Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Comments were fairly split and absent a consensus to delete the article would be kept. However in this case the article was improved and sourcing added as well which supports its notability. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The labor problem

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

Not a notable subject. vague and incoherent DreamsAreMadeOf 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No context whatsoever, any notability of the subject is not established. Is covered in various other articles. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "a term widely used ... with various applications" ..?! Joestella 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the source says the term was widely used at that time in history. Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Perfect Proposal. I'm pretty much sure that this issue is discussed in other articles.--JForget 01:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's probably an article about the "labor problem", but this is an article about the phrase "labor problem", which was a capitalist euphemism at the height of the industrial revolution (or just after, perhaps) for giving labor enough (time off, money, rights, etc.) so that no lower-class political revolutions would take place. The phrase remains resonant and can bee seen in book titles and politics headlines, though many probably have little understanding of its origin. The article has two good references already, though perhaps suffers in the context department.--Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I accept Dhartung's argument about the notability of the subject, but the article needs to explain this and perhaps be retitled to show the distinction. DGG (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Renaming would be inappropriate. The phrase is always "THE labor problem." Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung and DGG. Bearian 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep More can be said about this topic. There's enough sources discussing it. It's just a matter of people getting around to adding to the article, which should happen in time. Operation Spooner 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I guess this article could be turned around, but when? There's enough sources? Ok, use them. It's just a matter of time before?... Why haven't they already? It suffers in context? Dhartung just gave a better definition of this subject than what is currently on the page. What I am saying is all the arguements seem to amount to the "Could of, Would of, Should of type". If you can improve the article do so. If not, delete it.--68.0.125.230 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per dhartung. IP198 22:12, 6 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 A mention may make sense elsewhere. JoshuaZ 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hodgson's paradox

Hodgson's paradox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is not a paradox. It was never a paradox. It was a mere observation (1-page note) by Hodgson of a well known fact that X/Y has Cauchy distribution for normal X and Y. Is this observation notable? Yes, and it may rightfully belong to properties of Cauchy or normal distributions. Does Hodgson have anything to do with it? No. Is it a paradox? No. If you search for Hodgson's paradox you will not get anything except for this Wiki article. Igny 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and specifically per WP:V. No evidence that this is a paradox, no use of "Hodgson's paradox" in mathematical literature, no nothing. --Cheeser1 01:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Only occurence of "Hodgson's paradox" I could find was "Hodgeson's paradox of punishment" which is unrelated to mathematics -- [yaroslavvb]
• Delete. Ill-chosen neologism. As noted by nominator the few Google search hits all lead to this article. Google books + Google scholar together give one hit, but for a different "Hodgson's paradox" by a different Hodgson, directed against the doctrine of utilitarianism.[1]  --Lambiam 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that the standard Cauchy distribution does not have a well-defined mean is not a paradox. DavidCBryant 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note to admins When I was nominating this article for afd, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/reason by an accident. Could someone delete that? (Igny 14:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

done. DGG (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone with knowledge of probability (and preferably access to the cited sources) review this? It seems like WP:OR but I would prefer to hear an (uninvolved) expert opinion. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Even though I am involved, I consider myself an expert in theory of probabilities, and I do have access to the cited sources. (Igny 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Response I've looked them both up, and although I am not an expert in probability theory, I am know a little (which is enough to settle this matter). You see, it's not the probability theory that's in question: it's the WP:V and WP:N concerns. Neither reference establishes that this is a paradox, or that Hodgson is necessarily the one who discovered it. Munley's note states that Hodgson "point[ed] out that X/Y has Cauchy distribution with neither defined mean or variance" (ie pointed out something that was already well known). Munley's note is, actually, a good source for the fact that there are often other ways to characterize these troublesome distributions (he gives an example and explanation).
  • Hodgson's original article (or note, perhaps, it's hardly what I'd call an article) speaks to normally distributed variables, and their sums, differences, products, and quotients, in terms of how he teaches such concepts. While the non-normativity of X/Y is labeled as "curiosity" and "paradox" by Hodgson, it isn't actually a paradox, and his labeling it a curiosity is neither new nor notable (certainly, it is not something that has been dubbed "Hodgson's paradox"). So while I'm not versed in probability, I don't think one needs to be an expert to see that these two articles do not support the notability/verifiability of this article and its so-called "paradox." (Unrelated question: is there a way to align one bulleted and one non-bulleted paragraph, instead of bulleting the second?) --Cheeser1 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that the term gets zero Google hits should already be sufficient. Apart from that, the fact that the mean of the ratio of two independent normally distributed random variables is undefined is not deep; in fact, it should be completely obvious to anyone who understands the concepts involved, and it must have been well-known long before Hodgson was born.  --Lambiam 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, Google is only a crude measure of notability (although 0 is, crudely, 0). However, the term returns no results on any of the journals, libraries, or anything else I can search. I think that's far more relevant (I can search at least abstracts/keywords of quite a number of journals). There's definitely no notability or verifiablity here. --Cheeser1 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your input, everyone. My first feeling was correct. Delete as non-notable, since it was referred to as a paradox, but not "Hodgson's paradox", and has not been apparently discussed in those terms (or any other).

Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Delete and incorporate elsewhere There is definitely verifiability here. The fact would be good to include in Wikipedia, possibly in the Cauchy distribution article. What is questionable is whether Hodgson's contribution is notable. Here is the first page of an earlier (1965) paper on the same topic. Note that people occasionally call this the normal ratio distribution. Cardamon 00:29, 6 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cascadia (independence movement)

Cascadia (independence movement) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Couldn't find reliable independent non-trivial sources to establish notability/verification for this movement. It doesn't look like any third parties have picked up on this independence movement- it's just a few minor political organizations. The only non-organizational sources provided are not related to Cascadian independence- one refers to a different secessionist movement, and another is from a brewery. Wafulz 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm surprised there's no references available - it seems to ring a bell to me. MarkBul 00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It probably sounds familiar because it's turned up in a couple of novels - Titan and The Handmaid's Tale are the two that spring to mind. Don't recall it being called "Cascadia" in either, though. And why would a "Republic of the Pacific" not include CA, anyway? — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The concept was discussed extensively in the popular 1981 nonfiction book The Nine Nations of North America, in the context of the novel Ecotopia. --Mathew5000 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• The region's often called Cascadia up this way, but there's no real independence movement that is happening now. I find lots of news articles talking about Cascadia, but the claims in here don't seem to really be supportable. Delete unless some good sources come together. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• My delete is based on this article being focused on a virtually nonexistent independence movement, for the record; Cascadia is a reasonably documented concept, but the idea of an independence movement is what I'm saying is not documented. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• A quick search on Google for "Cascadia (free OR independent OR independence OR autonomy)" yielded over one million hits. Of those, the first several that were not wikipedia mirrors are: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. You could possibly use the argument that the documentation of the movement is specious and unencyclopedic, but there is certainly an abundance of documentation. Whether the movement is real or bogus, it is certainly well documented. Compare Emperor Norton. samwaltz 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but can any of those be referred to as independent reliable sources discussing the independence movement discussed in the article? I was more looking for news articles, etc. I'm obviously thinking wrong on this one, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Cascadia Free State blockade at Warner Creek is related to the independence movement, in terms of having the same sort of folks likely to be interested in both, but CFS was really only the WC area. Those articles do show how "Cascadia" can refer to the bioregion, but can't be used to reference an article about independence movement. Katr67 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the information above, if it is integrated. DGG (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and get more sources. I had heard a reference to Cascadia in the 90's, when I was looking into the Conch Republic, etc.; however, I'm afraid I can't track down the reference. There have to be more out there. samwaltz 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. I'd suggest moving the article to Cascadia (bioregion) (currently a redirect to Pacific Northwest), and rewriting, as Cascadia as a concept is bigger than just the independence movement. If you follow the talk at Pacific Northwest, you will see that even the concept of what PacNW encompasses is controversial, so I think it's a bad idea to integrate the Cascadia material into the PacNW article. The independence movement material could be shortened and made a section of the bioregion article. If you follow the history and talk page of the Cascadia disambiguation page, you will see that the resulting arrangement of pages is a sort of compromise solution to an unwieldy page. As far as the movement itself, it does seem to be alive, but since it is considered a "fringe" concept, it has gained little mainstream media coverage. See also the article's talk page for some mentions I found of the idea of Cascadian secession (as well as the idea, as used by economists, of Cascadia as a global trading region) in the media--most are trivial, but it has been covered in the press. If I have time I'll see about using them in the article. Katr67 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• This I could deal with; there's actual documentation of the bioregion concept, as compared to personal websites. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 4 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welbeck Street

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

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. Yet another of the streets with a famous former resident but nothing else to indicate why they warrant their own article. As with all of these, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced if anyone can dig up anything interesting about the street. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't look to be a major notable street in London.--JForget 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — this is a notable London street in the history of medicine, including a blue plaque. Notice its range of categories. Do any experts on medical history here disagree? — Jonathan Bowen 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - just scrapes in on notability imo. -- Roleplayer 00:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jonathan Bowen. Bearian 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are (and were) a number of other major medical institutions there--I've just added a few but don't really have facilities for a good search on this. DGG (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP not being a directory, but I'm open to changing this !vote if someone has a different interpretation of WP:NOT. Coldmachine^Talk 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, not voting: I just looked up this article because I wanted to learn about the street. This shows that some people do look up the article. I looked it up because of the hospital there and I wanted to see if the street had some history (it seems inappropriate to mention the history of the street in the hospital article). My feeling would be to keep but I am not yet well versed in wikipedia policy. Mrs.EasterBunny 19:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Again, this is one of those sections of London where you'll find historical significance on almost any street, if not written about in the internet age. User DGG's findings above, for example. --Oakshade 23:24, 3 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 JoshuaZ 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abropernol

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

This article is extrmely small and not notable enough to have it's own article. It can't be added to the homeopathy article and really serves no real purpose as an article. It should be deleted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Serves no purpose in article. -Flubeca^Talk 23:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Little context, if any. Does not manage to ascertain notability in it's extremely short description.Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 14:07, 2 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Windmill Street

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

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. (I'm not making myself popular today, am I?) An article about a former name of a street that doesn't have its own article under its current name; the only possible use I can see for this is as a one-liner on Great Windmill Street along the lines of "Why there's a Great but not a Little". — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not really a notable street.--JForget 01:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fascinating, but not notable. -- Roleplayer 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bearian 02:05, 3 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great College Street

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

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. This one isn't even trying to claim notability — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Roleplayer 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bearian 02:05, 3 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curzon Street

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

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. Again, I can't see any reason this street is special enough to warrant its own article — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't look to be a really major notable street.--JForget 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The improvements in the article with especially some historical bits, forces me to change it to Keep.--JForget 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - just misses the trailer for notability -- Roleplayer 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  Change vote to strong keep following rewrite. -- Roleplayer 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete although I love Dorian Grey and Oscar Wilde. Bearian 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Change to Keep on the basis of changes to improve the article to the Heyman standard. Bearian 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• commentI am a little puzzled about how to deal with the nomination of the many articles. quite possibly they are in fact not notable, but i would like the time to be able to check, and I do not see how anyone can be reasonably expected to do them all in the few days provided. DGG (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment This street had an MI5 HQ too, and other stuff. Secretlondon 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a main street in the historic Mayfair. It was at Curzon Place where Keith Moon and Mama Cass died in Harry Nilsson's now infamous flat. --Oakshade 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep — this is a very notable street in central London. User:Iridescent seems to be attempting to delete a number of historic London streets without checking on their historic importance. I believe this and other cases are a case of WP:SOFIXIT. I would humbly suggest more effort on improving stub articles like this would be more worthwhile and beneficial for Wikipedia than being summarily deleted without research. There is plenty on Wikipedia that is much less noteworthy than most streets of any size in central London. Similar London streets that have been unsuccessfully been put up for deletion in the past include Dover Street and Albemarle Street. These are developed significantly through contributions. This and other stub articles for central London streets (a large number of which are notable due to the historic nature of central London) could easily do the same if not deleted. — Jonathan Bowen 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Changing to Keep following expansion by Roleplayer — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Good job Roleplayer on improving the article — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as improved. I think the other articles could similarly be improved if time were given. These AfDs were premature. DGG (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as improved, thanks to Roleplayer. I too believe, with Jonathan Bowen and DGG, that way too many improvable articles are unnecessarily and/or prematurely nominated for deletion (across all of WP). The only aspect of an article that absolutely can't be improved is intrinsic non-notability. All else is fixable. Kudos to those that changed their recommendation to keep. — Becksguy 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep much better now. Secretlondon 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notability demonstrated by independent references. --Gavin Collins 10:18, 5 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 article makes no assertion of its own notability and has nothing to suggest it is notable even within the art world. Although the discussion suggests notability, not one single WP:RS has been added or demonstrated. Article can be re-created when these are found and added. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cork Street

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

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. This one's been up for a year now & I don't see how it's rescuable (although happy to be persuaded) — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not really a notable street.--JForget 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. It'll be directory level to have pages for every street out there Corpx 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — this is one of the most notable London streets in the art world since it largely consists of contemporary art galleries. Notice its range of categories. Do any art experts here disagree? — Jonathan Bowen 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — per above, but article needs to be expanded to be worthwhile. Kbthompson 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand. -- Roleplayer 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as very notable. Lots of RS's can be found, I am sure. Bearian 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP not being a directory, but I'm open to changing this !vote if someone has a different interpretation of WP:NOT. Coldmachine^Talk 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per above, especially Jonathan Bowen. Very notable in the art world. --Oakshade 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It has nice galleries, but notability, none. --Gavin Collins 10:10, 5 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metafore, LLC

Metafore, LLC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy delete for db-corp. Anthony Appleyard 21:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem to be much more than a pseudo-advert. No sources, nothing to show it's any better or any worse than any other firm of its type. Doesn't meet WP:CORP as it currently stands. I've no idea what grounds they had for querying the CSD. Personally I'd have left it on, it's something I would have speedied. They didn't even bother to use {{hangon}} and just went for your user talk. Even then they used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --WebHamster 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CSD#A7. I don't see anything that asserts notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do not Delete. Notability is subjective. Of course, for someone not interested in engineering, new product development or product lifecycle management, this article does not seem to be notable. But for people interested in those topics, it is notable as it illustrates the growing importance and increasing coverage of the PLM market and introduces one of its main players to the interested public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.209.86 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is not subjective, we have very clear guidelines. -- Roleplayer 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was going to A7 speedy it too, but let's give it the full run. It fails WP:CORP. - KrakatoaKatie 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments above, in particular, fails to assert notability, reads like an advertisement. Contributor history indicates WP:SOAPBOX violation promoting this org, thus WP:COI. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. No indepedent verification of... well, anything. Note that all the available variations on metafore.com, .org, .ca, .net have been registered by different companies (all offering different services related to technology or development), making independent research of this company very difficult. As it stands the article is pure PR. Maybe it could be re-created once they get some press coverage? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:40, 4 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 move to Rooftop Highway. --NE2 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate 98

Interstate 98 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources that this is being planned as Interstate 98; the only sources that show that it is ("UpstateNYroads" and "Interstate-Guide.com") are unreliable "fansites". I have found no other mentions of this designation for the road. NE2 21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but as Rooftop Highway, a term used particularly by New York State in planning documents and public pronouncements going back to the Nelson Rockefeller era. The I-98 designation is merely speculation (even if built the road would not necessarily be part of the Interstate Highway System). Google News Archive results --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That looks reasonable. I'm closing this, since nobody now wants to delete. --NE2 20:27, 2 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. Xoloz 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Bar Crunch Interchange

Diamond Bar Crunch Interchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The name is a complete neologism. Nobody else uses "Diamond Bar Crunch". NE2 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Apparently someone else does use it: [8], although it is even admitted as unofficial. That being said, in Southern California I have never heard that term used. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - In addition to its colloquial name, the article does not appear to assert its notability; which may partly be because I am unable to understand much of what it written. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Joestella 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete maybe it can be mentionned in the two state highways.--JForget 01:23, 2 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 article would sustains notability due to the existence of two notable buildings but there is no verification sustained by reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barton Street

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

As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. I cannot see any grounds for keeping it; the street from The Bill is a red-herring coincidence as the TV series isn't set anywhere near here; is two famous former residents enough to make the street notable? In my opinion, no — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't look to be a notable street.--JForget 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability Corpx 05:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing to assert its notability -- Roleplayer 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it has a Blue plaque - an historical marker. Bearian 02:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Blue plaque's not on the street, it's on a building that happens to be on the street -- and there are over 700 Blue Plaques in London to begin with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There seem to be also 2 other notable buildings. DGG (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of notability for the street. --Calton | Talk 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I would think any street that close to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey is notable, certainly as part of the Whitehall, being the center of power of an extremely historic empire. Per DGG, several historic buildings on it do make a street notable. --Oakshade 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever it is, it certainly wasn't part of Whitehall; it's well on the other side of Westminster Abbey. To clarify, this isn't a broad tree-lined avenue, major highway etc but a tiny 50-yard stub of a Westminster side street (so short there's not space for the name in the A-Z - it just shows as "Bar S") behind the Liberal Democrats' offices — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have an A-Z too and see the same thing. I still would say any street a stone's throw away from Westminster Abbey has historical significance and I'm sure with time, probably from actual pre-net age books, content will appear.--Oakshade 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lack of notability does not justify an entry. --Gavin Collins 10:09, 5 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. Xoloz 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dorset Street, London

Dorset Street, London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As with everything else I'm finding whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious. Does a street that no longer exist warrant an article owing to events that happened there? This is a procedural nom to get a community consensus on whether it should be kept, so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unless someone comes up with more than the Ripper connection. All it needs is a mention on the Ripper page. MarkBul 21:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve content with descriptions and illustrations of the 1888 geography of the street. MattHucke^(t) 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as independent evidence of notability has not been provided. --Gavin Collins 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think that a murder case will make this page notable.--JForget 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ditto the Ripper connection, though that actually took place in Miller's Court, which would suggest that the latter is the one that needs an article. -- Roleplayer 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above as NN crime scene - the crime is notable, but not the scene. Bearian 02:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question Iridescent, could you please give us some idea of where you have already looked so we don't duplicate. I would suggest that perhaps it might have been a better idea to do a smaller number at a time--I want to try to look for famous institutions and residences but I only have time to do one or two in the five days.DGG (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Replied on my talk page — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:56, 3 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 Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre. No other claims have been to alter that presumption. Xoloz 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marliece Andrada

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

To delete all Playboy Magazine Covers and all articles where the model's only claim on "Notability" is that she appeared as a playmate once on Playboy. See today's discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Playboy_Magazine_Covers.

