Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 22

< September 21	September 23 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution FritzpollBot to help WikiProject editors make new geographical articles Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Proposed policy regarding threats against schools and students Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Hayes

Unsourced, living person article. cohesion 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - being unsourced is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. No comment on the notability here, though; but a (very) quick Google search didn't show up too much in the way of reliable sources. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Renee 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Being unsourced for four years is a sign that there's a problem. On the other hand, she was the New Jersey Republican Babe Of The Week apparently. Is that notable? MarkBul 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just wanted to draw this to broader attention. Maybe we can find sources and it should be kept, I'm not pushing either way really, I'm just not sure personally. :) - cohesion 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment If there's a real claim to fame, it's being the "first", "third", or "only working" professional female boxing announcer, depending on your source. The problem is, most are behind newspaper paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I challenge the entire unsourced article. WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." -- Jeandré, 2007-09-23t19:09z
Comment All information on Amy Hayes is easily confirmed by searching for her on the net or by visiting amyhayes.com. Other reliable sources are MAXIM, Playboy , Cosmopolitan. Over the years there have been ample sources on her accomplishments. 4 seasons on Fox sports nets Sunday night fights series. Ring announcing on ESPN 2, Showtime, HBO Time warner etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.103.158 (talk • contribs) 2007-09-24t15:11:15z

Read Wikipedia's verifiability requirements at WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-24t21:30z

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartosz Brenes

Non-notable musician. • Lawrence Cohen 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Site lifted from here. Non-notable fan site. Renee 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable. I just deleted it, then realised that the talk page claims permission is given for the text to be copied. May as well just wait for the AfD to kill it. J Milburn 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Article fails to provide reliable sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmad Mustafa Ibrahim

I'm not totally sure on this one, and was tempted to speedy delete request it. He's notable for his death and stopping a terrorist attack, but it still feels thin. I'd be happy to help build it out a bit if it's worth keeping but I suspect it is too borderline. Saying weak delete as nominator. • Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. This entry does have some decent sources but it seems to be a one-time event so doesn't seem to be enough to meet the notability standard. Renee 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just a passing news item. MarkBul 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete (suggested redirect seems unlikely search term). Espresso Addict 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical and healthcare educational software

Non-notable, no evidence/assertation of notability. • Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Sales site. Renee 00:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete but do not salt. Currently too messy a spam page. But it is a notable topic. resuce? Bearian 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect: to Educational software (and remove that page's wikilink back to this article). Reason: There is nothing significantly different in medical versions that -at this point in time – warrant a separate article. However the 'term' might be Googled so the title is worth keeping. This solution also acknowledges that the subject in itself -is important.--Aspro 13:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- vehicle for spam. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. CitiCat ^♫ 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chevron Cars

Clearly an article made for a non-notable advertising campaign. A single link on the page doesn't start with "www.chevron", and it's from a 1997 edition of a San Francisco Business Journal. Pro crast in a tor 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above; I must say, the existence of the pic on the right had me fooled for a moment, but I suppose that's a new tactic on the part of advertisers. Let that be a warning to people on talks like these… $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete for violating WP:SOAP, not to mention a lack of notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - if sources are found to prove notability, and the article becomes a little less soapy, I'll happily switch to keep. But until then, delete. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. An 11-year ad campaign with collectibles, may not have been "the next Beanie Babies" as one 1996 article asked, but still kicking. Sources exist. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Non-notable ad campaign? Are you kidding me! This has been going on for 11 years. It is only non-notable if you live where Chevron stations don't exist. If you delete this, then you might as well delete all toy collection entries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.224.132 (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Does anyone even bother looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion? A Google News Archive search turns up plenty of articles with significant coverage of both the advertising campaign and the collectible toys. Easily notable. DHowell 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The fact that they have been parodied at least three times speaks to notability. I know of a parody on Robot Chicken that should be added to this page. Viperix 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of the Shadows

Album track by a notable band on a notable album. Notability is not inherited, and I don't see anything here which demonstrates any independent notability. This is another one of the "A Matter of Life and Death" tracks which are being AfD'd separately so that they can be discussed on their merits. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete non notable per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Consists only of information already included in the album article plus little unverifiable content. --Oxymoron⁸³ 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no apparent independent notability. J Milburn 11:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensusJForget 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbian Red

non notable marijuana strain. No assertion of notability, no sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into a "Strain" section of the main article, same as other strains up for AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Graft to main stem, per Zahakiel --Victor falk 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it really is a substub and needs more information, but like all taxa I think most, if not all, cultivars are notable. It just needs proper references. If anyone has a copy of this available, I'm sure it would be listed there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (or merge) - given that this plant, as pretty much any cultivated plant, has hundreds to thousands of cultivars, most of which aren't particularly well-known or written about other than in brief entries in cultivar databases, it is much more practical to have a list of cannabis cultivars, a section in the main article, or even just a link to external sources. A few cultivars will warrant their own articles, but those should be written with sources and more than a single sentence, not mass-created in case they turn into real articles. (To give an idea of the scope, "There are more than 450,000 accessions (distinct varieties of plants) in the GRIN database." from [1] - and I'm sure other cultivar databases, or cultivars not listed in such databases, have many more). Kingdon 14:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (or merge) - as stated above, there is no info on the page and since this is the second time this has come up and there still is nothing to the page, delete would be best. If there really is some info - it should be included, with other cultivars, on one page. 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyplants (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Barr

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bobby Barr	Articles for deletion/Bobby Barr (2nd nomination)	Articles for deletion/Bobby Barr (fourth nomination)
Articles for deletion/Bobby Barr (third nomination)

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports): A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition therefore they aren't notable. Was listed in January (result no consensus) but has still not played for any professional club. Should now be deleted - and re-created if his career does take off. Springnuts 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Delete There's nothing to say really. Someone who hasn't actually done anything but may do so in the future is not notable. Revolutionaryluddite 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Surely with that reasoning you mean Delete? - PeeJay 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. Revolutionaryluddite 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. - PeeJay 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league. The article can be restored should he do so sometime in the future. --Malcolmxl5 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete For the same reason. Not yet notable enough. Fails WP:BIO. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 23:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FinnWars

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FinnWars

Articles for deletion/FinnWars (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/FinnWars (second nomination)

procedural nomination Nominated for PROD deletion despite two previous trips to AFD. Current PROD nominator states: "Unsourced, no apparent notability". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Salt for lack of sourcing and notability Bfigura ^(talk) 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a notable mod. See also WP:BIAS on countering systemic bias. If not Pelit but PC Gamer wrote about it, would it be more notable? No. That is geographical bias. Note: I removed the listscruft. User:Krator (t c) 00:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep- article mentions two good sources in the form of the magazine reviews. Would be nice if someone could actually cite them as sources though, rather than just mentioning them. J Milburn 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Gifts from Employers Included in Taxable Income?

Needs to be totally rewritten and renamed and/or merged, if it should even exist at all. Rocket000 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't think Wikipedia does tax advice. MarkBul 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia not being a how-to guide. WP:NOT. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It should not exist. Wikipedia is not legal advice. --Evb-wiki 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Additionally, nobody would type in a search criteria like that. Useight 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge any useful information into Gift tax. I agree with everyone above that we don't need articles that ask a question for you in order to set up a how-to answer. Mandsford 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia does not give tax advice. Also, I believe that the user who created this article has also created an article entitled 26 USC 102(c), which covers the same topic in a more appropriate way. Also, I respectfully disagree with editor Mandsford regarding a merger into the Gift tax article. This is a Federal income tax topic, not a Federal gift tax topic. That is, the question is whether a certain kind of gift is includible in gross income (whether it's taxed) for Federal income tax purposes. Income tax and gift tax are two different things. Yours, Famspear 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, I believe I have misread what editor Mandsford wrote. Mandsford did not explicitly call for a merger into the Gift tax article, but rather merely suggested a merge of any "useful information." My apology to editor Mandsford. Famspear 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. When the entire article's context can technically be "yes", then there's an issue. Smashville 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As Evb-wiki - Wikepedia is not a source of legal advice - in addition article is completley US centric. Nigel Ish 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge useful content and cites per Mandsford. Bearian 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamid Palo

This page appears to be a hoax. Googling Hamid Palo, Palo royal family, King Samdi Palo, and Palovinia turn up zero relevant results. Author is User:Lounge270. Sifaka ^talk 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete this hoax. May be a vanity or (mild) attack page - not true anyway. Check page history and creator's comment to nominator here. [[2]] Springnuts 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. None of the refs mention "Hamid Palo". Probably a joke by his college friends, judging by the last paragraph. Good detective work, Sifaka! delldot talk 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Many of those in favour of deletion were saying that the article should be deleted because the existing content is terrible. However, that's not really a valid deletion reason, because many articles have risen from the ashes to become quite substantial and excellent FAs. A good example of this is MDAC. Other deletion reasons were that the songs aren't notable, or the band isn't notable. However, MarkBul pointed out a few external links that tend to indicate that the songs' notability. Therefore, my decision is to keep these articles. Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Carolina Jubilee

I am nominating this and the following articles because I feel that these album pages will never be anything more than track lists. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also nominated for deletion for the same reasons outlined above...

