lomon 10:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have a read of WP:OR and you will note that it states that "original research...in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative". This article is 24-carat OR. --Gavin Collins 10:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I have read that. The article, presumeably, summarises the contents of the book. That is not OR. It just using a primary reference, and as such, does not meet notability. Turlo Lomon 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of GURPS books despite inaccurate and likely bad-faith nom. Percy Snoodle 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of GURPS books. Once again, you're misusing WP:OR in stating it as a basis for this nomination. This is not a "novel narrative"... no one made it up to write here, they read the book and summarized the information therein, as is perfectly valid according to WP:OR's section on use of primary sources. Pinball22 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, indeed. (As a courtesy to somebody for whom English is not the first language: in the phrase "novel narrative" we are not meaning "novel" as a literary form, are we? Do I understand correctly that we are meaning it as an adjective?) --Goochelaar 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case we mean "a narrative that has not existed before" not "the narrative of a novel". That's probably not necessarily the clearest wording that could have been chosen. :) Pinball22 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Goochelaar 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per others...yeah...I still think you're pointing.--UsaSatsui 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI guess I'm pointing back.KTo288 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question Would you care to explain the reasoning behind your keep? Turlo Lomon 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Sure. I'm being quixotic,t he only arguements I have are "I like it" and "It does no harm" which are non-arguments here so have been left out, however this article represents the the time and effort of editors to make, in good faith, a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, and should be recognised as such and shouldn't be discarded without some recognition and thought. My keep, is therefore made more out of solidarity for all the GURPS articles and for the editors who contributed to this article (and probably won't know about this AfD until they find it gone) then out of any real expectation that it will have any real effect. KTo288 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect ... AGAIN per above rationales. --Agamemnon2 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am a main contributor of this article. I can show you related books of the GURPS RebornRebirth (ガープスリボーンリバース). See search result of RebornRebirth (リボーンリバース）in Amazon.co.jp. But they are only four books. I'm afraid this article is lack in notability. Plumcherry 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What are those four books you link? Game suppliments? Novels? Have any of them won awards in Japan or been covered in Japanese gaming magazines, etc.? How many Japanese RPGs are based on American RPGS? If you can provide this info, it may establish notabilty. Edward321 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Three books are novels and one book is a replay (published session log). A few recent Japanese RPGs are based on American RPG systems such as GURPS RebornRebirth, GURPS Yuel (The sequel of GURPS Runal) ,Taitei no Ken RPG based on Basic Role-Playing and several Call of Cthulhu products including Cthulhu to Teikoku (Cthulhu and Empire of Japan) and Hieizan Enjou (Burned Hieizan temples). But these games aren't very popular. Most Japanese gamers prefer to various Japanese original systems or faithful translated games such as Dungeons and Dragons v3.5, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Shadowrun 4th ed. In that sense, GURPS Rebornrebirth is a significant and unique GURPS supplement written in non-English language, but this game is minor and not have much influence in Japan. Plumcherry 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge while nomination appears not to understand either the subject of the article or the term original research, notability has not been established. There should be no prejudice against article recreation if independant Japanese sources can be found. Edward321 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pool bocce

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

Self-admitted WP:NFT nonsense. All associated images need to be deleted as well, as they apply to nothing but this dorm room game invented a few months ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Isolated dorm fad, it'll probably fade into obscurity by next year anyways. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT ffm 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:MADEUP. i ^said 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flo Jalin

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

I've brought this here to get a community consensus for this article. This gets complicated, so bear with me ;)

Flo Jalin was the subject of a previous AfD last year, and was deleted as a result. It has since been recreated. Yesterday I tagged it as Speedy (G4), the creator added a 'hangon' tag, and an admin passed by and Speedy-deleted as a copyvio. The article was promptly recreated a third time (initially as Flo jalin, which was then redirected to Flo Jalin). It was tagged again within minutes as Speedy (G4), but an uninvolved editor removed the tags asserting notability. I pointed out the copyvio to the creator, and most of the offending material was rewritten. Checking back today, I notice that all the copyvio stuff is back (see here for source). Even leaving aside the persistent copyvio, personally I'm not convinced that IGN interviews and a few swimsuit contest wins is enough to establish notability. Does this one need salting in future? EyeSerene^TALK 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Would an administrator mind telling us if the content of the page now is similar to the content that was deleted at the AfD? If so, it can be speedied. i ^said 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the copyvio material has been restored, the article ought to be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. GlassCobra 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - the reason I brought this here rather than tagging as speedy was to establish