Other articles to be deleted are in Category:Playboy magazine covers

Tovojolo 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Playboy centerfolds are inherently notable per WP:PORNBIO. If you disagree with this, I suggest that you address it by discussing the guideline itself. As far as the images go, please take them to IFD rather than trying to include them in this AFD. If you meant to nominate the image for deletion (Image:Playboy March 1998.jpg) please withdraw this nomination and create a new IFD in it's place, or possibly just tag it as non-free use disputed. If you would like help/instructions with doing this, please respond here and I or someone else should be happy to help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per After Midnight. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment are these pornstars? I dont think PORNBIO applies to models Corpx 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good point. In my mind: yes, since most people would consider Playboy pornography (it is age restricted, afterall), hence the people who appear in it would be pornstars. That said, it's not really the same thing as appearing in a hardcore video or some such. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Being the centerfold is covered in criteria #1 of PORNBIO. Also, there is a bit more discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Hustler Honey should not be sufficient for notability. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There has already been plenty of clearing out of Playboy wankcruft, with the deletion of all the Cybergirls of the Week and cover models from Playboy ancillary publications. I don't think it needs to be extended to the Playmates, and if a new precedent is to be set, I think the debate needs to be more widely publicized than this relatively obscure AFD. With all due respect to the discussion on AN/I, I don't think Theresa Knott is fully equipped to appreciate the notability of Playboy Playmates. Furthermore, these days Playmates also usually appear in other Playboy media, and in this particular case, she had a part on Baywatch as well. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep only because of the appearance in Gex 3. I don't believe PORNBIO applies to models who are not pornstars. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:45, 4 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. Minimal discussion is sufficient, given the obviousness of the content's unencyclopedic nature. Xoloz 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turf Management Degree

Turf Management Degree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Individual program at one college, therefore non-notable. Alksub 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also first section is a copyright violation: [9]. Han-Kwang (t) 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete Appears to not have reliable sources. Note that a program at an individual college could have sufficient sources to be notable by itself, so the nomination's reasoning does not support deletion by itself. However, this program is not notable. JoshuaZ 00:42, 6 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danvers Street

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

Has been up for two years now with no sign of anyone expanding it beyond its three sentences. I'm unable to find anything of not ever having happened on this street, and IMO Alexander Fleming living there does not make it notable. As with everything else I'm dredging up whilst cleaning up Category:Streets in London, sending it to AfD instead of prodding as named geographic locations are always contentious — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete None of the references indicate notability. WP:OUTCOMES states that "minor streets are not generally notable." --Alksub 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. MarkBul 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Jakew 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as notability not inherited. --Gavin Collins 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of Notability.--JForget 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless anyone can provide any evidence of notability. -- Roleplayer 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question Iridescent, could you please give us some idea of where you have already looked so we don't duplicate. I would suggest that perhaps it might have been a better idea to do a smaller number at a time--I want to try to look for famous institutions and residences but I only have time to do one or two in the five days. And what if anything have the people !voting delete looked at? Frankly, I don't think this is a fair way to do it--its very strongly biased towards deletion with too little chance to improve them. DGG (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Replied on my talk page — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:57, 3 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. @pple complain 10:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of trance artists

List of trance artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is redundant with the category Category:Trance musicians. It has been around for 2 years and is still not any good and mostly serves as a redlink farm (of nn artists) and is a spam target. I have discussed this with the only other editor who has been trying to improve it recently and he agreed. Leaving this article here increases the amount of bookkeeping while not adding any useful navigation or additional content. For these reasons, I don't believe that this list serves any of the objectives outlined in WP:LIST and should be deleted as redundant to the corresponding category. Wickethewok 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No need to duplicate the category.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as serving no informational or navigational purpose beyond the corresponding category's. --Alksub 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Advantages of lists advanages pt. 3, "Lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links).", which taking a brief glance at this shows there are a really rather large number of redlinks. Whilst normally I don't like these lists (they don't add anything extra to the topic that the category doesn't cover, aside from my point), there seems to be enough redlinks to warrant keeping this one for the time being. At least until a lot of the gaps can be filled in, anyway. (Struck out pending comment below.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, I missed your covering it (I really shouldn't try and build arguments when I've been up for 16+ hours without caffeine :)), how many of these redlinks are definitely nn? How many would be able to maintain their own articles without being AfD'd? You say "mostly", I know, but how many *can* stand on their own two feet do you reckon? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as the cat is more then enough.--JForget 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unless you put this list or an abridged list with the page for trance music itself, I think this should stay. It was helpful to me.--JBRam_2002 22:58, 1 September 2007 (EST)

• How was this helpful to you in a way that the category would not be? I don't see the purpose of putting an abridged list in the trance music article - that will just lead to another giant list of trance artists duplicating the category. The most important artists should be mentioned in the text already. Wickethewok 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete' does nothing a category cant except attract spam links Corpx 05:30, 2 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 resolved outside of AfD. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small world experiment

Small world experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Small world phenomenon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Small world phenomenon:-
  • At 08:02, 20 August 2002 it was started.
  • After that it was edited 259 times.
  • At 22:16, 27 May 2007 User:Luneraako replaced it with a redirect to Small world experiment.

• Small world experiment:-
  • At 16:08, 5 May 2004 it was started as a redirect to Small world phenomenon, and remained so until:
  • At 20:05, 12 December 2006 User:Jerfgoke replaced it by a copy of http://austria.phys.nd.edu/netwiki/index.php?title=Milgram_Experiment (a page in a wiki whose Main Page is http://austria.phys.nd.edu/netwiki/index.php/Main_Page ).
  • After that it was edited several times but with little change, until:
  • At 22:15, 27 May 2007 User:Luneraako merged Small world phenomenon into it.
  • After that it was edited many more times.

The alternatives seem to be:-

• If Jerfgoke's action is acceptable, leave Small world experiment and Small world phenomenon alone.
• If Jerfgoke's action was a copyvio, revert Small world experiment to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_world_experiment&oldid=133231068 (18:49, 24 May 2007 by User:Mikkalai) and replace Small world phenomenon by a redirect to Small world experiment.

Anthony Appleyard 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm concerned about this (Besides the confusion it generated) is the lack of a copyright notice or licence from other wiki (The AustriAn one). It was also not a very skillful copy, since the text still says things like "See Figure 1". 68.39.174.238 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You should discuss this on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here on AfD. The source ('netwiki') seems to have been inactive since January 2007 [10] and there's no contact information whatsoever. It is well possible that one of the netwiki editors moved the article to Wikipedia without thinking that it might raise suspicions about copyright without proper attribution. I'd say leave it or try to contact someone from netwiki to ask for explicit permission. Han-Kwang (t) 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC) -- I've just sent an email. Hopefully we get a reply with a clear 'no problem' or 'please remove the offending material'. Han-Kwang (t) 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  I got an email reply from someone at nd.edu, saying "I do not know who in the group did this, but probably was part of our class on networks, so any of the 20 students attending could have contributed to the page.". Hmm. On the one hand, I suspect that the original author wouldn't mind having a wider audience like on Wikipedia, but on the other hand, we don't know for sure. And now the netwiki server is offline. Han-Kwang (t) 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While this might conceivably be a problem, it does not meet the current standard for being reported as a copyright violation. (The one where you supply a URL to the website that has the same content). We should stand ready to delete the article if someone comes forward to say that their copyright has been violated. As it is, we are trusting that the original contributors had the right to add their material. It is possible that some of them ARE the original authors of the material at the other wiki. Since this appears to involve a university class, there is no commercial author who is losing business due to this article being here. If Anthony feels that this is serious enough to report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, he could certainly do that. EdJohnston 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  The argument about losing business sounds strange to me. I have a website that isn't making me any money, but I still get upset when people rip the content (which has happened several times). As for being reported as a CV, it did meet the standard. Only now the server went offline. Han-Kwang (t) 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  The point is that we can't assume that the person who contributed the information didn't have the right to do so. At that point, there's no certain violation of copyrights. That is, unless it's a part of a commercial project, in which case whoever contributed it would be doing so in a fashion that makes Wikipedia a source of lost revenue due to copyright infringement. Material being used for commercial projects is (virtually) never released under a copyright that allows its creators to also contribute it to Wikipedia. At least, that's what I think is going on here. --Cheeser1 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• This matter including the copyvio allegation came to my attention as an entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The alleged original source of the text is inaccessible. --Alksub 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close and discuss issue at WP:CP. There isn't any deletion to discuss here and this isn't a forum for content or editor review. I'm inclined to revert to before the "merge" (or whatever it was), but I think the WP:CP regulars (though overburdened) have more of a handle on what to do in these cases than the broader AFD audience. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Does not meet any criterion for deletion. Even if the content of the entire article had to be removed for copyright violations, we'd leave the blank page there and have to rebuild it from scratch, not delete it and throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Cheeser1 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion . (Anthony, I think you just mixed up which one has the clean content) The solution is to Revert Small world phenomenon to the last clean version, the one before 22:16, 27 May 2007 [11], make Small world experiment to a redirect to it, because its present content is based on an apparent copyvio, and to have people decide on the talk page what the proper title should be, and then restore whatever good original edits can be identified. If there are no objections I will do just that. it's an editing question, not one for AfD. There can be no compromise about copyright when a cut and paste from an outside source is quite this obvious. We do not wait for complaints. Anthony--do you agree I have the sequence right?DGG (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - this suggestion seems like the most reasonable course of action. --Cheeser1 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, I agree. Anthony Appleyard 08:55, 8 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 2008 (UK)

Big Brother 2008 (UK) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The last series has only just finished, the next is not for another 9 months, there will be no information on this until a few weeks before the series starts John Hayes^talk 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Past articles haven't been created until a week or so before the main series: once official information has been released. We should stick to this trend as per the Big Brother WikiProject - ǀ Mikay ǀ 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is has been strongly suggested there may not even be a 2008 series given the reduction in average number of viewers and the decline in interest. Delete for now and if/when a series is definitively confirmed, the article can be recreated a few weeks before the series starts or at such a time as there is an abundance of material to write about. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• The auditions have already been mentioned in Big Brother (UK), so since the 2008 article has very little content apart from this, that page is now a bit redundant. I would suggest that it is redirected to the main Big Brother UK article for now, then later on when more concrete information comes out about the new series, the page can be recreated over the redirect. Tra (Talk) 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and semi-protect. Redirects are cheap and easy. AfD it again if it's confirmed there will be no new series. Wl219 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the only non-trivial information in this is the prize money, and that's so completely irrelevent - in the terms of a WP article - that it's really not enough. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as there's no confirmation the series will go ahead, there's no information worth keeping, and there's no bonus from keeping the article now over recreating it [much] closer to the date. Redirecting could be fine, depending on where. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there appears to be no real information about this new series yet available, and certainly no confirmation it will take place. J Milburn 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't contain any actual content. When more information is released about the series, it may be re-created. Melsaran (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It was confirmed on the Big Brother 2007 (UK) final, with auditions being held? Channel 4 recently confirmed Celebrity Big Brother would be cancelled; they would've confirmed it then also if Big Brother wasn't to return, I'd have expected. 82.13.40.46 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete still to early for an article. Any non-trivial information can be handled in the main article.-- danntm ^T _C 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I love BB & am all for making this article. But if this is supposed to be a reliable. don't you think we need to gather a bit more info?--Hiltonhampton 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete future event that hasn't even been confirmed yet. -- Roleplayer 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too early for an article. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:01, 3 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. This person would be notable, if her claim as world's oldest pornographic actress could be verified. It cannot, as the only source provided gives a minimal listing for her. With so little information available, BLP concerns are also significant in this case. Xoloz 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rose Agree

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

No assertion of notability. Does not appear to meet either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, oldest porn star, but no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Warning Don't follow the link and look at the picture. <shiver!> MarkBul 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I wish I'd heeded the warning <shudder!>. I have to say an octogenarian in porn has to be notable... doesn't it? It's not as if the industry is crawling with them (thank $DEITY). Gotta admit though it's certainly a niche speciality and that meets WP:PORNBIO #3 --WebHamster 01:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WebHamster. (At the risk of making an uninformed decision -- I'm heeding everyone's advice and staying away from the actual page. But being the oldest porn star alive seems to be prima facie evidence of notability to me. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete none of the information one the page can be verified Corpx 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless attribution of notability claim ("oldest porn actress", basically) can be confirmed. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems it's moot. The article appears to be a copyvio of Answers.com article. On the other hand she does have a page on iMDB. Although I can't find anything that says she is the oldest, there are quite a few links that say she is in her 80s. That alone should meet WP:PORNBIO #3.--WebHamster 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Answers.com link is a mirror of wikipedia. Honestly, just being an old pornstar is not really being innovative, is it? Corpx 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops typo, I meant #2 (the first time too). The Asnswers.com article isn't a mirror, there's a paragraph on it that isn't on the WP version.--WebHamster 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. Please see, 20 May 2007 revision. Carlosguitar 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Its from an older revision Corpx 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable actress. Keb25 13:05, 7 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 for now, without prejudice to recreation if this package attains wider notoriety. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiveopteryx

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

This article was originally PRODed an nn, but an editor left an impolite message saying that he was reposting the content, which is (I guess) one way of contesting the thing. Anyway, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability, slightly advertorial. Delete. Xoloz 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A google search yields 12,400 results which do appear to conquer with the content of our article as far as I can see, borderline web-tech article. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't usually do this, but I hope you mean "concur", not "conquer"... I was really confused for a second! :) I think web citations for a modern tech-industry product can be deceptive, so I don't agree with apply the Google test here. Xoloz 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: article was only restored "from cache" after being deleted, so I have "really" restored the previous revisions to keep GFDL history intact. Миша13 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't seem to do anything that any other mail server can't do, and no sources to say it does it better. I do like the irony of an "archive" being the article's downfall :) --WebHamster 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See below for details about its notable features. Or give the stub’s current content a close reading. Also, I find it interesting that you implicate that irony could be a determining factor in your voting behavior. Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The irony is just incidental, it has no part in the formation of my 'vote'. --WebHamster 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Since this is a case of borderline notability, it might be worth keeping the article if it explained the technology very well. However I am still puzzled, after reading the article, even after reading everything that sounded useful from the first two pages of Google hits, and some of the package's own documentation.