Strong keep: Studio albums by notable artists. The fact they are currently short is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is the fact you think they will not be expanded. I personally doubt that the mass-created stubs on Eastern European villages which I see so often on new page patrol will be expanded, but deleting them would be a ridiculous thing to do. J Milburn 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment What makes the artists notable? Certainly not any good references. The Washington Post citation goes to the WP Wikipedia page. I'd be tempted to recommend the band for AfD, and the albums certainly show no evidence of notability. Until I see some legit references, I'm leaning hard towards Delete. MarkBul 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whether the band is notable is a seperate issue. As for whether the albums are notable- Emotionalism at Stylus Magazine, Emotionalism at Paste Magazine, A Carolina Jubilee at Harp Magazine, A Carolina Jubilee at Rockzillaworld, Mignonette at Paste Magazine, Mignonette at Independent Weekly (not any of the Independent Weeklys we have articles on) Four Thieves Gone at Prefix Magazine, Four Thieves Gone at PopMatters. That easily establishes the band's notability, and, even ignoring the fact that studio albums from notable artists are considered automatically notable, goes well on the way to establishing the notability for the albums. J Milburn 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From WP:MUSIC "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting.". Sound familiar? MarkBul 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I knew that articles containing merely track listings were deletable, but I totally forgot about WP:MUSIC. Thanks MarkBul. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    - There isn't really space in the main article for all of them, (especially if someone was to write the others) and merging them in there would discourage expansion of the album articles, which is not a good thing. I still think they should keep their own articles. They do have a little more than tracklistings, in the form of the infoboxes. It would get horribly crowded if all the infoboxes were piled in. I think that idea is more for band articles that consist of a paragraph and a couple of external links, with an album article with a single line, no infobox and a tracklisting. THEN I could see a case for merging, especially if there wasn't actually any other available infomation about the album. Here, as those excellent sources demonstrate (and there are interviews available too) the articles could quite easily be expanded. J Milburn 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Either Delete or Expland - Irrespective of notability of artist, the page needs to be expanded to be more than a tracklisting before the end of this AfD, otherwise a simple line on the artist's page will suffice. A1octopus 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean "expand" :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep but expand. Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded beyond a track listing. Nuttah68 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Unicode characters

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters

Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A data dump with no context, that serves no purpose not better served by actually going to look at the unicode standard, is not useful. —Random832 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

delete, per what I just said above. —Random832 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree that it's presented in a better format elsewhere, and with a higher degree of reliability (who would possibly check these are accurate?). Since raw data like this is not encyclopedic, and not as useful as the official sources, it belongs here to the same extent a phone directory would. Thomjakobsen 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Unicode characters make me horny Xizer 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment,~~ Keep Encyclopedia's exist to find knowledge right? So what if someone who did not know what this was, copy and pasted one of the symbols like "§" into the search, they would then learn all about unicode characters and how to write them. Or if someone wanted to edit wiki and needed to know how to write a "|" then this is where they would go. I don't know if this article belongs or not, but it seems like useful knowledge that would be a shame to delete. Viperix 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- If they copy-pasted § into the search, they would arrive at section sign, which is far more useful than this one in finding out what “§” is. And, this article says nothing about how to write a “|”, nor is it in a form that would make it reasonable to add that information. —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I think you missed my point, if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list. Because it helps them to learn "hey I can type all this stuff by typing in this combination of numbers" and the learning process continues from there. Also it does teach how to write the "|" "U+007C | Vertical Line" under Basic Latin. Viperix 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    - if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list would be a BAD idea. We have actual articles about many characters. And, this list does not give any way of typing in the characters, it doesn't discuss HTML entities, alt codes, gnome "ctrl-shift" entry, etc, and none of that would be useful at all anyway for | because, well, it's _on the keyboard_.
      - Its on the keyboard? I don't think its on mine..... If it is let me know where, should save me time lol. Anyway I still think you miss my point, if it teaches how to use it or not is irrelevant really. This list passes WP:SAL, is useful for identifying these charictars, and to answer a question below, while researching things on WP, people don't necessarily want to go to a bunch of other cites, thats why they come here. And I don't think it exists elsewhere on the internet is a valid reason for deletion, If it was, WP would be nothing but links with no information at all. Viperix 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am against list-cruft, but this is not cruft. Wikipedia is not paper, and this information is extremely useful and cannot be stored as a category. This is an internationally accepted standard(ISO) the has gained enormous acceptance, none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it. This is a classic case of when a list is a good idea. The article can be made more encyclopedic by adding short one or two sentence explanations next to notable characters, and links to articles if they exist. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- If none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it, Why does one of them have it? and mostly in a more useful form, too. (no, it doesn't have the list of character names, but it could reasonably be added.) —Random832 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is good reference information and while one might be able to find the same information in different places on the web, if one is looking for the info in wikipedia, it's nice to have it in a familiar format. Capmango 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- But it's unencyclopedic. Why would someone be looking for this info in wikipedia and not be happy with an external link at the bottom of Unicode? —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Just a data dump of information already provided on other websites.-Wafulz 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep whether information is on other websites or not is irrelevant to whether it should be on wikipedia. We're a encyclopedia, not a mere guide to the web or a supplement to the web. And what makes something encyclopedic? that's just saying it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. But why? All encyclopedias have always had tables of information of this sort. DGG (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This list cannot be said to have no context or to be indiscriminate. I find it useful and informative, and I'm sure others do as well. —Nricardo 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It provides no context. It's a list of characters and names. It does not explain the history of the characters, etc, and it is not in a form in which it would be reasonable to add that information. —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article lists the characters of mankind's most widely used character encoding system. This is just as important as English alphabet, in my opinion. Try to remember that Wikipedia is more than just a traditional encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 07:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Serves a useful purpose; no real need to delete. -Elmer Clark 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ITSUSEFUL. Except, it's NOT. It's, in fact, _less_ useful than a single external link to unicode.org. —Random832 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's just as important as the ASCII set. --Ancheta Wis 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep but split into separate articles - it's too big and will cause problems for many people that look at it. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree a split makes sense. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep — This is exactly the type of notable information that I'd use as a reference. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for raw information for use as a reference. Wikisource is over there —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Deleting it would only make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
delete- This is not the right forum for this, love page of some sort methinks.JJJ999 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it's actually quite useful and is (mildly) encyclopedic. I've referred to it myself here in the past - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep somewhere. I'm not completely sure that Wikipedia is the best permanent place for this reference but I'm not sure that any of our sister projects are any better. I just found the page while attempting to research a question about domain-name spoofing (exploiting the similarity between the Cyrillic "Ye" and the Roman "E"). This page quickly answered my question when none of the other pages I'd found could.
Note: If it is removed in favor of one of our sister projects, the page should be overwritten with a soft-redirect to that sister project-page. Deleting all traces of this page would be very unhelpful to our readers.
Note 2: Splitting the page would, in my opinion, make the page much less helpful. Perhaps the goal could be met through reformatting on the same page? Rossami (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a reference content..wp->reference. fixed :).--Alnokta 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This reference material fulfills the criteria suggested by Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia (note: this is an essay). Burntsauce 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this looks like a nomination for the sake of nominating something. You do realise an encyclopedia is supposed to be a comprehensive reference work, right? - David Gerard 11:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete or soft redirect to Wikibooks which has a much more efficient reference. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and perhaps fix up the formatting, but keep it because it is useful knowledge. We're not limited by shelf space here. The more info, the better. -Slipgrid 13:38, 27 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. Sourced award nominations meet WP:PORNBIO and invalidate only deletion reason given. Eluchil404 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Star

Does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. --Yeshivish 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per award noms and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:23, 27 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. Article was blanked by creator, deleted by JForget under db-blanked. Non-admin closure. -- Kesh 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Fischer

Claim to fame is that she was a background singer for Michael Jackson, and that she was murdered. No relevant results on: Google, GBooks, GScholar, GNews, GBlogs, IMBD, Amazon.com, amazon.co.uk for any of the names mentioned in the article (although events occurred pre-WWW). I suspect the material may be sourced from a true-crime type book - could not find the "paul-von" mentioned in the article anywhere; however the reference(?) at the top of the article may be this which I don't think would include biographical information. Kateshort forbob 21:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Presumably she sang backing on the karaoke CD that goes with the book? From the lack of online references (even given the pre-WWW qualification), I don't see any evidence that her music career was independently notable, or that the murder was notable. Adding the two together doesn't justify an article, and I can't figure out the "paul-von" reference either. Thomjakobsen 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If possible, I would like to withdraw this nomination, as I have been informed that the article was previously speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 and have now tagged it {{db-repost}}. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --Kateshort forbob 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:CSD#G4 criterion only applies to articles that were previously deleted via AfD, not speedy deletes. The new version does attempt to assert notability ("one of the most popular backing singers etc.") so it's ineligible for another A7. It'll qualify for G4s if the result here is a delete and it gets recreated. Thomjakobsen 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. --Kateshort forbob 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Absence of secondary sources means the subject fails WP:N -- Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people -- and the lack of Google hits would make it appear this could be remedied. Also, while it's sad she was murdered, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Followup - The article creator has blanked the page, so I have tagged it WP:SD#G7. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penelope Trunk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Penelope Trunk

Delete: Challenged PROD. Copying my reason for PROD below: Doesn't seem to satisfy any of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people). No reliable published secondary sources about the subject that I can see (her web site has a list of press coverage, all of which seem to be articles about other things that quote her in passing), no independent biography, no awards or honors, no widespread name recognition, no widely recognized contributions or endorsements. Looking at the list of guidelines for creative professionals, she doesn't seem to satisfy any of those either. At best, she's a blogger and columnist with one recently published book; I don't think this cuts it.