1. Whether the article is notable enough to be worth keeping (with a rewrite to remove the copyvio stuff), or

2. If not, to get consensus for salting to prevent its persistent recreation

EyeSerene^TALK 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• All of the text already was in the version deleted on December 23, 2006. Lupo 15:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then the article can be speedied under CSD G4. i ^said 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Or not? Would an administrator mind? — i ^said 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Note Most of the copyvio stuff has now been rewritten, and the article is looking better. Even so, I still don't think Flo meets WP:BIO. EyeSerene^TALK 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Delete aside from the copyvio which would be a speedy, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Her name appears here and there but nothing in which she is the main subject of the article in a reliable source. -- Whpq 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are interviews not independant of the subject, so they don't contribute to notability? - Peregrine Fisher 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - yes, interviews would help establish notability. In this case, there is only the one interview in IGN, so I stand corrected. There is only the one source rather than multiple reliable sources. So my opinion is still delete. -- Whpq 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two interviews. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Both interviews are short pieces with IGN. I've changed my opinion from delete to weak delete. -- Whpq 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not an admin, but I'm the one who proposed the (successful) deletion of this entry last time. Whoever put it back up, it's essentially the same page, and this person is no more notable now than she was when the article was last deleted. TruthGal 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ^♫ 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Weapons of the Star Fleet Universe

Capital Weapons of the Star Fleet Universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The opening line of this article almost declares itself to be a POV fork from Star Trek. What follows is a lot of non-notable original research best described as fancruft. --Gavin Collins 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Explanation though. Star Fleet Universe != Star Trek (that's "does not equal" for those who don't recognize the symbol). The article is information that is derived from the sourcebooks for Star Fleet Universe, of which there is a great deal. It is not WP:POV or WP:OR as you claim, but rather just has zero sources. Now, with regards to your claims of WP:Fiction and WP:Fancruft.

WP:Fancruft is an essay, not policy. However, it is a good essay, and I would advice any editor working on a SFU article spinoff to read it.

WP:Fiction you may have something. As far as I can see, this is the only argument that is valid for this proposed AfD.

I hope this explains a bit about the problem encountered when you deal with other editors. Turlo Lomon 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or weak merge/redirect. Without significant real world information, this level of fictional detail is not justified. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete presents game-guide style information with no discernible commentary or analysis whatsoever. WP:NOT#PLOT Eleland 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge a little and redirect. This is definitely over-detailed and unreferenced... a short summary of the topic in the main Star Fleet Universe article would probably suffice. Of course, as with all these nominations, WP:POV does not apply, as has been explained repeatedly ([22], [23]). Pinball22 15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad art

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

No concise definition, nor anything much more than OR. Jmlk17 08:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree that this appears to be original research. JavaTenor 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Some people do study and collect "bad art", usually referring to amateur art found in thrift shops and such. There have been books devoted to the subject (ISBN 0836221850), and real brick-and-mortar bad-art museums exist on at least 3 continents. I'm inclined to say this could be a real article someday, although the fact that it's been this bad since 2004 makes cleanup anytime soon unlikely. So I say delete it for now and a new article can be built from scratch someday... perhaps I'll even do one myself, time permitting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although it should include "canvasses that are one solid color, or just say the word 'oof'." ;) At any rate, its a POV topic, and will almost always be OR. i ^said 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not a proper disambiguation page. "Bad as Art" is the name of a Gallery, by the way. Bearian 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlette Rosalinda Silva

Charlette Rosalinda Silva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN & unsourced, likely written by her daughter. Does not meet the standard laid out at WP:BIO. Eusebeus 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This article was not written by Monique it was written by me (Charlette Silva)prophet2 03:20, 18 September 2007.