1. From the web site, it sounds like it is being written by two programmers in their spare time. So not a real software company yet.
2. This is a mail server. What clients work with it? (e.g. on PC, Mac, Linux)
3. How do you operate all the nifty database search features? (Do the available IMAP clients support that?)
4. Is this server installed in any actual companies? Is it being sold for money?
5. What packages compete with it? Don't any other mail servers use a real database like PostgreSQL?
6. If this package is in actual use, surely the trade press would have written about it.

Just doesn't have a serious air of being a real product that is having an impact on the world. Perhaps later.

EdJohnston 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

1. See below for details.
2. I suggest considering that this is a stub, not an article. Like I always say, "delete the stub, never get the article." Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• So, are you itching to delete Binc_IMAP too, for all the same reasons? Sean M. Burke 00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ask and you shall receive. --WebHamster 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Like I always say, "delete the stub, never get the article." Or ya know, maybe mail server software in an inherently non-notable class. Speaking of which, you might also choose to spend a few months going thru [[12]] fact-checking the notability of «artist»s' articles and stubs. Some gallery shows make them notable, some are merely vanity shows, and some are probably just fictitious. It's an exciting and rich opportunity to adumbrate and apply new Wiki-policies, thus gaining Wiki-whuffie. Speaking of which, is the article whuffie notable? It's merely a plot device in a single, unimpressive, novella. In conclusion, Carthago delenda est. Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A journey of a 1000 miles... If it's truly worthy (and this goes for any article of any topic) then it will resurface in a better form, they always do. It may not be in a week, it may not be in a year, but sooner or later it will. Gardeners have known about pruning for years. It's tried and tested. There's no reason it can't work for WP. --WebHamster 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm an Archiveopteryx developer, so I'm not voting one way or another. I've made minor changes to the article in the past (updating the "current version", for example). I just thought I'd address EdJohnston's somewhat puzzling comments, and then I'm withdrawing from this discussion unless someone asks me a specific question.

1. I don't know what gave you this impression. The software is developed and supported full-time by Oryx (as it has been for the past three years), which is a GmbH registered in Munich, as mentioned on the "about the company" page.
2. It is an IMAP/POP server, so IMAP/POP clients work with it. The web site has a list of tested clients and known problems on the page for the appropriate protocol. The details didn't seem appropriate for the Wikipedia article.
3. I assume you're referring to virtual folders. They're implemented in such a way that existing clients can use those folders, but again, the details of how to set them up seem inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
4. I don't know what you mean by "actual" companies, but a number of people do use it in production. It is available on commercial terms, as explained on the web site (but surely that has little bearing on notability as such).
5. There are a few other servers that store mail in a database (e.g. Dbmail). To our knowledge, Archiveopteryx is the only one that completely discards the RFC-822 storage format, and uses a properly normalised SQL representation for mail (which it was designed from the start to do). That is primarily what makes the software notable, in my opinion. Whether that meets the notability criteria for an entry in Wikipedia is for someone else to decide.
6. Again, I have no idea what you consider "actual" use.

I had considered editing the article to add more detail (several weeks ago), but I refrained, because articles on somewhat comparable open source projects (e.g. Dovecot) didn't go into more detail; and also because it seemed likely to be considered a conflict of interest, and we have no interest in either advertising or deception.

-- 59.176.72.33 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

One wonders whether your actually coherent, informative, and relevant explanation will ever compel anyone to change their votes, or do anything other than just reflexively mash "delete". It just seems to be that kind of day around the Wikiwelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 3 September 2007.

• Keep - this stub notes the product's unique and notable features. My policy: give stubs a generous benefit of the doubt, or they never get to be articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 3 September 2007.
• Comment. When we see an article appear about a commercial product, we often assume that the maker had some hand in the creation of the article. If the article doesn't look like a complete job, an AfD debate sometimes follows, and this is essentially the last chance to get the full attention of the creator for improvement of the article. The way the article reads now, it is about the five millionth mail server, that says very little about why we should be interested, or even why we should buy the product. (People who make products are sometimes unaware that a truly informative presentation in Wikipedia is likely to sell more copies).

So here we have a rather unimpressive article, and we have to decide if we should keep it in its reduced state, or try to catch the attention of the creator to make some improvements. I made some effort above, and I see I got the attention of one of the developers, which is good. However he didn't grasp the obvious point that he is free to improve the article himself, and that could make the article more worthy of being kept. Note that Sburke, the one who opines about Wikipedia philosophy, and believes that small stubs can grow into great oak trees, is the creator of the article. The anonymous developer who gave substantive answers above, 59.176.72.33 (talk · contribs), appears to be different from Sburke. Either gentleman is welcome to improve the article. Don't be shy about actually stating whether you have real commercial customers who are paying for the product. If you don't, then complete frankness is often a winning strategy. If the entire product is available as open source, then explain how. EdJohnston 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (again, in response to EdJohnston's comments above).

1. Yes, I'm different from Sburke.
2. I was reluctant to expand the article significantly, as I stated earlier, because I thought it might be considered a conflict of interest, and not because I somehow failed to realise that I could.
3. I looked at the entries for Postfix and Cyrus (among others), and have now expanded the Archiveopteryx entry. I added "Features" and "Security" sections and, most importantly, a "Mail Storage" section that explains the unusual storage model and its consequences. I can add more/other details if there is agreement that the modified article is heading in the right direction. (Suggestions are welcome.)
4. There are two references to the open source license, and the links to the project's web page prominently feature "download" links and release notes, and so on. This is consistent with the articles for many other open source projects. I don't understand why any more detail is needed here, or indeed, how I could provide it, if it were.
5. I don't know if it is now permitted to remove the tag that marks the article as a stub. (I note that, e.g. the Postfix article is of comparable detail, and is not marked a stub.)

-- 59.176.72.33 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks to 59.176.72.33 (talk · contribs) for greatly improving the article technically. Would still like to see some outside commentary to prove notability. Even if one of the web sites that follows PostgreSQL developments had commented, that would be useful. I agree that the Stub tag can be removed. If Archiveopteryx isn't found notable this time around, I imagine it will in the future if development continues at this rate. EdJohnston 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, regrettably, I cant find notability here. The product looks great, but I've only found a lot of minor mentions[13][14] ; we need some significant independent coverage. John Vandenberg 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. "Minor mentions" (e.g. [15][16]) are all there are. Since everyone seems to be opposed to retaining the article, could someone please delete it now, rather than leaving it with a big "scheduled for deletion" banner? -- 59.176.72.33 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• An admin should be coming along soon to determine the consensus of this discussion; as you have acknowledged minor mentions is all that there are currently, an outcome of delete is very likely. John Vandenberg 08:45, 8 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. Fails WP:V. Xoloz 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaka Nayaka

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

Fails WP:V; also, notability is not established. No sources have been provided (except two links to fictional works who seem to be related to the topic; these links are dead however). It is not even clear by the article whether Kaka Nayaka is a real historical person, a legendary hero, or a fictional character. Expert review request to WikiProject India did not clear up the matter either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunately without sources, there is no way to assert notability and verification. Carlosguitar 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for verifiability problems. I found one source (reprinted multiple times) that encompasses the first two sentences, but the rest, aside from the play and movie is, thus far, unverifiable.--Sethacus 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:V--JForget 01:27, 2 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 once articles have been categorized. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defence companies of Serbia

Defence companies of Serbia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally unreferenced and non notable.Harlowraman 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If this is kept, it should probably be moved to List of Serbian defence contractors. It could be argued that this article and Category:Defence companies of Serbia (couldn't link the cat for some reason) are redundant to one another; FWIW, there are only two articles linked from the list and only two articles in the cat. One of the usual arguments for keeping list articles that could be considered redundant to existing cats is that lists can contain redlinks, as this one does (or would, if the names of companies that don't have articles were links). So, the argument would be for deleting the category and keeping this--except that the article has no sources. Could some possibly be added? Heather 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strongly resembles [17]. Several of the entries do not appear to be defense companies. --Alksub 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Lacks references and context. --Alksub 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete make a category for the notable ones, otherwise this is a directory information Corpx 05:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:52, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes

Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mercedes-Benz is certainly notable. However, these mixtapes are not the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. With a typical album article, you have background info, production, themes, sales, certifications, reviews from music critics etc. But these tapes don't really have any potential to expand. Spellcast 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Has not been covered by any independent sources. Wickethewok 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At most a nod could be made to them on the band's page. Burzmali 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As for notability, the series was nominated for a Gold Lion at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival (in the viral marketing category), and a claimed 20 million downloads in a year, which isn't bad. And then you've got a few things like this floating around, and I think I read a comment somewhere that it had been mentioned in some German papers. And of course a bunch of notable bands participating. --Lijnema 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not everything is notable simply because it's made by a notable company. JIP | Talk 10:17, 4 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wormwood Street

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

A relatively insignificant street in the City of London, with no assertion of notability (and as far as I'm aware, there's nothing particularly notable on it, other than the fact that it suffered damage in the Bishopsgate bomb). Has been up for two years now with no sign of expanding, other than the addition of the photo (which can be rehoused to Bishopsgate). Not prodding due to the fact that named geographic locations are invariably contested. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wormwood Street is notable for marking part of the line of London Wall and the name is interesting as denoting the type of plant which used to grow on the aforesaid wall and in other wasteground in the City. The street is also mentioned in other encycopedias such as 'The London Encyclopedia' by Weinreb and Hibbert and books such as Al Smith's 'Dictionary of City of London Street Names' Colin4C 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added an assertion of notability as providing evidence for the date of construction of London Wall. In historical terms, moving it back over 20 years is significant. This is an intra-mural street, and as such is quite distinct from extra-mural Bishopsgate. If the content were to be merged, it would be better merged as a continuation of London Wall. I would agree that not every street and alley in the City should be listed, but this street does have a 1700 year history and forms an important boundary. Within the city there seems to be a far greater propensity to catalogue ephemeral buildings, many of which have little significance beyond providing publicity for the architects. Cheers Kbthompson 11:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note I find the name Wormwood Street very evocative. Wormwood is used to make absinthe and is also referred to in the Book of Revelations. In Russian it is 'Chernobyl'... In fact I'm quite surprised that Messrs Ackroyd and Sinclair haven't written a book on it yet. Colin4C 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep though it needs expanding, particularly with regard to its history and link to the ancient London Wall. -- Roleplayer 00:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Roleplayer. Bearian 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not an expert like Iridescent, but I'd think there would be sources for the notabiity over time of every historic street and alley in the City--though of course not in all of London. DGG (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The City of London is one of those city sections that just about every street has historical significance as the area's history dates back to at least Mercia times. The case demonstrated above is an example of that. --Oakshade 23:16, 3 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 and salt.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julie Stoffer

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

Was contacted by this article's subject regarding WP:BLP concerns, which given some recent anonymous edits are valid ones concerning unsourced and pretty serious allegations. Given that this seems to be causing quite a bit of distress to the subject of the article and she has requested deletion, I suggest that it be deleted. The biographical notability is borderline at best, I don't really see that we can write a full biography here, and it seems that the information in the article could easily be briefly covered in the articles regarding the television shows. (Note: Below edit was made before this nomination was complete.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• YES!! Please delete! It is plagued with vandalism all the time! If someone makes it again, DELETE IT AGAIN or protect it fully!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoptheslander (talk • contribs)
• Delete and salt, per nom. This article seems destined to be a BLP violation, and I don't think it could be stopped by a simple delete. Salting would protect the subject from further harm as a result of this article. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per above. It's WP:N is questionable anyway. --Evb-wiki 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per subject's request. Durova^Charge! 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Given the history, it's hard to see how a good encyclopaedic article could result from a Keep. Of course WP needs to protect itself from damaging libel cases, but I still think it's sad that a determined vandal can achieve such a result in what might otherwise be a borderline WP:N debate. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this would still be an AfD, but it probably would've gone through the process with a lot less vitriol associated with it. Although everyone here seems to be in agreement...would it be appropriate to close it early and delete, given the WP:BLP difficulties inherent? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't do it, given that it's my nomination. If someone comes along and wants to close it early, I have no objection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 5 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 as WP:CSD#A7. It's possibly an attack page also. - KrakatoaKatie 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tandem Hero Records

Tandem Hero Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Lack of notablilty as per Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines
-- Python (Talk to me!) 18:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, fails to establish notability, and utterly fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not for something made up at Denny's. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete probably speedy as stated above. --Stormbay 01:23, 3 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 both.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles related to Omaha, Nebraska

One of those lists that obviously serve better as a category, "list of articles related to" gives it away. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also listing List of articles related to North Omaha, Nebraska, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Theres already a category or Omaha, so articles should be listed there, not in article space. --Hdt83 ^Chat 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Obviously redundant with the category. Wickethewok 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article and the category serve the same purpose. Useight 00:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an indiscriminate mess, it contains people who were born in Omaha, films that feature Omaha, parks in Omaha, buildings in Omaha. There is also the similar List of articles related to North Omaha, Nebraska, which should probably be nominated as well. Crazysuit 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Added Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete really, indiscriminate information. I dont want to see List of articles by <city> Corpx 05:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Better as category, also unencyclopedic self reference. IvoShandor 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and make a category per IvoShandor. Bearian 02:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, utterly needless lists. JIP | Talk 10:18, 4 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. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quaker Alley

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

I am reluctant to prod this, as there might be coverage of the rat-baiting in Victorian publications that haven't made it online. Can anyone find a reason to keep it? Please? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I love rat-baiting as much as the next guy, but if that's the only notability connection, then this article doesn't hold up. MarkBul 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Was the rat-baiting champion the Master Baiter? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -That's shocking!! How old are you?:)Merkinsmum 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge to rat-baiting, if the content isn't already there, which the photo is I see. IvoShandor 11:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge to rat-baiting and Somers Town, as this gives some flavour of the historic Somerstown, largely eliminated by Kings Cross and St Pancras. Otherwise, it's just an orphaned factoid. Kbthompson 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

unless of course there are other sources. DGG (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless a reliable source can be found. The source listed is a book-selling, Amazon-linking blog and not necessarily to be trusted. Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature, wondering why they were talking about dollars in old London town... Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:54, 8 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. This is heading for a snowball if not already there right now. Questions of the faith of the nomination aren't playing a part in the decision to close this one early. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runrig

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

The article lacks severely in sources and has been tagged as such for months now with no-one attempting to fix it whatsoever. It is generally a bad article which should be deleted and perhaps started over. Boingboingboingboing 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the international touring alone makes them notable. Many articles need editing - that's not reason for deletion. MarkBul 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Runrig are notable for their part in the Scottish Folk Revival and their music is regularly heard on the BBC's folk programs. Badly written articles need to be edited, unsourced ones sourced, not deleted. I'll have a go at doing both.KTo288 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep extremely notable band, passing WP:MUSIC on every point. That this is the nominator's first edit suggests a bad-faith nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously passes WP:MUSIC, as it sourced reliably and is also a band that has been on international tours. However, though this is the nominators first edit and perhaps bad faith, let us assume good faith by assuming this was a good faith nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Major Scottish band, obviously passes WP:MUSIC, and article is now better sourced thanks to KTo288. Iain99 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Runrig were a big band in their time. Did the nominator look for sources himself before nominating? Nick mallory 23:48, 1 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 deleted as the user is a sockpuppet of someone I blocked a while ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nickirelan.com

Nickirelan.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a fork from the Dave Winer article. Consensus on that article's talk page was not to include the information there, and I don't think it's worthy of it's own article under web notability guidelines. The article has a whole host of irreperable neutrality and conflict of interest issues. Darksun 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• This article linked to by the Cybersquatting article. The incident was featured on Valleywag and recived a comment from Dave Winer. I feel that any complaints about this article are alleged because Darksun is looking at the fact that the website is not notable. I admit that the site itself is not notable. However the act of cybersquatting obviously is. NickIre
  • A brief mention in a (admittadly notable) blog doesn't make the incident notable. Major coverage in multiple reliable sources might, but I see no evidence of this. Darksun 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Yet one more episode in the attack on Wikipedia by multiply-banned Nick Irelan, now trying a new sock and a new tactic to push his POV. See the earlier w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nirelan. The incident is not notable, the gossip blogs Valleywag and Eye on Winer are not an encyclopedia-quality sources. betsythedevine 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Greswik 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:COI vio, WP:NPOV vio, WP:WEB vio. Nothing but a attempt by Nick Irelan to push his point. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Darksun as a POV fork of the Dave Winer article. No evidence of notability for this incident. EdJohnston 21:20, 1 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 both per WP:NOT. ELIMINATORJR 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypermode

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

Article fails to establish why the subject is notable outside of the game-world: indeed, I don't think that - even with reliable sources, which it currently lacks - it is. Article is poorly written, and whilst that itself doesn't mean it should be deleted, WP:NOT#GUIDE is. I don't see how it can be re-written to be suitable to Wikipedia. Delete.