The editor who removed the PROD commented that if there are reliable source references to her blog, she may be notable, but no one has yet come forward with any. SparsityProblem 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. As Adrienne Roston, played professional beach volleyball; passes WP:BIO for athletes right there. As Adrienne Eisen/Greenheart, published award-winning fiction that has been professionally reviewed. As Adrienne Greenheart, pursued an accomplished but probably non-notable dot-com career. As Penelope Trunk, columnist for top outfits including TIME and Yahoo! Finance. It's a problem to search on all four names but there's enough there to pass WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Needs secondary sources, which may eventually appear. But right now there's just not enough for notability. Ward3001 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Trunk wants to be the Ann Coulter of career advice by writing columns filled with resoundingly stupid career advice. She has advised women to show more skin at work, take off from work when one feels like it and don't tell your superior, date one's coworkers, invite your boss to your myspace page, etc. One article about this can be found here. I'm not sure whether she honestly believes her own advice, or whether she just writes the things she writes to get attention. Honestly, I don't think she would be notable, except for the fact that Yahoo! has made her their career advice columnist, and that she dishes out advice that will often result in career suicide, which garners her a lot of attention. Her Yahoo! gig passes the threshold for notability, in my opinion, albeit just barely. 64.190.140.138 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was "invite your CEO to facebook", not myspace.

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

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

The result was train wreck - in any event, no consensus to delete them all, and no clear visibility to what the outcome of individual discussions would be based on this discussion. GRBerry 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Several Monty Python sketches

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Accidents Sketch (2nd nomination)

Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses

Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson‎

Conrad Poohs‎

Kilimanjaro Expedition‎

Vocational Guidance Counsellor‎

Decomposing Composers‎

Marriage Guidance Counsellor‎

Delete all - expired prods removed by editor who acknowledges that the sketches are not independently notable yet for some reason feels that the prods were "arbitrary." Given that the de-prodder acknowledges the lack of independent notability of the sketches and given that in addition to not being notable the sketches all fail WP:PLOT these seem like pretty obvious deletes. Otto4711 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP ALL - While its true that these Monty Python skits can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as Spam, but really the segue pieces. I am therefore requesting removal of the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Wikipedia provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into articles in Wikipedia. I could also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--10stone5 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The threshold requirement is notability, not how funny they are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete all. I love the Fliegender Zirkus as much as the next geek, but this is not Pythonpedia. I was prepared to say that these should be kept, but I was thinking of things like the Spam sketch or the Parrot Sketch. DS 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Merge into List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. Fancruft. Unencyclopedic. We don't need, for instance, a list of all the composers mentioned in the Decomposing Composers sketch. Summarize each and include in the list. For a model of that, see Series 3, Episode 7 in the list, where a skit is described. I don't think redirecting is worthwhile. Noroton 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, there's no assertion of notability, usually no references and nothing but a plot summary in any of these articles. All against policy. Noroton 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge all (plot summaries) into one article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Information is worthwhile, but not as separate articles. Operating 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep why delete two sheds but keep nudge nudge? Either get rid of every MP sketch article or keep them all. The only other sensible alternative is to only keep "notable" sketches, which would be sketches that have been written about or reviewed independently. But that would be silly. We have a separate article for every Frasier episode, not just the "notable" ones. Likewise, it is fine to have an article for every MP sketch. Capmango 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAX is not a reasonable argument ~~for~~ against deletion. Maybe we shouldn't have an article on every Frasier episode. I don't know. It doesn't matter, because the existence of those articles has nothing to do with the existence of these. The existence of other MP sketch articles is not a valid reason for keeping these. Otto4711 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for deletion. And I was using the Frasier example illustritively. There are plenty of situations where it makes sense as an encyclopedia to have a complete set. We had similar discussions about NY subway stops. Some are clearly notable, some maybe not so much, but if we're going to cover subway stops, it makes sense to cover all of them. If we're going to cover Monty Python sketches (and we should), it makes WP:SENSE to cover them all. Capmango 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it makes sense to cover every MP sketch simply for the sake of completeness. Otto4711 12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep All or Renominate Separately so that we can discuss the merits of each separately. I know that the Anne Elk Brontosaurus episode is notable and the Kilamanjaro episode might be considered notable. Pocopocopocopoco 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have confidence in the ability of my fellow editors to be able to review this small selection of similar and related articles and come to a decision. If you have reliable sources that attest to the notability of the Anne Elk sketch then please add them to the article. Otto4711 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Anne Elk is notable because the whole sketch is in imdb.com memorable quotes. Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone's typing up a transcript of the sketch and uploading it to IMDB doesn't make the sketch notable. Anyone can type up a scene from a TV show and upload it there. Otto4711 02:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How? My impression is that IMDB does not follow the wikipedia model of everybody editing articles, especially memorable quote articles. IMDB is used extensively in wiki as a source. Besides, shouldn't you show why Anne Elk is not notable? Pocopocopocopoco 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The lack of reliable sources that are substantially about the particular sketch demonstrate its lack of notability. IMDB allows anyone to upload information and exercises varying degrees of editorial control over the uploaded information. Its use as a source on Wikipedia has been contentious. However, even if IMDB were an impeccable source, the existence of a transcript of a particular sketch does not establish that the sketch is notable. Existence does not equal notability. Otto4711 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK how about this one Natural Kinds, Laws of Nature and Scientific Methodology by Peter Biggs pg 127 'I will call such minimal contentful accounts "Elk Theories" in honour of John Clease's Monty Python character. To the increasing high brow television presenter, Miss Anne Elk lovingly repeats her ("That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too") the theory of the brontosaurus' Pocopocopocopoco 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. Notability means that the subject of the article is the substantial subject of reliable sources. A one-line mention in a book of at least 127 pages is not substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that most of us do online searches as we can't be bothered to go to a library over something like this and it might be difficult to get the rigorous standards that you demand for something that was a skit over 30 years ago online. During it's time, this skit was popular, it occurred before my time but people still talked about it when I was a kid. I know your going to start putting in a whole bunch of wikipedia links like WP:OR but what can I say. This skit generates almost a thousand hits on google and there are some reliable sources like the one I mentioned above that make reference to it. Right now I don't have time to do a more extensive search at the different hits, perhaps later. Pocopocopocopoco 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but notability is not some rigorous unattainable standard. And the fact that you keep using words like "popular" indicates that you don't understand what notability is. It is not popularity. It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources). It is not about things "referencing" the sketch in passing. It is about having independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete all. At the time this comment is written, none of the sketches have any sources demonstrating their independent notability beyond the fact that they're all Monty Python routines and therefore hilarious. If there are sources which can be added for any of them, I'll gladly review my opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all These are all plot summaries that don't do the show justice. Why should they be on Wikipedia? I'm sure the vast majority of Monty Python sketches are non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The theory on notability of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses. That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too. :) Pocopocopocopoco 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep All These are all notable sketches to some degree or another, especially when considered as a whole. On individual basis, i could see deleting one or two of them as non-notable, but as a block, i'm sorry, several are important cultural and historical events that reveal quite a bit about other things in society. It might be interesting to consider the recent actions on another monty python sketch that was not added in here, which is the football sketch which was recently kept. Did these prods happen at the same time? or after. I suspect the same time. Monty Python's work is notable, some of it is more notable than others. --Buridan 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very easy to state that something has some sort of cultural significance. It is quite another to back up that claim with reliable sources. You're admitting here that at least some of this material does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines yet you're arguing to keep it anyway. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for keeping. The fact that the football sketch article was (wrongly IMHO) kept has no bearing on whether any of these articles should be kept, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. However, if you want to make the argument, then consider that for every AFDed MP sketch article that's been kept several have been deleted, including "Blackmail" (deleted), "Albatross" (deleted), "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all deleted), "Erotic film" (deleted), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" (deleted), "Johann Gambolputty" (deleted), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" (deleted), "Medical Love Song" (deleted), "Silly Job Interview (deleted) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" (deleted) and many others that did not survive being prodded. Otto4711 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