• Agree, Delete. It looks like this violates WP:COI as well as WP:BIO, based on the "Also known as prophet2" in this article and the username Prophet2 that wrote it. N2f 07:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious COI. The daughter afd is here. --Jack Merridew 11:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable subject. i ^said 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. GlassCobra 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monique Chantel Silva

Monique Chantel Silva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Monique, an undergrad at Penn State, (or someone very close to her) popped by to write up an aggrandising biography of her mother, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlette Rosalinda Silva) and figured, while she was at it, she would write one of herself. Apparently, she is familiar enough with the standards laid out at WP:BIO, since she asserts that she is a dancer, a singer, an actress, a model, & "a professed non-denominational Pentecostal minister with an understanding of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Ghost." nary a source in site, however, to substantiate any of this. Delete per WP:BIO & WP:COI. Eusebeus 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, obviously a non-notable figure.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with non-notable. I think the attribution might be backwards, though, it looks like the mother was probably the author of both (based on the username Prophet2 and the "Also known as prophet2" on Charlotte's page.) N2f 07:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN COI - and don't forget mom: here --Jack Merridew 11:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7, article that does not assert notability of the subject. —David Eppstein 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability.--JForget 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per David Eppstein. GlassCobra 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Baron

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

Baron wrote one episode of a television show 20 years ago. There are a number of Michael Baron's that come up in a google search and I don't see anything about this one being discussed in third-party sources. Subject fails our notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, since writing one episode of Star Trek means that the writer's work is known to more people than the complete oeuvre of most of the pestilential array of porno performers who are found notable here, especially the one who's known mostly for videotaping herself having sex with dogs [24]. VivianDarkbloom 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not even Memory Alpha has more information. Co-writer Powers went on to a writing career, he didn't. Possibly it's a pseudonym for somebody like Michael Piller who could not receive an additional credit. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete following criteria A7, I believe this fits the bill. If not, a regular delete will suffice. Burntsauce 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Baron wrote one episode of a television show 20 years ago. That made me laugh. Not notable. i ^said 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Writing one episode of a television show? That's it? --Calton | Talk 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Kotlerman

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

Faculty member at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, who fails WP:PROF. gidonb 07:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First Birobidzhan International Summer Program for Yiddish Language and Culture gidonb 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --Crusio 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He is not a professor but a lecturer, according to the sources cited. He's published 11 articles and two book chapters. For comparison, Avidov Lipsker is the professor in charge of the department and a much more distinguished scholar from his bibliography [25]--57 articles, 5 books, etc etc. He's the one we need an article on. BK is still a junior scholar.: 13 articles, first book still to be published. The summer school has just had its first session, and I dont see how it by itself makes for notability. DGG (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big bonnet

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

No Evidence this term actually exists. No Ghits & no sources provided. Eusebeus 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think this is a possible hoax. StaticElectric 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'd prodded this a few days ago. Prod removed without comment. Article is only a pair of dictionary definitions. Horrorshowj 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What? Probably a hoax. But it's not notable at any rate. i ^said 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition of a non-English word? Nonexistent? Contextless? In any case, Wikipedia doesn't require an article on the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^♫ 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Fashion Festival

Singapore Fashion Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fashion event in Singapore which, despite assertions of importance, provides no evidence of such. Delete. Eusebeus 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. A quick news-archive search turns up hundreds of articles of news coverage from dozens of different countries, making it internationally at least moderately known. Perhaps not well known in North America or Western Europe, but that's hardly a criterion for anything. --Delirium 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Delerium and 117 Google News archive hits. Stub article needs cleanup and referencing but documents a notable event. < eleland // talkedits > 15:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, websearch reveals a variety of independent sources which could be used here. Information on festivals other than the 2006 one is needed but notability seems evident. shoeofdeath 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Collins (father of Frank Skinner)