I am also nominating the following related page, made by the same author:

Beserker lord (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For the same reasons & recommending the same outcome. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Beserker lord and Merge Hypermode, Hypermode plays an important role in the game. -Flubeca^Talk 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not game guide Corpx 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:59, 8 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 Nomination withdrawn. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raimondo Guarini

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

Aside from a title which approaches record length, this article has major problems. It appears to have been copied and pasted from some source, though apparently not online. Notability is possible, but verification is difficult. The article definitely lacks encyclopedic tone, particularly with phrases like "One may derive great pleasure by reading...." This article is fixable, but the original author has ignored requests to do so. Right now, it looks horrible. Realkyhick 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Nomination withdrawn. Much work has been done to make this article usable. The subject seems to be obviously notable, now that the article has been fixed. The Heymann Standard has been met. Motion to close this discussion administratively, with thanks to all those who worked to rescue this article. Realkyhick 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. I found some books written by him and, obviously, some about him, that may, on closer inspection, lead to notability. However, this article is an unsalvageable cut-and-pasted nightmare that should be totally rewritten.--Sethacus 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article, as the subject is notable. I can't argue that it's "an unsalvageable cut-and-pasted nightmare that should be totally rewritten," but that's not really a reason for deletion. Please, go rewrite the dude's article. I've started by moving it to a real title. KP Botany 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• The article is now at Raimondo Guarini. The redirect has been deleted. --Bduke 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Fixed the link to the new article. The page title of the debate can stay as it was. J Milburn 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Change to keep in light of the changes being done by myself and KP Botany. I've just copywritten the article and added information on a secondary school named in his honor.--Sethacus 02:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, thanks, among it, the David Crews and the Anna Wilding articles I thought I'd stepped into a foreign language. This one was the most important, but I just couldn't slog through the English any more. KP Botany 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Greatly improved, folks. Good work! I think this now meets The Heymann Standard, and I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thanks to everyone involved. (Is there a place to nominate articles needing emergency help like this, when the subject itself is probably notable but the article itself is a basket case? If not, there should be.) Realkyhick 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You could always do the clean up yourself, rather than relying on other people to do it or (wrongly) nominating it for an AfD. AfD is not for clean up. You said in your nomination that it was fixable, so why not try to fix it first? Nick mallory 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for dictating how I spend my time on Wikipedia via an AfD. Feel free to ask someone on their user page in the future. KP Botany 04:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And move it to a proper title, and speedy the crap title, first, next time, also. Geeze. KP Botany 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This one was beyond my ability to fix, frankly. I had asked the original author to do so, with no reply. No one dictated how anyone should spend their time. The article, when first nominated, was a bunch of undecipherable crap and deserved to be deleted as it stood. Others with better knowledge of the subject (and more patience) fixed it after the nomination, and thereby salvaged it. There seems to be a few folks who believe that if an article is nominated, subsequently fixed and the nominations is withdrawn, then the nominator should be chastised for wasting time, bandwidth and other precious resources. Frankly, that's a pretty poor attitude. I nominate articles for AfD when I feel an article is beyond hope. But if someone else comes along and fixes it (which doesn't happen all that often), I'm not going to be so hard-headed as to say, "I nominated this for deletion and, by golly, I'm sticking with that view no mater what." If the original article had been deleted, or if it is improved and kept — both are positive outcomes for Wikipedia as a whole, and that is ultimately what is important.

(Yeah, I should've moved it to a different title, though. I'll 'fess up to that one.) Realkyhick 05:10, 2 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. Non-admin closure. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drummond Street

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

AfD-ing rather than prodding as I can see a possible (just) case for defending this street. It is a focal point for London's Indian community, but (having worked in the area for some years), I can't think of anything noteworthy or notable about the street itself as opposed to some of the buildings on it — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, if it's a focal point for the Indian community, it should be easy to write more about it. And what is a street but for the buildings on it? The place is notable, and the street is the name of the place. Wl219 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of significant coverage for this street. Corpx 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability -- Roleplayer 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  Change of vote to keep per Secretlondon. -- Roleplayer 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it is notable as an "area", it doesn't have to be about the physical tarmac or whatever. Secretlondon 09:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I can't withdraw this nom as it has delete !votes, on reflection I'm changing my opinion to Keep on this one. While the current article certainly isn't it, this is, as Secretlondon says expandable as an article on the area, as it's become a de facto name for the part of Somers Town west of Euston Station — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 3 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 merge and redirect to Cleveland_(30_Rock_episode). Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black crusaders

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

Not notable, w/o references. Brokethebank 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Cleveland_(30_Rock_episode) --Darksun 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Darksun's suggestion -- Robert Moore 08:26 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Cleveland_(30_Rock_episode). Carlosguitar 07:57, 7 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, as there was no consensus. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) non-admin closure

[edit] Jam Master Jay Records

Jam Master Jay Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP because there's no non-trivial coverage from secondary sources. All that is really said about the label is that it was founded by Jam Master Jay. So the depth of coverage is not substantial enough for its own article. Spellcast 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand; its stable included 50 Cent and Onyx and was founded by Jam Master Jay; that's notable enough in my eyes. Andy Saunders 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You would think so upon first glance, but notability is not inherited. A famous artist being signed to an imprint label does not automatically make the label notable. For example, see the AfDs/deleted articles for Ca$hville Records, Infamous Records, Dumout Records, G'$ Up, G-Unit West, and 150 Entertainment. 50 Cent and Onyx are notable. This is not. Spellcast 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only references seem to be trivial and after Jam Master Jay's passing. Possible redirect?--Sethacus 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless non-inherited notability is found Corpx 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and tag: The label appears to have been around during the late 1980s, and survived until his death. Due to the time period when the label was around I would say it is fair to say that many, if not all, reliable sources that may exist might not be found online but in library periodical collections. I don't think it will hurt to let this one go and see if it can be salvaged. IvoShandor 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should favour keeping an article on the basis that someone could add a non-online source, which may not even exist for all we know. WP:V requires in-depth, non-secondary sources to establish notabilty. Spellcast 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You should be saying "on the basis that someone could add a source." I don't think the encyclopedia's policies care where the source comes from.IvoShandor 16:20, 8 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. Mackensen (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ice hockey players who died young

List of ice hockey players who died young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is possibly infinite, and could be better used as a category, if anything. No notability behind hockey players dying, and what is even considered "young"? Ksy92003(talk) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This could indeed become an indiscriminate list. "Young" doesn't have a definition (this article has defined it at 45) and the oldest person on this particular list is 44. I personally don't consider that young, but young for dying. If that makes sense. However, the only inkling of notability I find is the possibility that hockey players may die younger, on average, than the average person due to the physical strain on the body or something. Either way, I don't think this list is encyclopedic. Useight 17:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Might not be well written at the moment so could use some fix ups but it is a notable list. --Djsasso 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing about hockey players dying young that is notable. If they died young because of playing hockey, that might be different. This is closer to "Hockey Players With Hot Wives". MarkBul 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the purpose is listing players who died during their career through car accidents etc and there is at least two listed though a quick skim who died actually in a game or due to an injury in a game. --Djsasso 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not indiscriminate information, since there is ample info in there to discriminate between each person. A category, as suggested by nominator, would be indiscriminate information. Why does everyone want to "categorize" everything anyway? I can confirm that the list is not "possibly infinite". I have looked at it again, and ruled out that possibility, verifying that it ends with the phrase "Categories: Articles for deletion | Lists of people by age" Mandsford 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencylopedic list of extremely minimal use and the oppourtunity for the article to become hugely indescriminate. Many sportsmen die young, as their profession often provides them with a lifestyle they cannot physically sustain (e.g. drugs, fast car accidents and lifestyle related injury), listing it is of limited use to anyone. If it were a list of people who died while actually playing professional hockey (old or young) that wouldn't be so bad, but still, who would want that info? WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: It would also be a pretty damn short list; in the history of North American major senior play, Bill Masterton and Owen McCourt are the only players to have died from on-ice injuries.  RGTraynor  17:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Could use some work but I do not see why it should be deleted. It fulfills all the requirements for a list and covers an interesting topic. On the question of what is young I'd have to say that 45 is relatively young age for a man to die in the western world. And remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Krm500 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NOT. This not only enshrines the arbitrary choices of the editor ("professional" and "under 45"), those choices are unevenly applied: there are many non-professional players on that list, including many amateur players of the early days of the sport, non-pros such as Hobey Baker, and Soviet-era amateur Russians. That the list is pretty and well-formatted is nice, but there is nothing in policy guaranteeing inclusion on that basis.  RGTraynor  01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Arbitrary cut-off point, why not 40, or 50? Apparent original research by the article's creator, who has decided that 45 is "young", implying that 46 isn't young (in this context). None of the keep !voters have addressed the obvious problems with this list. Anyone else who thinks this list should be kept should look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 5#Category:People who died before the age of 50, where there was a strong consensus to delete a similarly arbitrary category. Crazysuit 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite an arbitrary set of people with which to populate a list. - Special-T 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. This seems to define an indiscriminate list to me. Young is too arbitrary. We really need to get a better list guideline going. I think User:Moonriddengirl has a discussion going here on how to reform the criteria. Please chime in (Since we seem to be getting a lot of AfD's with inconsistent results). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What is this article trying to prove? Are hockey players more likely die from off-ice incidents? Can I make an article for hockey players who died at 46? Corpx 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete for lack of any possible objective inclusion criterion. There is no objective definition of "young" so by default the list is OR and POV. Otto4711 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree mostly with Krm100. However, to get rid of the subjectivity of "young", I suggest renaming the article to List of ice hockey players who have died during their playing career (compare: List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career), and altering the list to only include the players that were not already retired when they died. (Side comment: There is also a List of people who died young.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That is a very good idea. --Djsasso 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: That would take away much of my objection, I admit.  RGTraynor  21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename list per Idont Havaname's suggestion. -Pparazorback 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep per Idont Havaname. This suggestion addresses the major concerns. -- JamesTeterenko 02:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Strong keep, As the article's creator I will say my piece.

1. First of all, the age is not arbitrary, Tim Horton, the oldest player to die during his career, was 44 and still playing for the Buffalo Sabres when he was killed in a car accident, so if your still young enough to play in the National Hockey League, I'm pretty sure that your still young enough to be called "young". If the oldest player was 42... it would have been listed as under 43, etc. you get my point. So its not like I'm using original research here.
2. This article is not without precedent, the List of people who died young article exists (among with many other similar topical articles), and has passed deletion, so this is more in a way subletting that lists information, otherwise that list will become too enormous to read (imaging joining all the players mentioned in this article with that one, AND every other sortable topic)
3. To those who say this should be categorized, it was categorized before under Category:National Hockey League players who died during their careers and THAT was deleted, without me even knowing I might add. So categorization doesn't seem to be an option here.
4. I'm not opposed to changing it to ice hockey players who died during their careers, but their might be a problem with that in that it could potentially be subject to more WP:POV and original research than necessary.
5. And finally, yes, for ice hockey fans this is indeed an article of interest, especially when an NHL player dies at a young age, as unfortunate as it is. Its interesting and informative, I don't see where these original research accusations are coming from, just because there is no list anywhere else (that I could find) of this, isn't just cause for it not being on Wikipedia. That's the reason Wikipedia is here. All the information here can be sourced. Yes it isn't written in the best manner, but its quite a long list and merely typing it in and gathering all the information together took days, so I didn't really have the drive to write it in better. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Tightening up the entry criteria by renaming it List of NHL careers interrupted by death would be preferable. Otherwise, this list gets players like Brian Spencer who was shot in a bad drug deal 9 years after his career ended. Canuckle 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am reluctant to comment on an article in this subject area, but it would seem that a list of people who died young, limited to a profession or otherwise, is exactly the sort of indiscriminate and irrelevant loose association that should not be in WP. On the other hand, if the point of this is some specific association between the sport and the possibly high proportion of early deaths, then I can see an article on Early deaths in ice hockey discussing the phenomenon and including a list of some or all of the people.

DGG (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There isn't a specific association. But there are numerous sourced examples regarding reflection of individuals 'cut down in their prime' as it were. "The short, remarkable life of Bill Barilko ended in tragedy just weeks after he became a team's hero." Legends of Hockey being but one example or as The Hip put it: "Bill Barilko disappeared that summer, he was on a fishing trip. The last goal he ever scored won the Leafs the Cup. They didn't win another until 1962the year he was discovered." Canuckle 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, at the very least the players who died during their careers should be listed. To say that it is a loose association at best is speaking from a limited knowledge of the history of the game. This article will be of most importance the next time a tragedy in ice hockey occurs, when people are looking for similar occurrences. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:25, 5 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. No consensus to delete. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Jan Adams

Dr Jan Adams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Ontheveldt 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Google comes up with very little - Google News shows nothing. Unless appearing on a television show guarantees notability, it's a delete. MarkBul 19:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Strong Keep Google comes up with enough. He doesn't appear on these tv shows, he hosts or presents them. There appears to be a lot of misinformation and acrimony and off-topic personal comments about this AfD that again make this appear to be about something other than this man's notability.KP Botany 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note This nomination was the nominator's 3rd contribution to Wikipedia, right after creating the category, "people from Middletown, Ohio," Jan Adams' hometown. Ontheveldt (talk • contribs • logs) did not immediately add Dr Jan Adams to the category he/she just created, but rather nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion as the second step after creating the perfect category for Jan Adams. I've taken care of this omission, and there don't appear to be any notability problems with this person--but rather some personal issue between the nominator and the subject of the article. Please do reveal any conflicts of interest you have with Jan Adams, Onthveldt, and if it is personal, stay away from the article, as this is a biography of a living person. Thank you. KP Botany 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do reveal any conflicts of interest you have with Jan Adams, Onthveldt, and if it is personal, stay away from the article, as this is a biography of a living person. Thank you. KP Botany 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Attn: KP Botany - I have no conflict of interest whatever with Dr. Adams or any other subject I worked on. I actually had never even heard of him previously. (I don't have cable TV and am not a woman of color.) I came across the name while compiling the category about people from Middletown, where my significant other comes from. I did not add Adams' name to the list because I did not consider him as "notable" and felt the article was crappy (you have since improved it somewhat, although I am still not crazy about it.) I asked a friend, who introduced me to Wikipedia and uses it extensively, what to do. After viewing the article, he agreed and recommended that I put the article up for deletion and showed me how to do so. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Btw: total number of Google hits I came across for "Dr. Jan Adams": 30! Yours, Ontheveldt 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to your search, please. This encyclopedia isn't about who you consider notable. He has far more than 30 google hits, in fact, he's had over 30 tv appearances as a guest on various talk shows and news shows, on top of the shows he presents. So, give a link to your google search with 30 hits. KP Botany 03:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as article fails requirements of WP:BIO. Doc Hollywood he ain't; notability to come. --Gavin Collins 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Again, you haven't provided how he fails Bio. He doesn't. It's nominated by someone who doesn't want him in the category, who apparently knows he's written a book for "women of color," and is on cable tv, but finds this insufficient for notability, because she "did not consider him as 'notable'" and felt the article was crappy. Did you ever consider that once you identify what you perceive as his target audience, then remove yourself from it, you might not be the person whose "considerations" about notability matter? Your arguments that you are not a "woman of color" don't really have anything to do with this AfD. So, let's take your personal situation out of the AfD, especially since that is, again, what your AfD seems to be about, something personal between you and Dr Jan Adams. And please read about nominating articles for deletion rather than just asking a friend, and the instructions do request that you do this. These are NOT reasons for AfDs--no users considerations on a topic are a reason for an AfD. A claim about the total number of google hits without a supporting link also is not sufficient. KP Botany 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He presented a 14-episode series on network (not cable) TV in the UK. [18] That in itself should be enough to establish notability. Iain99 09:18, 8 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. DS 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex limits