comment yes many have been deleted, and i suspect they will be remade eventually, it is that people recognize them as notable. if your point is about it needs verifiable material, then you should have marked them with cleanup, expert, and improve. No i am saying that at this point in time, some of the material might not have verifiable sources to show notability, but others certainly will. I haven't researched it, but then neither did you, you just marked it as delete, when it seems to me that again, you mark something for delete that you really want improved. stop WP:Bureucracy in favor of WP:common. I also want to note that I saw at least one Prod of yours in recent history that wasn't marked with an edit summary. It might be that some of these need deletion review. please use edit summaries on deletion proposals. --Buridan 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is not that they need to be cleaned up. My point is, has been and will continue to be that the sketches are not independently notable. The notability of Monty Python does not extend to every three-minute segment that the troupe committed to film. This is honestly not that complex of a position, and all of your Wiki-lawyering and (incorrect) supposition about my motives, my desires or my actions does not suddenly make what is not notable, notable. Otto4711 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no suppositions about your actions other than to assume you are trying to do the right thing. That said, these are notable and python's notability does extend to some extent and your claim that they are not only requires reliable sources to show that they are, if you only need reliable sources, then you need to mark that first, and stop wasting people's time with unwarranted deletion nominations. if it requires cleanup and you are allowing for that, that is where it should start. I'm not wikilawering here, not deleting python sketches to me seems like wp:common, i did make a request that you mark prods on their edit summary, i think that is reasonable. --Buridan 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still falsely assuming that I did no research before prodding and then nominating these articles. I do mark prods in their edit summary. I missed one? So sorry, big deal. Is anyone going to miss the big PROD notice on the article? No. And, I again call attention to the fact that the person who removed the expired prods acknowledges that the sketches are not notable but was apparently upset that not every single MP sketch was prodded at the same time. And now the nomination is being criticised because they were all done at the same time. Otto4711 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List individually I havent the least idea whether any MP sketch is notable, as I avoid him altogether. But I think it reasonable a priori that the notability of them will differ, and so I ask that the nom be withdrawn and they be listed individually. DGG (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It is clear that the nominator has not made any effort to investigate whether these skits are notable as he says above (emphasis is mine) " It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources)". He is obviously arguing that they are not notable unless we can prove that they are notable. Given that the subject matter decades old and has many hits with a google search and given that there are 7 skits, it's time consuming for us to search through and find material showing notability of these skits. Unless the nominator can prove that they are not notable, at this point I recommend speedy keep and close this AFD, give the authors a chance to beef up the articles to show notability (say a couple months), and if the nominator really wants to, he can renominate these articles individually after the authors have beefed up the articles. Pocopocopocopoco 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't demonstrate the notability of the sketches so you resort to more Wikilawyering. Otto4711 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as admission that you haven't investigated whether these sketches are notable. Also, I think it's funny when you accuse me of wikilawyering when you've been doing a great deal of wikilawyering above. Just look at the number of times you've linked in a wikipedia policy link above and I also believe you are trying to get us to abide by the letter of WP:N while violating it's spirit. Pocopocopocopoco 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're free to take it as an admission of anything you'd like, but sadly, your interpretation has absolutely no basis in reality. And gee, excuse me for including links to the policies I cite. Although I think you'll find that it's pretty standard practice, when citing a policy one believes supports one's position, to include a link to it in one's argument as a courtesy to those who might want to review the policy. It is not within the spirit of WP:N to retain material that is not notable; indeed, the spirit of WP:N is that subjects should be notable. I do not understand how WP:N can be read either in letter or in spirit to mean that articles on subjects that are not notable should be retained. So I'll ask again, can you offer any reliable sources that establish the independent notability of any of these subjects? Otto4711 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as the tide against these articles may be turning per this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The major difference between that discussion and this one is that a source (however useful it may have been) was provided. To use the legal term, I don't think the precedent is "on all fours" with this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I have added a script and video of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses similar to how it is done for The Philosophers' Football Match which was a keep and I have also added the reference I mentioned above which "Philophers'" didn't have, so I believe this article should also be a keep. Other than this particular edit, I am not an author of these articles but as I mentioned, I believe that time is warranted to give the author(s) a chance to beef up the articles similar to how I've beefed up Anne Elk. Pocopocopocopoco 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have successfully established that the sketch exists. However, existence does not equal notability. You have failed to demonstrate that this sketch is in any way independently notable. Otto4711 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep all or at least renominate separately. Monty Python is very famous and thus all of its sketches should be at least mentioned. JIP | Talk 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's a considerable difference between "mentioned" and "have articles written about them", though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
List individually and (those who do it or are contemplating doing so), please refrain from responding to every comment or opinion that disagrees with yours. It's bad form, intimidating to some, and not good evidence of your individual brilliance. Better use of that brilliance would be to improve the articles in question, seek out whatever you think is missing and add it, etc. Lou Sander 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The current python project for instance does little service to the particular phenomenon of Monty Python - and its effect on many in the english speaking word - any traces/aspects of the phenomenon - however slight in some editors views - need careful preservation from the lumberjacks. cheers Satu Suro 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that every single thing associated with Monty Python ever should have its own article? With no regard to the actual notability of the thing in question? That viewpoint does not appear to have any foundation in our policies and guidelines, which establish standards of notability for Wikipedia articles. Otto4711 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response - nowhere in this did i say what you are attributing to me - I concur with Lou Sander above - take careful note of the advice Satu Suro 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep all - Several books regarding Monty Python have been published, going into often extraordinary detail regarding the subject, yes, including individual skits. I think that those volumes help establish the notability of these skits. Having said that, I have no objections to the possibility of merging and/or otherwise combining several of these articles into a reduced number of articles, perhaps one per episode, after the articles have been worked on a bit more and it is clearer exactly how long they are likely to ultimately be. But deletion at this point seems uncalled for. John Carter 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Python as a whole and the notability of other Python sketches does not translate to notability for these sketches. In the absence of substantial coverage of these sketches the coverage of other sketches in these sources is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My statement above was not intended to deal directly with the subject of these skits per se. I don't think any of us know one way or another whether these skits do receive substantive treatment in the relevant books yet. I know I don't, having just started doing anything with that subject today. However, I do believe that if the skits are found to be non-notable individually, they will almost certainly be turned into sections of other articles shortly thereafter. If that is the case, then deleting them now, before such notability can be established by the comparatively few individuals who have had any activity with the subject area, might prove to be counterproductive. If they do qualify as non-notable, though, like I said, I am certain the content will be merged into other articles, probably individual episode articles, and probably shortly after non-notability is determined. I just don't see a need to rush to judgement here. John Carter 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think allowing non-notable plot summary articles to sit around unchallenged for six months is a "rush to judgment." Otto4711 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, and, in fact, I made no such statement. If that is the amount of time they have been "sitting around", however, I could agree that you might have been justified in starting the conversation. However, I believe with at least a few people, myself included, with any luck now engaging in at least some active work on the articles, I think it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that that much time would be required. And I could certainly agree to a potential renomination in a much shorter time if no action were taken in the interim. Actually, if that heppened, I'm fairly sure I'd support deletion myself. But I do think that perhaps a period of one or two months to work on all the articles invovled would not be necessarily onerous. John Carter 14:35, 28 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. Espresso Addict 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCAR (programming language)

Contested prod - I believe that SCAR is not notable outside of RuneScape cheating (which is not particularly notable itself) and I believe there are no reliable sources about this subject, or to establish any sort of notability. OSborn^arf 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think it is notable enough.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete I am in 2 minds about this one, but given the fact it was developed specifically for usage in a small community/environment, and that I can't easily find an adaquate amount of notability outside of this (or indeed a suffice amount of publications which would convince me that it meets minimum notability requirements for inclusion), i'll have to vote for deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No independent, reliable sources. The title is also a bit misleading; it's a Pascal interpreter, which means it's unlikely to generate the coverage you'd expect from a genuinely new programming language. Plus it doesn't seem notable enough to have been included in the RuneScape article. Thomjakobsen 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per lack of sourcing/information. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strongly against deleting SCAR has a very strong and interesting history behind it, and is more than notable enough to keep. Over 30'000 people know about SCAR and how it works, and the majority use and program with it everyday. SCAR is primarily used for cheating in the online game RuneScape and is the only program which has stood the test of time with this game making it infamous on RuneScape. Apart from that, SCAR can also be used for many other things, such as doing boring repetitive tasks on your computer easily and even creating games. It is a great way to slowly slide your way into the world of programming, and since learning how to use SCAR successfully, i have found that i can also use Pascal, Delphi, PHP and CSS extremely easily as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.217 (talk • contribs)
Delete as one claim to notability ends in a deadlink. --Gavin Collins 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not-quite-weak-but-not-strong-either Keep Many people use SCAR and there are many sites that talk about it quite frequently. The reason why there aren't many sources outside the community is because it is considered taboo because of its widespread use in making cheats for video games. But if you look at the Razor 1911 or similar articles, you'll find that almost all the sources link to community sites/forums and such. And if you Google "Scar programming -Antarctic," you get almost 700,000 pages, only few of which are not talking about the programming language. Also, @Thomjakobsen, the reason why it's not on the RuneScape article is because of the game owner's dislike of it. It periodically will show up, but quickly get deleted (or at least that's what used to happen a 10 months ago...) @Gavin, sorry, changed the link to the black book; it's a zip but virusless.