John Collins (father of Frank Skinner) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In this instance the article title says it all - this man's only claim to notability is that he was the father of a well-known comedian, and notability is not inherited. Other than that he worked in a factory and played football (soccer) at a non-professional level. ChrisTheDude 07:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BIO for his sporting career (Did not play in a fully professional league), and being the father of someone famous does not confer notability to the subject. Number 57 08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per comments by ChrisTheDude. WikiGull 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above (Quentin X 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
• Delete. Yes, delete, does not meet WP:BIO as a sportsman and being notable because your son is a notable comedian(?) doesn't really cut the mustard[26]. --Malcolmxl5 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Number57 (having fathered a notable comedian is not a good notability reason). --Angelo 00:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 07:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Evans

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

deleteSeems non notable, and I observe the creator, or editors, are largely former students from this school. As such, it appears to exist largely as a effort at reflected glory from the editors former schools alumni. I have clicked on the links, and there seems nothing notable about the bodies, any more than a thousand other self appointed volunteer groups with their own webpage. I'd support the Oak foundation having a page, but for this guy to have one purely based on the fact he is a member of this nonentity body is pretty obviously fake. Some of the stuff is token in the extreme as a desperate attempt to create notability... he carried the Olympic Torch? Him and about 1000 other people in Australia Jembot99 07:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Young Australian of the Year seems to be a legit, significant award. Clarityfiend 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment- no references to any of it though... also dubious of the award, is it really more noteworthy than a Rhodes scholar? and we don't list those. It's current format is also clearly unacceptable, he's not that noteworthy, even if he did win.JJJ999 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It is certainly a notable enough award presented in a nationally televised ceremony see [27]. It is a secondary award to Australian of the Year awarded to Steve Waugh in that year. However the article needs to be rewritten as it is a resume. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some fairly simple checks before listing and commenting could have saved everybody a lot of time. Mr Evans most certainly did win the Young Australian of the year award, as a fairly basic check would have told you.[28] It is a very significant honour awarded by the Australian government and announced every Australia Day. Previous winners have included Lleyton Hewitt, Kieren Perkins, Bryan Gaensler and Simone Young. The announcement of the winners of the Australian of the Year awards attracts major media coverage, usually including front page coverage in every major daily in the nation. A search for sources will certainly find plenty. The article needs work, although it is isn't as bad as some commenters earlier have made out. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I admit I didn't see the Young Australian bit initially, mainly because it isn't even IN the text of the article, only the sidebar, and none of it is referenced. I guess just clean up...JJJ999 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Young Australian of the year, found of an organisation with minor (but enough) notability Recurring dreams 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Young Australian of the Year. John Vandenberg 11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joomla WikiBot

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

Software extension without any Web coverage except related extension repositories; Wikipedia is not a software manual repository -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no real notability stated and Googling "Joomla WikiBot" brings only 13 hits, most from WP and mirrors. Additionally, as the WP logo is copyrighted, the image in the article really can't be free use, can it? -- Mike 07:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I found loads of articles that looks the same, so I guessed this was the thing todo (one example: Inkscape) - and as this WikiBot is highly Wikipedia related and well known as well as top-rated extension among Joomla CMS webmasters, I thought it was OK to create an articles about it. - Roberth Edberg 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment from nominator. You're cleary COI but in this case, whatever. The article in its current state is non-notable in my opinion, and it reads like a manual, but I agree it's useful for Wikipedia and Joomla. Maybe it could be moved to Wikipedia namespace? Inkscape should be cleaned up also.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOFT ffm 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Of course you meant Wikipedia:Notability (software). Note that this is a defunct policy. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not notable; delete. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of software in dyne:bolic

List of software in dyne:bolic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unmaintainable; arbitrary and incomplete; should be an external link in main article to the list which it is using as reference. No precedent for other distros as far as I'm aware. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I splitted the page's content from dyne:bolic because it cluttered it too much. Obviously there shouldn't have been a separate page in the first place. I believe since it's a special-purpose distro that it should be possible to identify a few key multimedia packages among those in the current list and list only those in the main article, however I do not know dyne:bolic and can't do that myself. Obviously the page has taken the wrong way and is growing slowly rather than decreasing as should happen for a remerge to become possible. So, yeah, it's getting worse and low-value; delete it.--Chealer 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Listcruft. ffm 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - wikipedia is not a sofware component manifest -- Whpq 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)