Not really encyclopedic. Information in article is provided in other articles. Captain panda 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Age of consent Kesac 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Non-encyclopedic, border-line WP:HOWTO, provides no WP:RS. Most importantly, the claims made, if true anywhere, are not universally true. See, e.g., Statutory rape and Age of consent. --Evb-wiki 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A hoax, and not a terribly good hoax. If you're 18, it's recommended that you not rely on this article when deciding whether to have sex with someone three years younger than you are. Mandsford 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not only is it a totally unsourced opinion and starkly unencyclopedic, it is patently false and dangerously misleading. It also constitutes original research, with some really poor research involved; bordering on something made up heard in school the locker room one day. Age of consent laws vary from state to state and from nation to nation. Obviously the intent was to spell out an opinion on statutory rape and age of consent, but even redirecting to those does not necessarily make a lot of sense. Unless: Is "sex limits", a modern reference to barely legal underage sex, or a common expression among youths these days? If it is an expression that is in common use among teenagers, then I suppose we could redirect there as a courtesy for them. Frankly, I thought this article was going to be about - umm - quantity, and was bracing myself for some amazing and outrageous (or not) claims. Ah well, moving on.... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately, wrong information isn't a criteria for CSD (G1 specifically excludes "fictional material... hoaxes of any sort"); but this is probably a good candidate for WP:SNOWBALL; and hopefully all the warning templates will ensure no impressionable young persons pay any heed to it before that happens... -- simxp (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO, it is also a good candidate for an ignore-all-rules speedy. --Evb-wiki 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Iffy if the CSD rules specifically exclude deleting for this reasons... But then, a snowball close of this AfD would have precisely the same effect as an IAR speedy, so I suppose it's a moot point. Incidentally, I've replaced the "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" template with a custom one which says "This article is indisputably factually inaccurate" (plus a link to Age of Consent) to more accurately reflect the situation... ;-) -- simxp (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah. Actually, per the 1st sentence of WP:SNOWBALL, "The "snowball clause" is an interpretation of the Ignore all rules policy. . . ." Six? Or a half dozen? --Evb-wiki 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (edit)This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven Rule, a recent AFD about a law of relationship ages that said the younger partner could be no younger than half the age of the older partner plus seven years. It got merged to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Curiously, if the older is 20, the youngest allowable age would be 17, per this rule. But if the older were 30, the younger would have to be 22, very different from this rule. Sounds like a half-remembered version of the other, or a new one made up in school one day. Edison 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete due to OR and falseness.--JForget 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Good for a laugh, though, for those looking for a BJAODN fix. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - File under category WP:BOLLOCKS--WebHamster 01:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under WP:SNOW per WP:MADEUP. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:51, 2 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. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrabble variants

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

The page is a harbor for people to post their own home-grown Scrabble variations that are original research and have not been reported upon independently. Anything that is notable has its own article already. Andy Saunders 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe this would be better served by a category, [[Category:Scrabble_tile_games]]? meshach 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have an opinion yet, and the nominator has a point, but I'm sympathetic to the article: Scrabble is clearly one of the most popular games in the world, so it's natural that there are variants. Some variants themselves may not be notable, so they might not be worthy of their own articles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them at all. I notice that multiple editors have contributed, that we've got images here and there are actually some references. It seems to me that if even two of these variants have some notability (and that's the case), then it seems fair to say that variants of Scrabble have notability as a whole. Perhaps the contributors can add some references/footnotes, and then we'd be able to better judge whether this was stuff made up at home or not. I'll ask them.Noroton 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Surely there's a source for these variations on a popular game. Aren't there any websites for the International Scrabble League and similar things? If all else fails, look at the inside of the box top. Mandsford 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've added some footnotes and it now has six, so a good number of variations are confirmed elsewhere, and I think that shows that Wikipedia has a verified, notable subject and that the article, while still flawed, remains valid. One or two of the new footnotes had been deleted by the article by someone on External Links patrol. Some other footnotes come from the articles for some of the variants. I've added "citation needed" tags as well. Perhaps someone else who thinks the subject worthy of a Wikipedia article will look for citable sources on the Web. Noroton 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, commending the excellent WP:HEY by Noroton bringing this article up to standard. There are sources including books and articles in magazines such as Games (magazine) over the years, but they may not be online. Certainly a game that has had a book written about its national championship (Word Freak) has had some of these variant rules distributed through WP:RS at some point.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve/cite. This article currently has some questionable variants (Volost? Seriously?) that should be deleted if they can't be cited, and the other variants should be cited to show notability. However, the article still is a coherent, focused, and informative list when properly cleaned up and deserves to stay. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:19, 4 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 nomination withdrawn per alteration to WP:NOT.--Strothra 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity by country

Christianity by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete or move to Wikisource. Article is simply a list of statistics thus violating WP:NOT#STATS. Strothra 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom Per alteration to the WP:NOT policy. --Strothra 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. NOT#STATS doesn't apply; this is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" but a neat and maintainable set of tables. RandomCritic 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful encyclopedic list. IP198 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment per WP:NOT#STATS, "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. MarkBul 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note I've now removed that sentence from WP:NOT per my comments below and on that policyls talk page. Iain99 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think there's a misunderstanding about NOT#STATS. While statistics listed without comment are frowned upon, we LIKE statistics. They are considered an objective measure of otherwise subjective claims. I note that, on this article, it is not just well sourced, but also includes a warning to contributors about not throwing in unsourced changes. Mandsford 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The point is not to take on some crusade against statistics. Rather, it is a minor point of housekeeping - Statistics are used as primary sources and thus are better suited for Wikisource rather than Wikipedia since simply listing statistics is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Then I don't think I would recommend you for housekeeping..... Mandsford 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I. Wikipedia needs improving, not eroding by deleting important articles. I've just had a look at Wikisource and it's completely not the right place for trherse articles.Vexorg 12:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Useful list, is encyclopedic, even though it does use statistics. Hello32020 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is highly relevant for people researching informations about Christianity. I agree with RandomCritics that it is not a long and sprawling list of statistics, so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply here. Remember WP:PAPER: there is no limit to the number of subjects Wikipedia can cover. Canjth 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's something wrong with this part of WP:NOT as my reading of Wikisource policy is that they expressly exclude statistical data. [19], [20] As such, simply copying the information to Wikisource seems not to be an option; the information is useful and encyclopedic, and should be kept. Iain99 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep I can't believe this article is being nominated for deletion. It most certainly is NOT WP:NOT#STATS - The only caveat with this article, and indeed it's sister articles Buddhism by country, Islam by country and Hinduism by country is the difficulty in finding accurate and upto date sources. However these articles are extremely valuable in providing at least a good estimate of Religious Adherence on the planet. The article is properly annoted with the caveats and warns the reader of such. Deleting this and other similar articles would really devalue wikipedia. Vexorg 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative, encyclopedic. Should be improved. — JyriL ^talk 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--SkyWalker 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:FIVE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added). --JayHenry 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. JayHenry hits it out of the ball park here. Can we get a speedy? --Kizor 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

• If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're confusing Proposed deletion with Deletion discussions - please don't remove the tags, as this needs to be closed by an admin. However, I think it may be time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this early. Iain99 16:37, 3 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 nomination withdrawn per alteration to WP:NOT.--Strothra 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam by country

Islam by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete or Move to Wikisource. Simply a list of statistics with barely any context thus violating WP:NOT#STATS. Strothra 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Note that WP:NOT states: "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic."--Strothra 19:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom Per alteration to the WP:NOT policy. --Strothra 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Note I've gone ahead and removed that sentence from WP:NOT per my comments below and on that policy's talk page. Iain99 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. NOT#STATS doesn't apply; this is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" but a neat and maintainable set of tables. RandomCritic 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep are we also going to remove the Buddhism by country, Hinduism by country, Christianity by country, etc, articles? These are useful encyclopedic lists. IP198 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & Improve. I have been away from Wikipedia for a long time, so please excuse me if I am ignorant of newer changes in policy. I took a long look at the article in question. There are lots of numbers associated with countries, and very little text. My first response was to can it. When I reluctantly went to the discussion page, I wasn't suprised to see it was HUGE. I couldn't read it all, and chose to only look at the last 1/3 or so of the posts. There are complaints about numbers not adding up, and people ignoring the talk page altogether. Again my reaction is to X it. But there does seem to be a few people trying to pull everyone together. I say we keep it, threaten them with deletion, and tell them they have to IMPROVE their page or we gonna X it for sure. (Myhorses 19:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
• Keep Good Lord (or Allah Akbar)! Is there someone who thinks that there's a ban on including statistics in an encyclopedia article? Good luck in college. Mandsford 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The point is not to take on some crusade against statistics. Rather, it is a minor point of housekeeping - Statistics are used as primary sources and thus are better suited for Wikisource rather than Wikipedia since simply listing statistics is not encyclopedic. (Also, it's "Allahu Akbar" not "Allah.") --Strothra 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems everyone else disagrees. There are plenty of great articles in wikipedia that are based upon numbers and lists. Are you going to waste everyone's time by putting them all up for deletion.Vexorg 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Useful encyclopedic list, NOT#STATS does not apply, it is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" as said above. Hello32020 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is highly relevant for people researching informations about Islam and the demographics of religions. I agree with RandomCritics that it is not a long and sprawling list of statistics, so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply here. Remember WP:PAPER: there is no limit to the number of subjects Wikipedia can cover. Canjth 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No one ever said that was the part of the policy that meant to be applied. Rather, I specifically pointed to the part of the policy about articles that are "primarily comprised of statistical data." --Strothra 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There's something wrong with this part of WP:NOT as my reading of Wikisource policy is that they expressly exclude statistical data. [21], [22] As such, simply copying the information to Wikisource seems not to be an option; the information is useful and encyclopedic, and should be kept. Iain99 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative, encyclopedic. Should be improved. — JyriL ^talk 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Help I am very much in favor of keeping this article. It is a handy source to have. I orginally got involved with this project becasue I wanted to find some reliable info. One good thing about the editors involved, is that they are highly motivated by their interest in the project. Sadly, these good intentioned people (for some reason or other) ignore the Discussion all together, and then make sweeping unilateral changes, throwing the page into utter chaos. Currently, lots of the info is unsourced and the figures can't be reconciled. Keep the article and advise this community what consensus is and how we achieve it. (TS Brumwell 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
• Strong Keep per WP:FIVE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added). --JayHenry 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - personally I think this is a ridiculous waste of time putting this and the Christianity by country articles up for deletion. Nobody has opted for deletion on either of them.Vexorg 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

• If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're confusing Proposed deletion with Articles for deletion - please don't remove the tags, as this needs to be closed by an admin. However, I think it may be time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this early. Iain99 16:38, 3 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 Redirected to Skyphone - there is currently nothing else for the page to disambiguate between. ELIMINATORJR 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fabula

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

This is several articles kludged into one, masquerading as a disambiguation page. It doesn't really link to anything, but I didn't want to speedy it because it is more like several stubs in one. However, I can't see that any of the topics are notable, and so I think the whole thing should be deleted. J Milburn 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless it is proven not to be original research Corpx 05:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Evb-wiki 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Keb25 05:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, its a dab page. The entries on it merely need to be relevant search terms to other notable topics. John Vandenberg 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:05, 8 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wubi (Ubuntu)

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

No assertion of notability, the first five pages of google show absolutely no signs of notability or reliable sources, no relevant results on Google News, no results on Google Scholar seem relevant. It makes me sad, since I love Ubuntu and Open Source, but this article presents no display of notability-- all of the references are forum systems, not a single source from an outside perspective. lucid 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Appears unsourceable. Jakew 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Ubuntu (Linux distribution). The installer does some rather neat things (I consider it notable in terms of being a non-partitionaing method for installing Ubuntu on a Windows system) and there should be mention of it somewhere on Wikipedia, even if just put into a section of the main Ubuntu article (which currently links to the Wubi article). -- Limulus 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Sadly Wubi isn't notable (no Gnews hits, for example) but I believe a 'trivial' mention in the Ubuntu article would be justified. Computerjoe's talk 21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ubuntu if it is notable enough.— JyriL ^talk 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepLooks good to meHentai Jeff 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I actually agree with lucid's basic assertions, but this is simply a case where mechanistic and rigid application of WP:N is not in the interests of the project. When multiple people who are well-informed with the subject matter all think to themselves "hmmm ... I would have thought this to be notable, but alas, it is not on Google Scholar (yet), even though it should probably be in Wikipedia anyway" ... then it should probably be in Wikipedia anyway. This is an appeal to the collective insight and sagacity of WP contributors who know compelling and legitimate content when they see it. WP:N should not be used as a self-imposed intellectual straight-jacket. dr.ef.tymac 05:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I never said that "I would have thought this to be notable", I said that it makes me sad to delete something I like for the sake of the encyclopedia. --lucid 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I never said you said that. In fact, I never said anyone (in specific) said that. It was a reference to a particular "state of mind" (please re-see the words: "think to themselves"). Probably more than zero Wikipedians have shared that "state of mind".

Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps I'm wrong. There may indeed be zero people out there who have thought that or something similar. No biggie. Life goes on. No one is here to put words in your mouth, or tell you what to think, or hijack the buttons on your computer keyboard.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. dr.ef.tymac 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wubi has been making some news lately on digg and other sources which piqued my interest and lead me to this wiki page. I would like to see more information (for example an analysis on the performance impacts of this system), not less. 70.171.53.143 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Digg is not a WP:RS, nor is it a qualifier for WP:WEB. In addition, see WP:INTERESTING --lucid 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Follow-up: He's not saying that Digg should be used as a source; he's saying that he heard about it there and wanted to learn more... And isn't that what an encyclopedia should do? (help people learn more about a given subject) I think this is a good example of why "there should be mention of [Wubi] somewhere on Wikipedia" as I previously said. Also, why did you reference the "Notability (web)" link? ("This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia.") It makes little sense in this context since he's not even remotely suggesting a Digg article and the Wubi article isn't about the website. -- Limulus 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepWubi is a recent development, and is still beta software, which may explain why there has been little news coverage. However, I noticed that CNet TV has reviewed Wubi; see the third external link. Would this qualify as an objective, 3rd-party source? Minhmeoke 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For other objective, 3rd-party sources see http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-9723017-12.html which is a featured review of Wubi from Download.com and http://news.softpedia.com/news/Install-Ubuntu-from-Windows-in-3-Steps-Without-Using-a-CD-61304.shtml which is a featured review of Wubi from Softpedia. Tuxcantfly 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not speculative, and it's fairly significant software that already--even in Beta form--appears to have lots of press. Is there any honest reason to acknowledge it won't just grow in time? The article will just get bigger • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:05, 8 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban Council

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

Article is spam and contains no links to verify notability. All inline links are to external sites but not even one mentions this company. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as advertisement. --Strothra 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete definitely seems to be written from a biased POV also no real notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G11 advertisement.--JForget 01:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement, no apparent notability. Jakew 20:35, 2 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 fails WP:V. Xoloz 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A shoreline dream

A shoreline dream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC; fails WP:RS; fails WP:V JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a hint of notability apparent. MarkBul 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETENotability is apparent in the fact that the band has been on over 1 million samplers nationally in the past year, including spots on Sundance Film Festival CD's, Filter Magazine, Paste Magazine, and is distributed through tonevendor, who has them in their top ten sales currently.12:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpolicky (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC) — Rpolicky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Solely primary sourced, no claims of notability documented in the article. SkierRMH 03:49, 4 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legion (band)

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

Band fails to meet up the the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC: has not released any records etc. Has no references and no official entry on this band or it's founding member was found using various search engines (this article was the only piece of information I found of the band). Grinder0-0 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources and fails notability per WP:NMG --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest speedy --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy D.O.A. MarkBul 19:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - An example of a CSD if ever there was one. Should be used as an example in the tuition of New Page Patrollers--WebHamster 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - agreed, it doesn't do much to indicate notability, and is unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 2 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 and expand. ELIMINATORJR 14:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Tronchetti Provera