In my opinion, this article could greatly improve if someone took 20 minutes to look for more varied sources (If my memory serves me correctly, SCAR was actually mentioned on the RuneScape page a couple of years ago), and tweak the overall feel of the article (make sure there are no spelling/grammar/continuity mistakes, switch around sentences, mess with sections. Aside from it's almost complete lack of sources (which like I said can quickly be fixed by someone who will "take one for the team" and stop playing Halo 3 for 20 minutes), there are almost no other faults in this article. Qoou.Anonimu 01:46, 28 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. John254 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dirty Fork

Delete - expired prod removed by editor on the grounds that, while s/he acknowledges that the grounds for the prod were valid (that the sketch is not independently notable) she believes the prod was "arbitrary." Given that even the de-prodder acknowledges that the sketch is not independently notable and given that it also, as a plot summary of the sketch, fails WP:PLOT, this seems like a pretty obvious delete. Otto4711 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - While its true that this skit and several others can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as Spam but really the segue pieces. I am therefore removing the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Wikipedia provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into articles in Wikipedia. I would also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--10stone5 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that only a handful of sketches have been made into articles is because very few of them are independently notable. Indeed, a couple dozen or so similar articles have been deleted over the last few weeks for said lack of independent notability. Otto4711 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This sketch is independently notable. Much more notable than many/most of the albums by minor artists that appear here. Still notable decades after it was performed. Lou Sander 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch that you believe establish the notability of this specific sketch. Popularity is not notability. The existence of other articles does not serve to establish the notability of this sketch. Otto4711 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it is notable, it may need improved. --Buridan 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy to say. Where are the sources to back it up? Otto4711 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I just added two sources. There are more, but IMHO they are hardly needed for such a notable work of such a notable group. Lou Sander 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The first source is written by the Pythons and so is not independent. It also apparently simply a transcript of the sketch collected in book form. The second source is not about the sketch itself; it is about the Pythons' feelings about punch lines. Neither source comes remotely close to establishing that this individual sketch is in any way independently notable. Otto4711 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to see what you are driving at. This sketch has become a staple of popular culture, so there's very little doubt about its notability. Are you claiming that a single short work out of a very large body of short works must have independent publications about it before it can be treated as notable? What about dozens of reprints, reissues, mentions in commentaries on the body of work, etc.? Lou Sander 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources that attest to the sketch's being "a staple of popular culture" would be a good place to start. Do you have any of those? Otto4711 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to think that items of popular culture with decades worth of worldwide following, multiple reissues in various formats and languages are not notable, it's best just to let them keep thinking it. Lou Sander 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So that would be a "no," then? Otto4711 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I have no personal views on these sketches, but since there are sources there is no basis for deletion.DGG (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. You know as well as I that the standard is not "sources." The standard is independent reliable sources that are substnatially about the subject. A collection of sketch transcripts written by the Pythons is not an independent reliable source. An interview segment about the Python philospohy on punchlines is not substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Don't feed the trolls. Good Cop 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an actual reason for wanting the article kept that refutes the nomination or are you limited to name-calling and assumptions of bad faith? Otto4711 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per common sense and common knowledge. "The trolls will eat, the trolls will bleat, even if nobody feeds them." Cleome 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screaming Mimes

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Local band with only two albums to their credit thus far, one independently produced, one produced by a now-defunct label run by one of the band members. No third party reliable sources to establish notability. Sethacus 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Their forthcoming album also appears to be produced by the same, independent, now-defunct label.--Crunch 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND Bfigura ^(talk) 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. --Domthedude001 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Agree that this doesn't meet WP:BAND and similar guidelines. Burntsauce 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El DoboLocoPapo

Non notable myspace music artist ~Eliz81^(C) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No assertion of notability, no record company, nothing --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 - fails to assert any notability and nowhere near WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above --Domthedude001 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Help. Could an admin or more experienced editor, if possible, please check the "what links here" link? It seems like several redirects are now aimed at this article as well. Benjiboi 21:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the links- when the article is deleted, the redirects will be gone. I'll remove the listing from dab pages. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to[3] articles that have been misdirected here. Benjiboi 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Absolutely no notability stated; the article merely states "he's a young rapper with a couple of insignificant mixtapes." -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom.--Tasco 0 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep he should stay, because of the originality and that there is no copyright infringement. Also he is myspace notable even though there is no record lable. User:67.182.109.26 03:00, September 24, 2007
- Wikipedia:Notability (music)--Tasco 0 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, blatant advertising. This is a notable company; at least, I had heard of it well before seeing an article here. We should have an article about it. But the text here was so irremediably bad that starting from scratch is necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escort Radar

Reads like an advertisement, would require a total rewrite, which nobody seems to want to do. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, possibly speedily. This seems to be blatant advertising to me, and I've tagged it as G11. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Its an Advert.Operating 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Storm

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. A non-notable guy who plays in a non-notable band. Crunch 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nom, so much so, I nominated the band.--Sethacus 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet notability guidelines Bfigura ^(talk) 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Be gone per nom. м info 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Lippert

fails WP:BIO, no google hits found that support notability - prod removed NeilN 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NeilN - can you give me a chance to improve on wiki? When you AfD this article minutes after I submit a first iteration does not give me chance to comply. Please let me know if you have any specific objections to the article. I do have referencable material, however it may take a while to get this together. Thanks, Bpomykala 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: First, "minutes" is an exaggeration. Second, I originally prodded the article which would have given you five days to improve it. However you removed the prod tag without explaining why therefore the article was listed on AfD. AfD discussions also typically last five days. If you can provide sources within this time that show the subject meets WP:BIO then I will certainly withdraw the nomination. --NeilN 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Googled and nothing there. Not notable.Operating 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Given that the subject died in 1967, Google may not be the most appropriate means for establishing notability. --Malcolmxl5 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. True, the article's main author should find print references during the Afd discussion to establish notability.Operating 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I searched Google Books, which have sources from the subject's lifetime and came up short. I'm having a hard time seeing the notability here. He built a non-notable church and part of a notable one? Outside that, the article is a litany of unencyclopedic "X lived here, then he moved over there" statements. I'm willing to give the author the full time alloted on this AfD, but, right now, I'm leaning towards delete.--Sethacus 20:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting to delete In 5 days, the only change made to the article has been a slide show, purportedly of houses the subject built. Unfortunately, that's not enough to satisfy.--Sethacus 15:27, 27 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 per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Prince

Bio is WP:NN. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Meets WP:NOT#DIR. Article is linked to no other notable pages, cites no credible sources. Contains mostly advertising and POV spam. Btl 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Of course he is notable, he founded one of the largest defense companies in the world. He is heavily mentioned in external independent reliable sources and there are many hits in Google current news. End of the day he is notable, the article just isn't written properly --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep And I question the good faith of this deletion debate. He's the founder and CEO of the world's largest PMC, is constantly in the press for it. Plenty of news articles. Does not read like advertising or POV spam, although it's not great. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Very notable. Type in "Erik Prince" into Google news and find ~70 recent mentions by such reliable sources as the LA Times, Reuters, Financial Times, The Associated Press, and Times. While the article could cite many more of these reliable sources, and it certainly could use improvement, it certainly does not warrant deletion. Also, no mention of any specific deficiencies has been made on the talk page or on this AfD besides to allege "POV spam". I also fail to see what could be construed as "advertising". johnpseudo 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Seems like a bad faith nomination. -Crunch 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. As the founder of the iconic private military company, Prince is highly notable. However, because his company, Blackwater USA, has recently been in major headlines, this entry has been subject to extensive vandalism and should perhaps be protected from IP edits. There is extensive information about Prince in Robert Young Pelton's book Licensed to Kill. I would prefer not to be the person expanding this entry. --Pleasantville 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Google returns 2 million articles related to him and the name.Operating 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock, Paper, Scissors variations

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, and WP:MADEUP. Here's a randomly selected bullet point in the article: Superman, Spider-Man, Batman is another variation. Superman beats Spider-Man, Spider-Man beats Batman, and (due to his possession of a Kryptonite ring given to him by Superman) Batman beats Superman. The actions are as follows: Superman - arm raised Superman style; Spider-Man - palms face upwards with middle finger touching palm; Batman - hold ring finger out with smug look on face. Completely made up in school one day, no way to find verification for this. -- Wikipedical 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete beats WP:MADEUP. In fact, WP:MADEUP doesn't even beat paper. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with nominator, what a load of crap =p --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and block article creator indefinitely. DS 04:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrison Christian

Contested prod. Non notable if existing. The only proven fact is the existence of a video on youtube. The references are bogus. There is no website shortfilms.com, shortfilms.com.au and shortfilm.com have no information on this person. No information about person, company or films at the New Zealand Film Commission, founded 1978, website. No mention in the annual report 2006 which does not have a page 299. VirtualDelight 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete As stated, shortfilms.com returns a non-existent domain. There is a whois for shortfilms.com, but that appears unrelated (someone in NY), and is not the issue at hand. The other ref stated is the New Zealand Film Commission (which is located at www.nzfilm.co.nz), and a search here returns one single unrelated film named Bonjour Timothy whose synopsis contains no name even remotely similar to "Harrison Christian". Google search had me five pages deep before I gave up. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per nomination and above --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This wiki article is the only notable reference to him. Operating 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and above. --Fabrictramp 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable YouTube artist looking for his 15 minutes.--Sethacus 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above reasons. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. -Domthedude001 02:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails the everything test. RFerreira 04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. dramatic 09:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

delete more hoaxage from the kiwi vandal, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Razjou & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonothan Ryan de Alwis. Pete.Hurd 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragon NaturallySpeaking commands