Marco Tronchetti Provera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy delete: non-notable ("unmentioned at Pirelli"). Anthony Appleyard 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete On ground of lack of notability and lack of meaningful content Computerjoe's talk 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. President of Pirelli, member of the European Round Table of Industrialists, 56 hits on Google Scholar [23], 41 hits on Google Books [24]. See also it:Marco Tronchetti Provera, [25], [26] etc. Notable international business figure. --Edcolins 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep President of Pirelli one of the largest tyre company in the world.former president of telecom italia.One of the main capitalist of Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think he was also a leader in Confindustria. Every Italian has heard of him. it would be like deleting Richard Branson because he is only known in the English-speaking world. user:myth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - you have to be bloody joking - this man is the president of a major international tyre manufacturer (see: http://www.pirelli.com/web/governance/board-dir/default_Tronchetti.page) Did any of the delete votes bother to see if this man was well-known? Bigdaddy1981 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Information: It was speedy-delete-tagged at 11:28, 1 September 2007 by User:Davidprior. Anthony Appleyard 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Stop suggesting deletions without thinking. This man is very well renowned in Italy. The person who suggested the deletion I gather is the same one who suggested the deletion of Laetitia Zonzambé and Davide Stefanini. Just because these people are not notable in her/his country (US ? UK ?), it does not make them un-notable. If a person is notable in a country, this is enough for notability I think, and the same applies to all three cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Although you couldn't get much more of a stubbier stub the guy is the president of an internationally known corporation which I believe satisfies WP:BIO though some could argue (and will) that it is borderline as there are no citations or references to demonstrate what his notability as Pirelli's president is. Someone definitely needs to do some work on the article.--WebHamster 11:00, 7 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; no consensus to delete --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laetitia Zonzambé

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

Queried speedy delete db-bio. Anthony Appleyard 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability, the only sentence that there is appears biased, the sources don't assert anything mentioned in the article apart from the fact it isn't made up --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable African singer. "Laetitia Zonzambe est une artiste au talent polymorphe, reconnue comme la nouvelle voix féminine de la chanson centrafricaine" [27] which means "... recognized as the new female voice of Central African music..." --Edcolins 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep'. She IS the most famous singer in a whole nation, and also known in the region and among Africans in France. The article just needs to be improveed, like many other stubs. user:muth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigdaddy1981 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. She is the most known singer in a whole country, and there are plenty of references for that, as noted by a user above. Isn't that enough ?? If the article is not good enough, that's a different matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. the WP:BIO also states that it must be used with "common sense" and a person is notable if "the person has demonstrable wide name recognition". Just call up any Central African person or embassy and they can demonstrate this wide name recognition, if you are too lazy to read the websites in French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerh38 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Information: At 11:32, 1 September 2007 User:Blowdart tagged Laetitia Zonzambé {{db-bio}}. Anthony Appleyard 14:15, 7 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) 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm strongly suspecting socks. All users who didn't sine have numbers at the end. Very suspicious. Maxim_(talk) 18:52, 8 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 deleted as a copyvio. --Haemo 01:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman sacrifice

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

This article has no sourcing and appears to be original research, see WP:OR. There is no proper sourcing (WP:RS and no verification of the claims in the article (WP:V. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge Doesn't look like original research. Given a few days I couuld come up with some sources (The Rotten romans by Terry Deary)--Pheonix15 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete there is nothing here worth saving. There is already a Roman Religion article - this looks like bored schoolkid material. MarkBul 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is likely inaccurate. Attempting to bunch the romans into such a broad article is almost certainly a recipe for errors as the romans went through many phases of being pro-sacrafice and then anti-sacrafice. The roman culture went through many phases which this fails to discuss. I don't think there is anything to keep or merge from what I can see. Roman views on the gods, gladiatorial sacrafice etc. is already discussed at length elsewhere. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but for copyvio, this article is a rip off, copy and paste of this page. They even copied the spelling mistake of "thee" when it should have been "the". Can we decide things here or should I add a copyvio tag.KTo288 21:35, 1 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. Minimal discussion, but sufficient, considering article fails WP:RS, and makes dubious claims. Xoloz 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fousekis

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

Little claim of notability in article; gsearch does not reveal notability in first several pages of non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of coverage. Although I cant read greek, I am confident to say that a tripod.com page does not confer notability Corpx 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:56, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Hengen

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

Political hack from Saskatchewan. Never been elected and article fails to show notability. Suttungr 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. This subject also fails notability guidelines as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hengen very nearly became the leader of a recognized provincial party in the mid-1990s, and has since been a candidate for federal office. Wikipedia has a strong precedent of keeping articles on leadership candidates. CJCurrie 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GreenJoe 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand the general point you're making, but I believe it's misapplied here. Hengen came very close to becoming the leader of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan at a time when the party still had strong representation in the provincial legislature; he's not a public figure today, but he emphatically was in the mid-1990s. CJCurrie 04:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • IF he wanted a Wikipedia article, he should have won. You snooze, you loose. He didn't win, he's not notable. It's not misapplied at all. GreenJoe 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. But he didn't become the leader, or get elected. The BIO criteria seem somewhat clear cut to me. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC) See below
  • With respect, I disagree with this interpretation. I believe that Hengen fulfills the criteria for inclusion listed on WP:BIO, with reference to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Hengen received extensive press coverage in Saskatchewan (and fair coverage in the rest of Canada) throughout 1996 and 1997; the fact that the original articles aren't currently available online shouldn't be justification for deleting the piece. CJCurrie 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Point taken. He does seem to have enough coverage that's verifiable to meet WP:N. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no evidence based on this article, that Hengen received significant press coverage. If these articles exist they should be listed as references. Also, just having a mention in the day-to-day news is insufficient according to WP:BIO. It needs to be in-depth coverage. Unless you can provide those references, I think this article should be deleted. Suttungr 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep vote change per CJCurrie. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Leadership candidates are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a former leadership candidate who was notable. Just because the sources are not online does not make him fail WP:BIO. Davewild 08:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Candidates for the leadership of a political party with representation in a state, provincial or national legislature should always be kept, IMO. Bearcat 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per several of the above arguments. Besides that, as a candidate for the Canadian House of Commons, his article shouldn't be deleted - if he's not found notable on other grounds, the information should be merged into Liberal Party candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election. Sarcasticidealist 09:56, 4 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennings_Rutter_Battle

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

Original research including completely arbitrary segmentation of the battle AJarvis 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - obvious WP:OR. /Blaxthos 13:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see the original research. If we put the slightly clumsy attempt to group the main events under stage headings aside, it seems that the author has merely attempted to lay out a chronological summary of the rivalry. This is a convention adopted in the majority of Wikipedia articles dealing with a series of events. However, I don't agree with this particular presentation of these facts. The references (you can't deny the article is at least well-referenced) don't seem to suggest that the particular rivalry between Jennings and Rutter is anything more than one of the more prominent rivalries between game show contestants. Therefore, I think the articles should be moved to something like Rivalry between regular game show contestants, and then expanded to cover rivalry between game show contestants in general. Terrafire 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:OR. And, if it's not original research, the article is poorly written and would require a lot of revision. TheInfinityZero 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Keb25 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'll take Wikipedia for $600. "It's what happens to articles that are original research at Articles for Deletion." What is delete?. Correct, select again! Andy Saunders 17:07, 1 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holman Fenwick & Willan

Holman Fenwick & Willan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable law firm; only claim to notability is a passing reference by one of its previous employees. Randomshoes 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unreferenced & no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is the 38th biggest law firm in the UK and a well-known name here (see http://www.thelawyer.com/uk100/2006/law/38_holmanfenwick.html). That isn't as major as some, but pretty big. Randomshoes, I am confused as to why you added very random references to this law firm's page before nominating it for deletion. Unlikelyheroine 00:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep #86 here. Plenty of third-party coverage establishing notability [28] [29] [30]--Chaser - T 03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• To follow up on my earlier comments, I've replaced Randomshoes' references with some more relevant refs, added others and expanded the detail in the main body of the article. It's not true that its only claim to notability is as stated, as some looking on the internet shows. This is not some little outfit, but a notable firm (and no, I don't work there!) Best regards Unlikelyheroine 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fails WP:CORP as nominated by Randomshoes. There is an important principal at stake regarding what qualifies as an independent source; as the summaries of more legal cases become available on the internet, links to these cases will be used by law firms to demonstrate notability. However, these court circulars are a matter of record only, and are not an independent source per se. This may not be a little outfit with some history, but this article still fails to establish its notability and a few internet links are not a substitute for proper research from books and journals. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Gavin Collins, _none_ of the links in the references in the article are from court circulars, so your comment does not makes sense here. The links are from major legal news sources. Do Wikipedia articles need to contain information from books? If so, do note that the Chambers Guides cited are available in printed form also. If you have a problem with any of the sources actually cited for this article, then by all means go ahead and explain. Best regards Unlikelyheroine 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The issue with the references in that they are very thin in terms of context and are not really independent: Chambers & Partners - a legal directory; The Lawyer.com is a magazine about law firms, both of which publish more or less what is fed to them in terms of corporate press releases. I can only observe that outside of the usual trade publications, the article does not cite any notability. WP:CORP states that Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". Press release and trade awards on the internet may make them significant in the trade, but outside the trade the references cited are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep sourced and to the point, its international offices and its winning of a industry award imply notability. Concerns elsewhere was that this article was spam and served to promote the interests of the firm, if that is the fear of editors than be open and honest about it and bring it up on those concerns, not try and skirt around the issue.KTo288 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep looks pretty notable to me. --Dweller 19:00, 5 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 Kept, nomination withdrawn following improvements in sourcing. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trowers & Hamlins

Trowers & Hamlins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Law firm whose only claim to notability is unsourced and has been for some time. Randomshoes 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Invoking the dreaded "Keep, I've heard of it" argument here, but (while this is an appalling article) T&H is a bona fide major player in the market with a lot of press coverage (416 hits on Google news, albeit some are press releases of theirs); tons of coverage in reliable sources including plenty using phrases such as "preeminent" and "leading". The Middle Eastern arm is also apparently the oldest law firm in Oman — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a couple of references, and my google search suggests that there should be more. This and this, for example, help substantiate their claims. --Moonriddengirl 13:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Could use better sourcing to buttress notability claims. /Blaxthos 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes it's a lousy article, but the work by Moonriddengirl (thankyou!) shows it is notable and that the information is verifiable. No issues that can't be resolved via copyediting. Pedro |  Chat  13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm happy to withdraw the nomination with respect to the changes on the page - well done that user! Still could do with a bit more work. In short, keep. --Randomshoes 16:06, 1 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inkha

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

Lacks notability - being on Blue Peter doesn't make someone notable, no evidence the appearance in newspaper/magazine was vast.--Moglex 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom - WP:N. /Blaxthos 13:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lacks notability for stand-alone. I wonder if there's a larger article that could bear mention? It obviously doesn't fit in Domestic robot and Industrial robot. It's too specific for inclusion in Robot, which page needs really to address general categories and ground-breaking prototypes. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does anyone even try to look for sources before saying sources are impossible to find? Inkha got an article in Nature (behind a subscription wall but the link is here [31]) and the BBC in connection with the Faraday Lecture [32] in addition to the Blue Peter appearance. It's in front of house magazine [33], a trade magazine for receptionists (who knew?) and, oh yeah, The Times [34] ran an article on it too. Here [35] is an article in the Deccan Herald, an Indian newspaper. Nick mallory 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I didn't see anybody above stating that sources were impossible to find. :) I looked for them, and I read a few. General notability guideline notes that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." It's one of several similar devices mentioned in the BBC article, Front of House and times. That's why I suggested it would be better in an article about a robot type. I didn't see the Deccan Herald article. I'm not sure it's a strong contender. At this point, I still believe Inkha lacks notable for a stand-alone. --Moonriddengirl 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You said 'delete per nom'. The Nom said there was 'no evidence' that the coverage of it was 'vast'. Well, it doesn't have to be 'vast', whatever that means, it just has to pass WP:N. So does it? Well, it's got multiple independent coverage in credible third party sources including the BBC (twice) and the Times.

The Times said this about it "JUST before Christmas, Inkha got a job as a receptionist at King’s College London. She has all the prerequisites for the post: she can talk about the weather, give directions and look bored. But Inkha is a robotic head — her name stands for Interactive Neurotic King’s Head Assembly — that glowers from a glass box at the college’s Strand campus.

Her creator, Matthew Walker, a college alumnus and now an independent animatronics consultant, says her “mood” depends on the weather (she culls meteorological information from the Met Office website) and the time of day. Walker says: “If it’s a rainy Monday morning, she’s obnoxious. If you ask her for fashion tips, she’ll ask you if you got dressed in the dark.

“She has no intelligence, but certain behaviour makes her quite lifelike. People do get rather attached to her.” It helps that Inkha has a huge red pouting mouth and large, long-lashed eyes, the latter made for her by a specialist at Moorfields Eye Hospital.

But Inkha also deals with around a third of reception inquiries — mainly providing directions — and has cheered everyone up. “People come in looking glum and go away smiling,” Walker says. “And the other people on reception don’t feel threatened — they see her as an aid rather than as a replacement.” It's hardly just a passing mention.

It was covered as far away as India in the media so it's hardly just of local interest. How many more sources are needed? This makes it notable enough per Wikipedia standards WP:N for its own article. Nick mallory 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, but nom said coverage was not vast, not that it was absent. At the moment, I still support that reading. The Times article linked leads with three paragraphs about Inkha, but the majority of the piece is on "a much more calculating "scientist"...outperforming graduate students." There's no question that Inkha has attracted some attention, but notability is distinct from fame. (adding: I'm not sure you need to quote the Times piece; I think the link is probably sufficient.) --Moonriddengirl 14:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You implied the Times article was only a passing mention, i'm showing that it wasn't. You can't say that it's too long to quote here but not long enough to quote as a source. WP:N says it should have multiple independent coverage, it's got that, i don't see what the problem is. Nick mallory 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that. What I said was that it is one of several similar devices mentioned; it is. I can understand how the word "mentioned" might have been misleading in regards to my intention; perhaps I should have said "discussed." Anyway, the problem with quoting it here is that it becomes more difficult for people involved in the discussion to follow it. That's why the link is sufficient. My issue with Inkha's coverage is breadth & depth, as I stated above. Also of potential interest in this discussion is duration. I don't feel Inkha satisfies notability requirements for a stand alone article. Obviously your opinion differs. Other editors will undoubtedly weigh in. --Moonriddengirl 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nice name by the way. Nick mallory 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had occasion to wonder if including the name "girl" in my username was such a good idea, but oh well. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Nick mallory sources. - Fosnez 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources provided by Nick Mallory are easily sufficient. —David Eppstein 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if the rationale doesn't fit, you must acquit. Artw 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a good article. Well, the article should be improved in the future. This article is good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 13:02, 4 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. There is reasonable disagreement regarding the question of whether reliable sources are provided, and whether notability conferred by forking from Wikipedia constitutes some sort of self-reference and/or conflict of interest. However, it is clear that consensus to delete will not emerge from this discussion; although consensus can change, the extensive record of past nominations concerning precisely the same questions suggests that the community's feelings on this article are unlikely to shift. Further nominations are discouraged, absent new information, or new arguments. Xoloz 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinfo

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

Wikinfo has previously been nominated for deletion four times, and honestly in every one of them I don't see any actual claim to notability. The only arguments I see on the side of keep are:

• Functioning Fork of Wikipedia
  • This is a huge example of bias toward ourselves. If we're going by the size of a Wiki and it's ability to function, instead of WP:WEB, certainly we would have articles on many more Wikis than we do. Compare Wikinfo's statistics to another wiki. You'd think from the statistics alone that Wikinfo is less notable than the other one, yet the other one has been deleted no less than six times. If it is infact notable because It's a fork of an existing project which is notable, then it should be merged to Wikipedia's article, not given it's own article, per WP:N, which states that the notability of something applies to articles subject, but not content.
• Notable
  • These votes never actually link to a reliable source that shows that it is in fact notable.
• Bad-faith nom
  • While this can be a legitimate reason to close an AFD, it's not a valid reason to keep an article that just doesn't meet our policies.