WP:NOT a manual. This is far more detail than is needed for encyclopedic coverage of the software. Toohool 18:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I didn't even understand most of the content of this article, the list is incomplete, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT for how-to guides. ~Iceshark7 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Not a manual, no encyclopedic relevance. OSborn^arf 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Not relevant to the project in the slightest --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I actually laughed reading the article (because speech recognition is in its infancy and very poor, hence why produce a list?). It is however a howto. Operating 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NOT most definitly. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep A suitable selected list of commands to give some ida of the function and capability of the software. Not a howto or a manual--insufficient to run the program; "not relevant" is an opinion, not an argument: explaining the function of widely used software is relevant to any contemporary encyclopedia. That one doesn't understand it is a reason to ask for expansion and explanation, not deletion. DGG (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Operating --Domthedude001 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This product is not a game, but if it were, the standard argument would be that we're NOT a game guide. Close enough. RFerreira 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No value for an encyclopedia. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a manual. JIP | Talk 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is beyond me how anyone could support the notion of including such a laughable list, but to each his own. Burntsauce 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The commands do nothing to benefit an understanding (not use, Wikipedia is not a manual) of the program, are therefore not encyclopedic with respect to their parent article, and additionally have no independent notability. This might be the first time I've completely disagreed with DGG, I surprise myself...Someguy1221 08:16, 27 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, frivolous nomination. delldot talk 18:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viacom

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Viacom

Articles for deletion/Viacom's closing logos

I looked, but I couldn't find "Viacom" in the OED. I have lost all hope 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep - nomination has no substance. Attempt at humor? -Pete 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. ELIMINATORJR 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of shopping malls in Houston, Texas

List subject is already adequately covered by Category:Shopping malls in Houston; the list contains no additional information about each mall. The only page that links to it is Portal:Houston/Houston lists. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for the relevant guidelines. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see where the list has violated any policies or guidelines in it's current form. It could use some expansion, though. It is also acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. I added a "stub" and "expand" tag. -- Postoak 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's violated any policies, I'm just saying that it's generally unused and there's a category that serves a similar purpose. Admittedly, a category wouldn't be able to show the Houston mall articles that haven't been created yet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia:Listcruft.Operating 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. -- Postoak 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article describes the pro's and con's of the terms usage. To me it simply describes an irrelevant list. Which is what this article is. I can produce a hundred lists like this every day, as i'm sure you can. Operating 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Postoak 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. There is a cat for this, the article is not encyclopedic. meshach 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Postoak 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - each mall should be an entry in the Category:Shopping malls in Houston, we dont need a Article to just repeat the Category listing Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Postoak 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your correct, they can coexist - but if you read the section pertaining to the advantages of lists; have any of the suggested improvements been implemented (other than redlink). Sorry, but as it stands, it is JUST a copy of the Category listing. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. The list also contains articles that have not been created and therefore cannot be categorized. Postoak 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

weak keep - Improvement + Effort has been shown Comments AfD is not the place for getting guidance on how to improve an article - comment to above - thoes are called redlinks, and I did say "(other than redlink)" Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the nomination, textbook directory content, which we are WP:NOT in the business of providing. Use categories. Burntsauce 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well go type "List of shopping malls" in your search box and see what we find. We apparently are providing this. It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. We should review Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Postoak 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep: Delete this article, then delete all of these. It's all or nothing at all, and none of the others are slated for deletion. It's not fair. -- azumanga 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep but not for the above reason. Keep because lists like this are probably the best way to deal with the less notable malls. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Context has been added to many of the malls included on the list; thus, it is no longer a mere list and contains more info than a category can. --Evb-wiki 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Comment - what you have added is simply the first sentence from each article page. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - And? --Evb-wiki 05:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that you somewhat improved the list. Have you considered a table format? It works rather well to communicate additional information about each entry. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Just commenting that you're moving in the right direction- attempting to provide more information than just a category can. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - I had not. I'm not big on tables, but it might help. [ps - I'm fighting edit conflicts.] --Evb-wiki 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Good idea, I think the format at List of shopping malls in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex would look good here also. Just need time to implement. Thanks, Postoak 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I just came across {{Houston Shopping}}, which aside from being obnoxiously large, seems to duplicate the functionality of this list as well. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete- There is already a template and a category dedicated to this. This article is creating a problem for the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirChan (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. "Creating a problem for the category?" Please elaborate. Postoak 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Shopping malls in Houston" per added text and improvements. --Evb-wiki 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This one has had quite a bit of improvement recently. The article as it is now gives much more information than a category can for the end user. I say let's not merge this one based on the fact that any malls that are not worthy of a page by themselves will fit onto the list with no issues. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per JungleCat - lists and cats can co-exist, especially when this is a halfway decent list. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, citing ongoing cleanup. It's a good list, though I would not object to a move to Shopping Malls of Houston per Evb, above. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence provided that would satify the requirements of WP:V. Neil ム 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Games Workshop Online Community

There are no independent reliable sources supporting the notability of this community, and searching for it in Google and Google News does not find anything helpful either. The notability of the subject is not established and probably can't be established. It should be deleted as non-notable. Reinis^talk 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Furthermore, the previous AFD for this article was a failure in that no rationale for the verdict was offered, merely vacuous claims. --Agamemnon2 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm slightly annoyed the closing admin didn't explain his verdict, though I understand that is not compulsory. --Agamemnon2 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Significant community, definitely moreso when the official boards were open. Since the closing of the official forums, the community has dispersed across many other sub-communities. The reason why searching for it is difficult is because it does not exist as one "Games Workshop Online Community". Search for the different games. They are bundled together in one article as a list with the company that makes the games as a common denominator. Shrumster 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, says who? Are there any reliable and independent sources that support this assertion that these communities are notable? Reinis^talk 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Online communtites are often not notable because of there transitory nature. This community may be long standing, but it doesn't add anything to human knowledge. Operating 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how this reason relates to WP:Deletion policy, or to any WP guideline.DGG (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It relates to WP:N and the general philosophy of Wikipedia, that it's not an indiscriminate conglomeration of information. Reinis^talk 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: the problems stem from the first sentence: "The Games Workshop Online Community refers to the registered members of any internet fora or websites specifically for Games Workshop's miniature wargames, including The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000, and the influence that the community has on these products." Without a reliable source who has actually said this, the article is essentially original research in that it is describing a "community" which does not exist in any verifiable sense. None of the sites mentioned in the article would be notable on their own given a complete lack of third party coverage of them, and bundling them together under a made-up term doesn't make the group notable. Basically, it's a well disguised web directory. --Pak21 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: As to the sites being grouped together under specific games, I would refer you to this publication of the "Lord of the Rings Online Community": [4] [5] 213.202.136.136 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Judging by the metrics the site displays, my own personal site receives more attention in a week than it has received in a year. It's just not a reliable source. Reinis^talk 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. "My site is more popular than X, therefore X is not a reliable source." is not a valid argument. If it is, then some of the sites covered by the article such as WS, B&C, Waaagh and LO are definitely more "reliable". Shrumster 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    - For a site or journal to be reliable, it needs to have a certain reputation, and if almost no one reads it, it can't have that, therefore it can't be reliable. It is a valid argument, and the other sites are more qualified in this respect, but still fail for other reasons. Reinis^talk 06:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Site statistics can be misleading, and it's neither a measure of reliability or notability. For just one example, it is possible that readers bypass the site homepage and go straight to downloading the magazine. Also, 34 pages is more than White Dwarf magazine typically has on LotR, and that's ignoring the differences in quality (much of WD's content is advertising).
        While mentioning White Dwarf, it is also worth note that articles from the online website are in WD, which is published globally (including tens of thousands of copies sold in the UK each month). The magazine's recognised position in miniature wargaming would also add weight to its use as a source in the article. --Grimhelm 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Whatever, I'm just saying that relative popularity is prerequisite for having any kind of a reputation. Even if the journal was popular (which is doubtful), it would still not be an independent source and therefore wouldn't be suitable for verifying the notability of the subject. Reinis^talk 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        I think what the original point was was that it shows there is a "Games Workshop Online Community" grouped around specific sites, and even as a primary source it is fine for that purpose. --Grimhelm 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Shrumster, and would say that the "Official Community" and "Worldwide Campaigns" sections are, in particular, well written, cited and notable. I think with regard to the unofficial sites, specific items of notability are given - among other things the effect that these websites have had on Games Workshop products. Although the "wider community" section splits into the individual games, as Shrumster notes, a look at any of the sites mentioned will show that there is overlap between them (and the different GW games); the magazine mentioned above does highlight the case of a LotR community existing, spanning three or four major sites (as it happens, two of these are the only specific sites mentioned here). The term "Games Workshop Online Community" is also used by GW itself (eg. [6]).

I think the article is interesting and informative, and explains the subject's importance on a miniature wargaming hobby to the uninvolved reader, rather than being "just a web directory". The article itself was also majorly improved after a GA review, and I'm sure with only a slight amount of work it could pass a second review. --Grimhelm 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are still no independent reliable sources affirming the notability of the subject. Reinis^talk 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the notability in miniature wargaming is fairly self-evident from what is given in the article, although for an example of a third party media coverage the Irish Radio station 2fm (in June 2003) comes to mind.^[7] Also, some moderators have been mentioned by name in rule-books (eg. A Shadow in the East). --Grimhelm 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How do do you suppose being mentioned in a radio show could be verifiable, unless a transcript or a summary is published? Did the show talk about the whole "community" or individual forums? Should people use a time machine to hear what was actually said? Wikipedia's notability guidelines have a strict requirement for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and it's not satisfied, so your objections are irrelevant. You are only asserting that the subject is notable, but aren't providing any adequate proof. As far as I can see, the article should be deleted as non-notable, because it has no relevance outside of the community itself. Reinis^talk 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's not cited in the article, but I'm just mentioning it as an example that wouldn't be evident from the article's sources. But I still maintain the relevance of the community on (real world) gaming clubs, Hobby centres, independent stockists, production of miniatures, official rule-books; and of course the more specialised games that receive sole support from online articles and resources; all of which cites sources in the article. (emphasis added following reply on 26 Sep)

On a side note, I also think this AfD should be treated as much as a gaming AfD as an internet one. --Grimhelm 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need a time machine. That's why we have citations for tv episodes, radio shows, movies and not just for online sources. Remember, just because you haven't seen/heard it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Shrumster 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You say I don't need a time machine, but how exactly can this source be used for verification? How does one check it, by asking an anonymous editor on Wikipedia? Reinis^talk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, all you're maintaining is your unsupported opinion. Reinis^talk 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Grim has said more than that. However, you seem to have a deletion agenda in mind, as evidenced by your adding the word "unsupported" to your previous reply. I can see that no matter what anyone says, you'll just try to blindly ignore/discount their arguments. No use arguing, so I'll just let the closing admin have his final say. Shrumster 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to evade the requirement for reliable and independent sources, and I'm just commenting on that. Please bring the sources if they exist, or let this article be deleted, because it does not belong on Wikipedia. Reinis^talk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The online communities, especially the ones for the Specialist Games are the ones that keep the games going, or indeed, write the rules (latest Blood Bowl rulebook being a case in point. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is just an unsourced assertion. Reinis^talk 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Sources: big thanks to Tom Anders who has given up countless hours organising this project. Equally, we must thank to all the playtesters who have honed this version of Blood Bowl over the last two years of vault activitiy.
  - That's just for Blood Bowl - the other sections of both the SG games website, and the sub-forums have similar posts, and a look through the various users on the sub-forums (particularly Epic and BFG) will provide a list of the "Army Champions" (i.e. army list authors) for said games. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - It's not an independent source, and, being not even trivial coverage and saying nothing about the community, does not support the notability of the subject anyway. Reinis^talk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sources are appropriate to the claims made, per WP:V. Sources from the official GW website are not "questionable sources", as they have neither "a poor reputation for fact-checking" or "no editorial oversight". Primary sources are also permitted by policy where they do not present any controversial or non-neutral claims. It should also be noted that White Dwarf is a reliable source (as has been explained above); and it is also a third party source wherever "Wider Community" is involved. --Grimhelm 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lorrie Sprecher

One novel, a few poems, two albums. Not notable per WP:BIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As per nom. Operating 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:BIO: The person has created... a significant or well-known work ... which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Capmango 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as notable, but needs some independent sources. Bearian 01:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep clearly notable--her books have been widely reviewed (Krirkus, choice, etc.) the info. just needed to be added. DGG (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SolidCAM

Does not even assert notability, seems to be blatant advertising. The creator of the article removed the {{db-spam}} template, and shortly after it being replaced, and after the creator was advised that it was the inappropriate for them to remove it and that they should use {{hangon}} instead, an IP suddenly removed it (which, incidentally, has only worked on this article). That's why I'm bringing it to AfD rather than requesting Speedy once again. It should also be noted that the creator of the page is User:DavidSomekh and the company was founded by Emil Somekh. Given the unusual last name, I find it hard to believe that there aren't WP:COI issues too. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:CORP. While the company seems to have some significance in its market, almost all citations in Google News Archive are press releases or slightly-rewritten press releases, so writing an article from independent sources would be difficult. --Dhartung | Talk 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with above --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. WP:Corp says there must be secondary sources, i just looked, and there are plenty. Operating 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Then add them to the page, or forever hold your peace. MarkBul 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I dont care enough to edit that page. I'm simply saying that the comment it fails wp:corp isn't true. Operating 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia is a knowledge data base, and this value defintly contributes to this site. SolidCAM is one of the leading CAM softwares in the market and i'm sure alot of people are looking for this value daily. DavidSomekh 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — DavidSomekh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom and massive failure of WP:V. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. DavidSomekh has a single purpose account for SolidCAM, which is obviously not notable -Domthedude001 02:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a real company that has been active for over 20 years, it should have a page in Wikipedia. PeteRoy 09:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — PeteRoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP. Non-notable company. Keb25 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, borderline speedy G11/A7. Definitely fails WP:ORG; no independent, reliable secondary sources vouch for notability. Keep arguments so far provide no evidence of notability and appear to come from WP:SPA's. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? give me a brake... You guys can at least check before you say things.
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSomekh (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) DavidSomekh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Despite the WP:COI issue this software seems notable to me. I got Results 691 - 698 of about 265,000 for "SolidCAM " in google.[29] But obviously this article needs some sources to verify the content. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Did you see the 21 links above??? You guys have to be more proffesional when you say things. To go and say that a company is not notable is very easy. To prove it is another thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.5.20 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Frederick Holmes

Despite the acting credits listed in the article, this actor has received little to no reliable source press coverage. As noted at WP:COIN, the only person interested in editing the article appears to be Lee Frederick Holmes himself. In any event, Lee Frederick Holmes has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Lee Frederick Holmes to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails general notability guidelines. If there are reliable sources, please list them in this AfD or use them in the article. -- Jreferee T/C 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nom. The only thing to even suggest he's real is this article. Poor fella doesn't even have an IMDb entry.--Sethacus 20:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. He's listed on IMDb, Lee Holmes. He's not terrible good but he's notable, just. Operating 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Operating -Domthedude001 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Didn't see that. I searched IMDb under the full name. However, is there evidence to indicate these are notable roles? I'm a little leery about using the IMDb as it obviously contains info for more than one "Lee Holmes". Unless he played a doctor at ten.--Sethacus 03:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Are you kidding me? This supposed article reads like a resume. Where are the reliable non-trivial third party sources again? The only two cites are to an on-line birth certificate and ancestry.com? RFerreira 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It looks like he shares one film festival award for his only major role in a film that somebody actually might have seen. The rest are nn films or minor roles. Clarityfiend 06:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Some visible roles in moderately successful films, but accomplishment is not notability, even when you're an actor. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom and Dhartung, nothing to prove his notability given. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I filed the original WP:COIN report. Non-notable and a pure vanity article Malson 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. "He's listed on IMDb" is not a valid criteria for inclusion, and as others have noted above this article fails WP:BIO in the worst way possible. Burntsauce 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Eluchil404 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lois Jackson

Finishing unfinished nom placed by User:Ranchdeny; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete Mayor of a town of over 100,000. However, there are no independent sources to suggest she's done anything noteworthy as mayor.--Sethacus 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Local politicians who haven't made a name for themself are two a penny. Operating 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Mayors are sufficiantly notable. It's not like she's a city councillor or anything. Plus being a mayor of a city over 100,000 is NOT a reason to delete an article, to the contrary in fact. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Since being created years ago the only additions have been vandalism, 2 sentences do not make an article, it's unsourced, being a mayor or former mayor is not the only criteria of inclusion on wikipedia, no one maintains or improves this article it is unlikely to ever meet the standards, the small amount of info about the mayor is better mentioned in the article on the article about the town in question Bleh999 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have expanded and referenced the article so that there is enough in the article to meet WP:BIO. Aa mayor of a large town I am sure there is more that I have not found to expand the article even further. Davewild 09:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

per WP:BIO 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage'. & 'Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability'. Your addition is good but the information is not actually notable since the subject of the biography only gets a minor mention and is not the main subject of the coverage. Bleh999 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the coverage in [30] as well as in the google news archive [31], many of which are subscription so I can't access them myself so have not added to the article, are significant press coverage and so she does pass WP:BIO. Davewild 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. low notability for encyclopedic inclusion, insignificant and sporadic media coverage Jodes534 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revolution Radio Broadcast

Non-notable local radio show, most likely a vanity page, as the article creator appears to be one of the show producers. No indications of notability on the page, other than the show's existence. Delete MikeWazowski 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete A quick google search shows up very few links to this radio broadcast. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article from reliable third-party sources as well. Lastly it fails notability criteria as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There should be a word to describe even less than not notable. Operating 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More (band)

This band doesn't seem notable to me. Their label GB productions is very small and was obviously founded by Gianmarco Bellumori, a member of the band. There are articles about the band in Wikipedias of many languages, but they were all started by the same IP and formated in a very similar manner. I could neither find an entry about the band in All music guide. This is why it has already been deleted on the German Wikipedia yesterday Axolotl Nr.733 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this band as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete The group does not appear to have any third party sources that assert their importance. They appear non notable. --Stormbay 17:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Last.FM has no mention of the band. It mentions a 'More' who are from Quebec.Operating 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Searching is difficult due to the generic name, but I found this, this, this, this and this, all of which are third party biographies of the band. One of them is in English, and they were from a search of "Andrea Longhitano" and then "Andrea Longhitano" More. Admittedly, they don't seem to have much of a presence outside Italy, but I think they are notable. There are probably more sources too, they were just from the first page of both searches. (On an unrelated note, it would seem my adblock filters have no bearing on Italian sites.) J Milburn 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodryg Dunin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin	Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (2nd Nomination)	Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (3rd Nomination)
Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin 2