Now, there are only two reliable sources I see on Wikinfo that mention it at all, and the name only appears three times in one paragraph, while the article is actually about Wikipedia. This almost certainly qualifies it as a "trivial mention" at best. A quick look at google shows no reliable sources in the first five pages, which there almost certainly would be. A Google News search returns zero results, and a Google scholar search returns only one thing (other than our existing sources) which, and I'm not even sure if it's a reliable source, given it's in German, again only mentions Wikinfo twice, in a single paragraph.

I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that this page is being kept for anything but WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:OHHEYTHEYRETALKINGABOUTUS. Furthermore, even their own main page has red links to fairly major topics, as well as a redlinked project page. I have seen absolutely nothing that makes me think this article is a "Special Case" that gets to ignore our notability requirements, and a lot that makes me think that people are only voting keep because they are an offshoot of ourselves. If being an offshoot of Wikipedia is the only reason they are mentioned, Merge it with Wikipedia, and watch it get worked out of that article. I'd be more than happy to keep this if it had more than trivial mentions, or mention at all in the press. However, it does not and should be deleted for a total lack of reliable sources, or any proof of notability under WP:WEB. lucid 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Zero reliable secondary sources that actually deal with the subject (trivial mention). Beyond that, it certainly fails WP:WEB. The WP:IAR arguments are unconvincing. /Blaxthos 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of significant coverage from this wiki. Corpx 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, fails WP:WEB etc.— JyriL ^talk 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per previous nominations and role in the history of Wikipedia (one of the first and longest-functioning fork). I frankly don't see the value of nominating an article of this nature for deletion for the 5th time. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - per agruments that was written in previous nominations. 5th nomination? I see that some editors of Wikipedia only don´t like rival encyclopedias. --Dezidor 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then why did we feature an article on by far our biggest rival? Your argument doesn't stand up. --W.marsh 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Above two comments show what I'm talking about perfectly. Notable because it's a fork of Wikipedia (Being a fork of Wikipedia is NOT a notability criteria. If it is only notable because it's a fork of Wikipedia, that would be a grounds to merge it to Wikipedia, not keep it), "Keep, it was already nominated" votes, which is not a valid reason to keep an article, and "Keep, bad faith nom". This has nothing to do with Wikinfo being a fork of Wikipedia, or me 'not liking rival encyclopedias' (I loathe Conservapedia, but they are notable), and everything to do with them not being notable. WP:CCC As well-- just because it was nominated before doesn't mean that consensus will change, or even that consensus was correct. Again, nobody has been able to find any reliable sources that give it more than a trivial mention. --lucid 04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Arguments about notability have been made before, and consensus was that Wikinfo is notable as functioning fork of Wikipedia. Third-party sources have been provided and rejecting them as "trivial" is unconvincing, the article is accurate and complete, and there's no reason to reject the consensus achieved in many prior AfD's. Casey Abell 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As nobody has actually shown any third party sources that give Wikinfo more than a trivial mention, would you care to back up your statement? Without actually showing a source, there's absolutely no proof one exists like you claim they do. And actually, the article is very poor, there's three external sources, used as such: 1- A source that requires the user to log in, that might not even mention Wikinfo, the main article (what people can actually see about it), and is only used to back up the statement "They use SPOV instead of NPOV" 2- The second source is from this extremely unreliable website, and only mentions Wikinfo once in two sentences, only to really again say "It's a fork". 3- A German source that only mentions it in a single paragraph of a large article about wikipedia, and only used to back up the statement "SPOV not NPOV". Everything else is derived directly from their site, with some things referencing their VP archives!. There's been absolutely no case made that they're notable as an offshoot, just "oh well they are so there", which sounds suspiciously like WP:ILIKEIT. --lucid 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure. DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the publication's own article, we see This full version (which needs to be removed), it only mentions Wikinfo once -- and that mention is referencing Wikipedia. I see no actual discussion of Wikinfo itself on the site, just a very trivial "this is what someone else says" reference, which could've come from any of our criticizing websites. Again, there are no sources that show that Wikinfo is well known or notable, and the fact that four keep votes have not found a single source that even suggests that is evidence of this. All of the sources provided have been extremely trivial mentions. In addition, there is no notability clause that states that forks of well known projects are notable-- and the fact that Linux Distribution articles are ever deleted is proof of this. They are all forks and derivative works of the Linux kernel and other Linux distros, but many of them are still deleted. In addition, not even official Wikimedia project Wikipedias are always notable, see Assamese, Inuktitut, Irish Gaelic, Luxembourgish, Mongolian, Nahuatl, Quechua, Scots, Uyghur, not to mention the large number of redlinks on List of Wikipedias. If Official Wikipedias are not notable, how in the world is an unofficial fork of Wikipedia? --lucid 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the official/unofficial distinction has the least thing to do with notability one way or another.DGG (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIAS are not notable, how in the world is an UNOFFICIAL FORK OF WIKIPEDIA? If notability IS INHERITED, then WIkimedia projects would BY DEFAULT always be notable --lucid 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete were this a random forum, or worse yet, a site critical of Wikipedia, it would probably be speedy deleted. Keeping it around just has always seemed like bias, given the lack of sourcing... and we need to counter bias. --W.marsh 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepElmao 11:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:50, 8 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T G Baynes

T G Baynes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable local law firm/estate agent Randomshoes 12:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of coverage - Directory listings/trivial mentions etc do not confer notability Corpx 15:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lack of independent sources to demonstrate notability under WP:CORP despite its long history. --Gavin Collins 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete because it is an orphan that lacks reliable sources, and the primary user Chgough (talk · contribs) removed the Afd notice. John Vandenberg 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Keb25 09:53, 8 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead end social club

Dead end social club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article offers no reliable sources for verification and seems non-notable. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No assertion of notability. Completely unreferenced and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. According to Wikipedia: Notability (music), an important indie label is one "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Dead End has only been around since 2004. Its website claims releases by Lucky Soul, The Georgetown Orbits and The Revlons, but only Lucky Soul seems to satisfy notability. Three may not qualify as a "roster of performers," but even if it did, only one of them seems to be notable. --Moonriddengirl 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:N and does meet the band requirements. TheInfinityZero 15:03, 1 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 Deleted CSD G11

[edit] David Crews

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

This appears to be an attempt at advertising but may be notable. Certainly an improvement is needed. In any case I bring it to the community from CSD for consideration JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. A google search for "David Crews" + elvis (link) turns up fewer than 3k hits, none notable that I saw (mostly advertising). Precious Roy 12:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Spam or not, this guy fails WP:MUSIC and has no real significance. /Blaxthos 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, because. THE REST OF THE INFORMATION CAN BE VERiFIED BY HOARY IN A LEGALLY SWORN AND NOTARIZED DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST BY HOARY. -- Hoary 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Has been deleted twice already. -- RHaworth 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple previous deletions should have been noted in the nomination. In that case, I also move to salt the earth. /Blaxthos 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Both previous deletions were speedies including one for COI and lack of verification - neither of which is a proper CSD. Personally I think it should be deleted but there is, at least an assertion of notability. -JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Spam and fails WP:N. If an article is truly notable, it doesn't need a bunch of capatalized words at the end. TheInfinityZero 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's pretty crappy, and even though written by the guy, it can't really stand as an unsourced BLP. I have offered Mr. Crews that if he does the research and posts verifiable sources on my talk page, I will write the article. I have no interest in doing the research, though. I moved it to the correct name, also. KP Botany 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, delete as unsourced and failing WP:MUSIC. While the claims of being the first may be verifiable by phoning people, that would be a primary source, and we just don't have reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riley Martin

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

many advertisements, rest is unreliably referenced and is possibly an affront to human dignity Jeff Biggs 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & cleanup - Obviously notable (hosting a show on satellite radio, howard stern appearances, etc). We may need to cull some content from the article, and ensure that claims made are attributed and verifiable. /Blaxthos 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete We are here to Determinenotability, not Assert it. 'Obviously' doesn't do anything for the discussion. If he is notable, give us some suitable references and add them to the page. MarkBul 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, probably trim - I'm not sure if he's notable, but he is vaguely amusing, until you get tired of him. He WAS on the Jerry Springer Show, and he's been on Howard Stern's show many times, and he has his own weekly show on Sirius Satellite Radio, and he's published a book, and I believe he does a podcast-type show.. AND he was captured by aliens twice! MGlosenger 07:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup: 1) Martin is clearly and undeniably a radio host with an audience following and a media history, he therefore passes notability. 2) No redflag claims are made about him, therefore the sources are reliably enough for the purpose (you don't need peer review journal entries to prove that somebody is a radio host). 3) There are no Wikipedia policies covering human dignity in relation to the greater population the last Afd point is therefore mute. - perfectblue 07:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OR - only 1 RS. Bearian 02:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup: Notable, celebrity of multiple media formats and outlets, fanbase. Article does need more references and more notations, but I think it's workable. --Bark 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep:I'm pretty sure that Riley Martin has already survived a deletion discussion. Xpendersx 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Citations within article show he is a national radio personality. Citations show he hosts a national show and is a noted guest on shows such as Coast to Coast AM. Citations for his Howard Stern Show appearances should be found though. MrBlondNYC 21:53, 5 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OLPC XS

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

This article was tagged for speedy but I think there is some assertion of notability. However I am not sure it meets the requirements. OLPC itself is notable but this is a product that seems not to have been produced yet and demonstrates no notability yet. I leave to the community to decide if its notable at present JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Take your pick:

1. We're not a crystal ball.
2. Entirely unreferenced.
3. Mostly original research.
4. No assertion of notability.

/Blaxthos 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep

1. Crystal ball or not, wikipedia normally does cover announced products. Have a look at the expected future Intel processors if you doubt this. We even have a {{future product}} template and a Future_products category for them.
2. Feel free to add the references. (see wiki.laptop.org) BTW, you have quite a backlog of long-existing articles without references...
3. Uh, WTF? It's not original research at all. What flakey theory is being suggested?
4. I hereby assert that it is in fact notable. No, it's not notable like the Pope, but it's good enough for an article especially when there is no name conflict requiring disambiguation.

AlbertCahalan 05:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arguments above don't address specifics of the 4 WP guidelines and are simply opinion. Calltech 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge/redirect to OLPC. John Vandenberg 09:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 8 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. Issues of referencing and criteria were not sufficiently addressed by those arguing to keep. Chick Bowen 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Christians

List of Christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unmanagable list that violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP). Perhaps this is a bit of a test case for other such lists, but I will only nominate this one for now. We have a category system that works well enough for this and I'm not convinced that the mini-biography at the side of the names adds anything special to make this list acceptable. My major concern is the BLP worry though, as this list comprises information about people (both in the mini-summary and in their inclusion in the list itself) that is totally unsourced. Would people be offended by being called a Christian? Well I don't know, maybe, but the mini-summary is also problematic. Further this, I would say, violates WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The previous AfD seems to have not gone through the full process. The consensus was for a rename but the AfD was not properly listed and was never officially closed. violet/riga (t) 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Rename as per the previous AfD, I'd suggest it be renamed to something to extent of List of Notable Christians. Pursey 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as Pursey suggests. Most of the people on this list are dead, nearly all of them had positions in the church one way or another and it's not as if it's about satanism so I don't see where the BLP concerns come in. Nick mallory 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The inclusion criteria is arbitrary: "This is for people whose Christianity is important to their notability or significance, but who may not fit above lists. This largely means people whose denominations do not have lists of their own for varied reasons, but others might not fit any existing denomination yet be known to history for their Christian philosophy or activities." WP:LIST, however, states that "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." Jakew 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's a list of people with professed christian beliefs who aren't included in other lists of christians - popes etc. I don't see what's contentious about it. Nick mallory 12:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Nick here. Even in the event it wasn't renamed, I'd be inclined to put in a comment in support of keeping it before I'd put in one supporting its deletion. Pursey 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a self-reference, since it is defined as that which is not in other Wikipedia articles. It isn't based upon an established definition that's meaningful outside of Wikipedia itself. Jakew 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unmaintainable list with overly broad (and unclear) requirements for inclusion. Beyond that, the epitaphs next to the names are completely unverifiable. This should be a category. /Blaxthos 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as described above. Although the title is way too broad, the criteria for inclusion aren't hard to understand (Christian persons who became active in their church). Nor is there any difficulty in verifying the descriptives; you might try clicking on the blue name at the left of the line and it will take you to a Wikipedia article about the person. Mandsford 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or Rename - The requirements for this list is unclear. The article should either be deleted or nemaed to better specify the list. Perhaps it should be a category? TheInfinityZero 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The second section is absurd. Done to completion, it would include many thousands of people. MarkBul 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I honestly do not think their religious affiliation has much to do with their notability. This is almost to the level of List of Scorpios etc Corpx 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)--at least unless and until that guideline is changed per some kind of consensus (not a huge problem if the list is merely renamed). This list is specifically mentioned in the guideline "how to" in composing lists of people. The fact that the list is up for AfD rather confirms my belief that there is widespread confusion about what constitutes a proper list and why this flagging policy conversation at On list guidelines really needs to happen. :)--Moonriddengirl 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment no position towards delete or keep, but I would suggest that we not rename it to 'List of Notable Christians'. Such a list would have a rather large WP:POV problem by definition. It'd be better to pick a more impartial name. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It also seems to violate the naming conventions set out at Lists (stand alone lists). --Moonriddengirl 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how the list itself is a problem, if people are not added to it without proper evidence -- as the article itself mentions. On the other hand it doesn't seem very useful. I can't see why someone would want to use this list to look up a person's article. Steve Dufour 18:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the entries are referenced at all. violet/riga (t) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Inclusionism and WP:PAPER, however, sources should be added for every person on the list. Canjth 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair comment re: sources. What would be your interim suggestion for those without sources? Should be remove all unsourced entries until they are readded with references? violet/riga (t) 20:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The article could stay the way it is until references are found. Otherwise it would become unmanageable due to the enormous task of finding references for every person on the list. Canjth 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm doubtful that such references would be forthcoming, thus leaving the article as it is at the moment. violet/riga (t) 17:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Those two links above isn't a reason for keeping an article. AFD is not a vote. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmanageable because way too broadly defined. Use categories if person's religion is relevant. Weak keep and rename if it is only kept as a super-list of lists.— JyriL ^talk 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Partial delete and rename - delete all individual names and retain page as a meta-list called lists of Christians. Girolamo Savonarola 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Partial delete - per Savonarola. Unless the individual names are found to be notable as christians (and sourced as such), they should go. But a meta-list would satisfy WP:LIST. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the 'List of Christians who are not listed in one of the above lists'. Unmanageable list with weakly-defined entry characteristics; some of the more questionable entries (eg Adolf Hitler) strike a defensive tone, which is not a good sign. Keep the rest as a sort of disambiguation page, rather like List of Muslims and List of Jews. PS the List of Buddhists, List of Hindus and List of Sikhs may need looking at as well. Sam Blacketer 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintanable. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't consider it to be a BLP issue. We're not talking about List of ax murderers. But the fact is, it's a horribly unmaintainable list that doesn't really tell us anything. --B 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete – Hey, I'm a Christian. Can I put my name on this list? Ksy92003(talk) 05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Making absurd arguments is fallacious. This is a list of Christians with Wikipedia articles, not of Christian Wikipedians (for which a category probably exists). If you want to have this article deleted, please exlain it more rationally and cite which Wikipedia policies would back up your position. Canjth 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My argument isn't fallacious. The article is "List of Christians," and I am a Christian, so by that logic if I put my name on there, then you can't delete it because I am a Christian. Per the name of the article, I would be allowed to put my name there. If it were a List of "notable" Christians, that would be a different argument. Ksy92003(talk) 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Per WP:MOSLIST, no list article should include "notable," "famous," or the like in its title: those terms are always assumed. Thus List of Sun Microsystems employees is all blue links, as is List of collegiate a cappella groups, and so is List of Christians. Many of the deletionists here (and those proposing renaming) seem to be forgetting that. UnitedStatesian 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if renamed to notable christians; but the actual limitation seems to be those for whom Christianity was in some way relevant to their career or other notability. The evidence for this seems obvious in many cases, and is always clear from the information in the linked WP articles. It can be repeated of course, but i think such indirect referencing acceptable. My bias is that there needs to be some actual evidence. Surely most Jews would regard it libelous to be called a Christian, and I assume the same is true of other religions. Ksy can put his name on if he gets a WP article on other grounds, and it talks about his religion in some significant way. DGG (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - My concern is BLP in nature: Lists are very similar to, and often used in place of (or even to get around) categories. WP:BLP#Categories requires that two criteria be met before a religious or sexual orientation category can be applied. I am inclined to apply the spirit of the BLP category restrictions to lists of this nature as well. It is very difficult to verify these things in list form, so I am inclined to not have such lists. - Crockspot 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessarily large, nearly impossible to maintain list, not to mention the fact that it is entirely unreferenced. According to WP:WPBIO, there are 426,053 biography articles (and there is likely a lot more). According to Christianity, about 1/3 of the world's population is Christian. Now I doubt anyone has determined the percentage of people famous for being Christan or doing Christan related things, but if only 1% of Christians meet the definitions used for this list (if there is much of a definition), that would correspond to over 1,400 articles. This is a situation where a category should be preferable. Mr.Z-man 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is there a legitimate need for this list that categories somehow don't satisfy? Besides, with the current title, it could never be compleated, listing the couple billion theoretical names of just living people alone might make the page too large to even view, but of course, there aren't notable sources for every single Christian that could go on this list. Furthermore, leaving more fighting grounds for the ridiculous Adolf Hitler: Can We Insult Christianity By Claiming He Was A Christian battle intact when they don't have to be seems like an unnecessary time sink for any editors involved in the battle. Homestarmy 00:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I strongly concur with Crockspot above. This is why we have categories, so they can be checked with references on the subject's page. Also, the principle of dual notability is central to categorisation and there is no reason why that should not be applied to lists as well.(That being said, the qualifier heading this list does tend to meet that objections halfway.) Hornplease 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG.Bakaman 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Has two severe "what the Wikipedia is not" issues. --Eqdoktor 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - its a huge sprawling list, unmanageable and ripe for BLP abuse/vandalism.
  • Wikipedia is not a directory - Wikipedia is not the white pages for Christians (or any other religion, race or creed).
• Strong Delete Well, many people in this list may not believe in Christianity. Many people may have been atheist, agnostics, deists, non-believers, theists but rejected Christianity, etc. This list is just too much! There is no way to prove that all the people in the list believed in Christianity. Delete it. RS1900 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issues and other articles

As I mentioned in the nomination there are BLP concerns and several other articles that we need to look at. List of evangelical Christians, for example, includes a great list of living people that have no citation and naming them as "evangelical" could be a problem. Perhaps we need to have a new discussion area for this. violet/riga (t) 13:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Close as no consensus pending development of additional consensus around policies and guidelines related to list articles (and lists articles, which this actually is). While trying to assume good faith, I also detect the possibility some anti-Christian bias in the nomination and discussion - why was this one nominated first and not List of atheists, Lists of Hindus or Lists of Muslims? UnitedStatesian 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  No consensus?! The AFD has been open for just over 24 hours - how could this have possibly had time to even develop a consensus? I also have a problem with accusations of "anti-Christian bias" - there is none that I can see, and the evaluation of impropriety based on the fact that other religions weren't nominated first is baseless and should have absolutely no effect on this AFD. Just because this article was (rightly) nominated for deletion doesn't mean that anyone is out to get Christians. /Blaxthos 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, allow the AfD to run its course. I would hold the same view I express above no matter what religion was substituted for "Christians". - Crockspot 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:08, 8 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Music Machine

Artificial Music Machine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, not much assertion of notability, does not meet WP:CORP. Proposed deletion a while ago was part of a disruption and reverted.[36]. Delete. Han-Kwang (t) 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN. It has no notable bands signed (based on the lack of articles for them) Computerjoe's talk 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This entry meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance, because one of the musicians on this label (Merzbow) meets the criteria for notability. 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  Can you give a pointer to the applicable policy? All I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Notability which points to Wikipedia:Notability (music) which does not mention notability of a label by association. Han-Kwang (t) 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm... Aren't all record labels on Wikipedia notable 'by association' of the notable artists involved? 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  No, at least not exclusively. The record label, like any company, should be subject of independent publications as described in WP:CORP. Otherwise, we would have to add articles about the secretary, the lover, the sound engineer as well for every famous person or musician. Han-Kwang (t) 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete They get passing mentions on Google, but not articles about the label itself. MarkBul 17:20, 8 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bi-2

Bi-2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unknown band, without sources, nor notability. Jmlk17 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the most famous Russian rock bands ever since the 90's. It was deleted and then returned by a Russian administrator who commented this return on the discussion page. Ask every Russian, from Russia if he knows them, and you will see he does. M.V.E.i. 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If they are famous (and they may be), it shouldn't be hard to turn up a reliable source that verifies their notability. Otherwise, what you're saying just reduces to 'Keep because WP:ILIKEIT'. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC) See Below --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep due increased sourcing. More reliable sources would be great, but that would be a cleanup issue. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the page needs to be cleaned up- I'll find some time between classes and this weekend to start writing an improved version of the page- and I'll see about more English sources (there are many top Russian media companies and publications that write about them). User: Olegious September 4, 2007 15:39 Pacific

Just make the check the Russian administrator made and wrote about on the Discussion page, type band Bi-2 or Би-2 and you will find many links, mostly Russian. You can also write their name at YouTube and see many of their clips. The project they led, Nechetniy Voin had bands like Agata Kristi, Nochniye Snaiperi (read about them at the Russian Rock category) and the Latvian Brainstorm. They wouldn't gather to a work led by an unknown band. If you would know Russian i would give you a link from the Russian MTV about tham that includes many awards and top-chart singles they had. M.V.E.i. 18:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/Comment They are notable enough for WP without question, but references need to be added. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone would help me it would be nice, their is to much information on them and to much awards they took it's hard to collect them as puzzle from the internet. Because for a long time the Russian rock theme was left untouched on the English Wikipedia many here lost the inthusiasm and returned to the Russian wikipedia. I want to open a Russian rock WikiProject, so i could gather people and list the articles needing more references and expension and that way it will be easier and better to work because there will be a team, but the problem is that i dont know how to start a WikiProject, i dont know how to create it. I really work hard on the theme, i created more then 10 articles on importent Russian rock bands, but it's hard to be alone. If i'd had a WikiProject i could bring a team. M.V.E.i. 18:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC easily. MaxSem 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Saying that the entry should be deleted simply because there are no English sources is ridiculous. The article for Kino (arguably the most iconic Russian/Soviet rock band of all time doesn't have any English language citations either- does that mean it should be deleted as well? I'll do some research tonight and see if I can find any English sources, I know they used to be signed to Sony's record label. User: Olegious 16:02 (Pacific) 2 September 2007

• Keep/Comment I am sorry, I've been away from editing Wiki, and I am appalled someone would notify the band page for deletion. Here's a page on the band history in English: http://russmus.net/band.jsp?band=Bi-2. They tour in the US quite frequently, and here's a link to the organization that brought them here the last time I attended a concert: http://russianrock.net/newsite/englsih.shtml

There are very few of us (I wish there were more) who are concerned with visibility of Russian music for the English-speakers, and suggesting this page for deletion is ludicrous. It is hard enough for any of the Russian-speaking bands to gain popularity in the US due to the language barrier, and now we want to delete any possibility of them being known outside of Russia??? Ani td 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Found some English language articles that mention Bi-2:

1. Alastair Gee, Party with a Pop Star, The Moscow Times, May 2, 2007. - This one discusses what their fee is for private concerts- 15,000-20,000 Euros which (according to the article) places them in the same league as Leningrad and Via Gra two groups that have Wikipedia articles.

2. Maria Antonova, What to Do: Be Part of the Benefit, The Moscow Times, May 29, 2007. - This one discusses a concert happening in Moscow benefiting children's cancer charities. It lists Bi-2 as one of the "big names in Russian...pop and rock..." who are participating in the concert. The article mentions Bi-2 as one of the "stars" along with Mumiy Troll.

3. Tiffany Bakker, FOR PETE'S SAKE - WHY MR MURRAY IS GOING GLOBAL - Our man in Moscow, Sunday Telegraph Magazine (Australia), September 24, 2006. - This Australian article discusses a concert in Moscow called "Maxidrom 2006" which in 2005 was headlined by Franz Ferdinand and is "no dud" (meaning you have to be a big name to play there), Bi-2 is mentioned as one of the artists.

4. Yevgeny Sobetsky, Chechen police to drill security ahead of Nov 7 festival, ITAR-TASS News Agency, November 2, 2005. - Discusses the preparations for a rock festival in Chechnya. Bi-2 is listed as one of the "well-known groups" to be playing the festival along with Agata Kristi, Nochniye Snaiperi and others.

As you can see Bi-2 is consistently referred to as a "star" group and plays shows with other Russian groups that all have Wikipedia pages. If this is not enough to keep the article, then I don't know what is. I found these articles by doing a periodicals search through LexisNexis. User:Olegious September 4, 2007 15:01 Pacific

Bi-2 also performed at the Live 8 concert, Moscow concert. M.V.E.i. 15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:10, 8 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 redirected by nom. (non-admin tidying up the loose ends) John Vandenberg 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldstein (Tintin's doppelganger)

Goldstein (Tintin's doppelganger) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This character only appears as a one-off in early editions of a single Tintin adventure Land of Black Gold. He only features in one panel and does not actually play a major part. He would only be of interest to those who are into how Tintin's adventures were developed over the years. A more detailed account about this character can be found at the Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin article. He is certainly not a major character of the sort of Captain Haddock or Professor Calculus who have their own. Marktreut 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of real world coverage for this fictional character Corpx 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin, and if there is nothing to merge just redirect.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. JIP | Talk 10:20, 4 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 kept per WP:SNOWBALL. Computerjoe's talk 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trout tickling

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

Is this really notable? There's only one reference, reads like trivial information. Perhaps merge, because it's an obvious permastub. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Tickling trout is an ancient and famous British tradition, mentioned in a lot of fiction as well, even by some obscure old pre internet dude called Shakespeare. I wonder if the nominator bothered to do any research on this at all before nominating it. It's an obvious keep. It took me ten minutes to greatly expand this "obvious permastub" as there are any number of references on the net. Nick mallory 10:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep although I suspect this and the Noodling article might be able to be combined into a general article on barehanded fishing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Noodling would be a term unknown in Britain. Noodling refers to catching catfish in this way, tickling trout obviously to trout. You could always redirect 'baseball' to 'rounders' I suppose or redirect them both to 'generically hitting a ball with a stick and running around four bases'. I mean it's the same thing really isn't it? Nobody, in either country, would say 'I once went barehanded fishing', "tickling trout" is a much more common search term. Nick mallory 11:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons above. Xxanthippe 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Found many sources on Google. Apparently illegal in some jurisdictions! The things you find... Pursey 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not for I'VE HEARD OF IT (but I have) - plenty of Google resource et. al. on this one... plus it's mentioned in Danny Champion of the World by Roald Dahl, my favourite kids book, so it must be okay </sarcasm>Pedro |  Chat  14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely. Four good references cited, but could do with a bit of a cleanup. Also, I know it counts for nothing, but I'm a British villager and I can assure you this is well known and practiced. Hell, I've even tried it. J Milburn 14:22, 1 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: nomination withdrawn, no delete 'votes'. Computerjoe's talk 21:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewson

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

Not notable, reads like an advert. I withdraw my deletion nomination in light of the sourcing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There's nothing promotional about this article. Jewson is the largest builders merchant in Britain. It has about 400 branches and there is a branch in pretty much every town in the country. The company's first branch opened in Cambridgeshire in 1836. [37] If this isn't notable then what businesses are? Such a stub should be sourced and cleaned up, rather than brought to AfD. Nick mallory 12:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It should meet WP:CORP, but it is hard to find sources on it from third-party publications. Therefore a balanced encyclopedia article doesn't look possible.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not possible? I gave it two minutes and added sources about the firm's sponsorship of Gloucester Rugby Union Club, the opening of a major new store in the North East and this [38] from "Worldwide Business Information and Market Reports" which states that "Having undergone a period of major consolidation, the builders’ merchants market is now dominated by Jewson Ltd (owned by Saint-Gobain Building Distribution Ltd), Wolseley PLC and Travis Perkins PLC...These top three companies each have total sales of over £1bn." This [39] is a report from the European Commission on a merger concerning Jewsons' role as a builder's merchants in Saint Gobain's takeover of Meyer. Nick mallory 12:37, 1 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 lot. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Digging: As Sampled By Kanye West

Gold Digging: As Sampled By Kanye West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Class of '06: World's Best Dressed Label Under G.O.O.D Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kanye West Presents: Promise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DJ Dub: Style & Grace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Can't Tell Me Nothing: The Official Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DJ LRM & Stackhouse: Alter Ego (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Douglasr007 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete this or other mix-tapes, it is relevant information and deserves have an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.224.4 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relevance and deserving are not two of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources is, which none of these article provide proof of. Delete all. --Geniac 15:58, 5 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 nomination for Lushlife Presents: West Sounds was withdrawn by nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ LRM & Kanye West: Ego

DJ LRM & Kanye West: Ego (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

DJ Kochece Presents Kanye West & Pharrell: Skateboards & Blazers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DJ LRM: Instrumental World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DJ Rukiz: Early Enrollment (Kanye Blends) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DJ A-Trak & Kanye West: Welcome 2 Kanye's Soul Mix Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep West Sounds Was the subject of extensive media coverage due to it combining what is considered one of the best pop albums of all time with West's music. It is famous along the lines of The Grey Album. It could definitely use some expansion but it is a very notable album. --Djsasso 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: So you want to keep Lushlife Presents: West Sounds (Kanye Meets The Beach Boys) but delete all of the others? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Yeah I can accept the others going. But this one was a landmark album. --Djsasso 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I have retracted the AfD for that one now. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is indeed a landmark album, it'd be a good idea to provide multiple, reliable sources (other than a track listing). Otherwise, it will probably be taken to AfD again. Spellcast 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems correct and good article about a album ..to me at least.--Zingostar 20:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: But it's not an album, it's a mixtape which has no information reviews etc. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:31, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summer School (The Late Registration Prequel)

Summer School (The Late Registration Prequel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reasons as above: —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-G-Unit-Boss (talk • contribs) 09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kon the Don (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clinton Sparks & Kanye West: Touch the Sky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The College Dropout: Mixtape Version (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The College Dropout: Mixtape Version 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The College Dropout: Mixtape Version 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:28, 1 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freshmen Adjustment

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

This article is the subject of a non-notable and trivial mixtape by Kanye West. Mixtapes rarely, if ever, receive reviews or sales. It fails WP:N, there is no "Significant coverage" of the topic. All the article can ever be is a tracklisting and an infobox. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Freshmen Adjustment 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Best of Kanye West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tapemasters, Inc. & Kanye West: We Major in This (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mick Boogie & Kanye West - Second Semester: Kanye Essentials 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Late Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all - Underground mixtapes are general not notable; nothing special in these casesl. /Blaxthos 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No multiple, non-trivial coverage, just a track listing. Unlike an album, this can never expand to have info such as background, themes, sales, certifications, or a wide range of reviews from music critics. There are song articles much longer than these. Spellcast 18:29, 1 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blitz (magazine)

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

Non-notable in-house what's on guide for a student union. Blitz is a weekly what's on guide whose primary role is to report to members of its publisher, a student union called Arc @ UNSW. The magazine has a short history and limits itself to light topics and brief articles. As such it has not made the sort of contribution to the city's cultural life as student newspapers such as Tharunka and Honi Soit. Though the article has recently acquired a couple of third-party footnotes (suspicious in that they are hard copy references but lack page numbers), there seems little that this article could verifiably say that could not be inserted as a paragraph in the Arc article. Indeed, the only contributors to the article so far appear to have been Arc volunteers. (Disclosure: I am neither an Arc volunteer nor a Blitz contributor.) Joestella 09:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. NN student newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't made up my mind as yet, but I'd like to clear up some misleading comments from the nominator. I added some of the references; they are news articles, and so it seems unusual to demand page numbers? Also, Joe knows that I have contributed to the article, and he also knows that I am not an Arc volunteer, which I have made clear on the article talk page. Conveniently though, he forgets to mention his own conflict of interest issues, considering he has been intimately involved with Tharunka in the past. People would want to consider this AFD should keep these points in mind. Recurring dreams 12:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)