Clearly a non notable person and fails WP:BIO. A google search reveals less then 500 topics. The two references only state 1) about his estate and 2) a list of Virtuti Militari Recipients, of which he is one of a few hundred. None of those sources are verifiable nor trustworthy sources. CO₂ 15:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There's definitely some unsourced content that needs to be trimmed from the article, but are we really saying our inclusion standards should be higher than Polski słownik biograficzny, the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography? Of course google isn't going to be a good source of information on a Polish historical figure. I am happy to rely on the Polish biographical dictionary's determination of Rodrgy Dunin's notability. WjBscribe 16:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: the VM list refers to his son, so isn't relevant to notability of the article subject. Thomjakobsen 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- True, but that doesn't affect the fact that he's sufficiently significant for the Polish biographical dictionary to include him.... WjBscribe 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't offering an opinion, just correcting what the nomination said. Thomjakobsen 11:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know we have used similar criteria for Canada and Australia and the UK, but I think in this case we need to inquire whether by any chance they list all minor nobility indiscriminately. Since WP does not list all minor nobility indiscriminately, then perhaps we should change the policy here, using AGF. I would appreciate it if someone could translate the entry there. I see no definite statement that the article was about him, or whether it merely mentioned him. DGG (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Mentioned in Polski słownik biograficzny, hence notable. If anybody can send me the Polish PSB article, I'll be happy to translate/verify it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original Polish text is at Talk:Rodryg Dunin#Translation needed. WjBscribe 12:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough for the Polski słownik biograficzny, the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography, he is notable enough for Wikipedia as User:Uppland said. OldEnt ^§ 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Upon reading the article about the Polish Biographical Dictionary, I am convinced that the standards for inclusion in that publication are high enough to confirm the notability of this individual. It would be nice to have more information about the agricultural advances he made, as while sources relating to that might not refer directly to the subject, it would provide some more substance to the article. I don't doubt that the contributions were important, I just more would like to know HOW they were important. That's more just a suggestion for improvement, since I'm here. LaMenta3 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Certainly meets notability standards •CHILLDOUBT• 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Appears notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This isn't "clearly" a non-notable person, clearly. Burntsauce 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Senior

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Very week Keep he has played for three Conference teams, with quite a few appearances and goals. TubularWorld 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not a claim to notability. The Conference is a semi-professional league, so players who have only played there fail WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no matches played at a professional level as required by WP:BIO, and I can't see any grounds for notability based on anything else.... ChrisTheDude 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - none of his past clubs qualify as notable enough. Nor does his present one. He has not played at the required level. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO for not playing in a fully professional league. Davewild 08:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete He came close having been in the losing side in the Conference playoff final last year but no, he doesn't meet WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 12:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuong

I suspect a neologism or WP:NFT here. I can't find any use of this term in this context through Google and the author has provided no citations. Deproded by author, who has only edited this article. eaolson 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No clear references on Google, the only hits I get are those where the term is a persons name. If it indeed "spread thru cyberspace and is used by people from China to Australia", there should be a clearer indication of this. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Keb25 15:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NFT. Also potentially an attack page if this is a first name, but since it's not specifically directed, I suppose it can't be speedied. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sputnikmusic

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sputnikmusic

Articles for deletion/Sputnikmusic (2nd nomination)

Two years after AfD#1, the only reliable source press Sputnikmusic could muster is a mention in the The Capital Times that "Sputnikmusic.com (is) a community-driven site featuring CD reviews." Sputnikmusic formally was known as Musicianforums. Musicianforums now redirects to Sputnikmusic and previously was listed at AfD. Musicianforums received no press coverage. Collectively, sputnikmusic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Sputnikmusic to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails general notability guidelines and the article should be deleted.

Musicianforums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - has an extensive edit history, appears to have been redirected without consensus, and I also am nominating it for deletion with Sputnikmusic. -- Jreferee T/C 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This account was registered for the sole purpose of maintaining our page and establishing credibility and general notability guidelines due to the incessant vandalism our page receives from problem users. This was only registered a couple days ago, and we haven't had any time to fix our page as of yet. Furthermore, with the constant vandalism our page receives from problem users at our site, a lot of problems arise. It is our goal to meet Wikipedia's standards; unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time at this very moment to fix the page. It's going to take quite a bit of work on my end to fix things and meet your guidelines, so I hope that asking for a little more patience, considering this account was just launched within the week, wouldn't be too much to ask. Thanks for your time. -SputnikmusicReviews 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — SputnikmusicReviews (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just a couple of issues to point out:

Sputnikmusic was not formerly known as Musicianforums- they were two separate entities and the latter was assimilated by the former, and is still practically distinct from the parent site.
Sputnikmusic's staff is generally considered to be one of the most reliable of its kind; the web's largest review aggregation website Metacritic lists Sputnikmusic among its sources (almost all, if not all, of which have wikipedia entries); a simple Google hits search turns up two million results; the website has been mentioned in several mainstream media publications, such as The Guardian; Sputnikmusic has been cited in publicity material by a wide variety of highly successful bands, artists and publicity agencies, including Epitaph Records and Sony/BMG; and in retail outlets such as Buy.com.

-- Anylayman 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another important aspect of sputnikmusic.com's credibility is that the staff reviewers routinely get promotional material sent to them by big labels including Columbia, Epitaph, Victory, among others. While this is not like a citation in the AP in that it can't be linked as a resource, there is something to be said for being considered valuable by those producing and marketing the music. --DFelon204409 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable website. Keb25 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- notability not yet demonstrated. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Please find more sourcing, and will change. Doesn't quite pass muster. • Lawrence Cohen 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete - possible WP:COI, no WP:N. If notability could be demonstrated, I'd be happy to clean up the article. Certain parts (Like News) jump out at me and look like ads. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 14:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete with no bias toward re-creation as a properly sourced article. There isn't enough data here to demonstrate notability - additional, independant sources would help immensely toward that end. Some of the article hints of possible Conflict of Interest, which would need work. I appreciate that the subject has attempted to correct information presented here (~~see SputnikmusicReviews, above)~~, but - with all respect - the article has been in this condition for quite a while. If there's some independent press that may demonstrate notability, now is the time to bring it to the article, if it's not already too late. (EC) ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - The user in question appears to have been blocked. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RepliGo

This software appears to fail WP:CORP. No independent sources are given, and none have been added since last November (or even longer). Google gives a lot of hits, but mostly for shop or download sites. Clear evidence of notability is lacking. Also note that employees of the manufacturer have edited the article (cf. talk page). PROD was contested in November 2006. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete non notable. CO₂ 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no indication that it passes WP:CORP. Concerns were raised a year ago, and no expansion has taken place. --El on ka 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Strongly fails WP:CORP. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable; delete. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is non notable software and no discernible improvements have taken place regarding this article in recent months. --Stormbay 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Does not pass WP:CORP or any other related guideline. Burntsauce 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Ghotra

Snowball Speedy delete: Non-notable - there is an assertion of notability ("His songs Chajnn Bhanve Nit Charda & Akhian are huge hits") but Google draws blanks for artist or claimed albums. Springnuts 14:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I found the artist/albums mentioned on a number of sites that allow anyone to upload music, but nothing independent or third-party. Certainly "huge hits" cannot be proven; even the self-loading sites rank the albums as average. Accounting4Taste 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Play-doh. RFerreira 04:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playdough

Multiple, including possible copyvio ... see [this Google search] for evidence that this might be a copyright violation, or possibly written by a publicist -- the text appears to be ripped from a Flash promotion. --Mike Schiraldi 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Play-Doh: This used to be a redirect before it was edited. Play-Doh is the correct name. See this diff--Phoenix 15 14:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Phoenix 15. --Evb-wiki 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per above, current text non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. Not sure why this wasn't done by the nom. Operating 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per the above. And this can probably be closed under WP:SNOW. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect - to Play-Doh as suggested by Phoenix 15. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

End of discusion I'm going to be bold and just do the redirect. I had never heard of WP:SNOW, but i feel it definitely applies here. --Mike Schiraldi 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional restaurants

To me, at least, seems like plain listcruft. No criteria given for inclusion; notability of many entries questionable. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This actually is informational. New restaurants open every day, as people save up enough money to "start their own business" (and most end up losing all that money and more). In many cases, the small business will select a name that has a connection with something the owner likes. Geez, how many "Mel's Diner" restaurants were created from a show (Alice) that can't even be seen in reruns? Depending on one's point of view, this is a list of names that one could pick or should avoid like expired milk. Mandsford 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - directory of unassocicated items. Practically every movie or TV show has at least one fictional restaurant in it. What does this tell us about fictional restaurants, the fiction from which the restaurant is drawn, their interrelationship or the world around us? Nothing. We are in no way served by a listing of every restaurant or diner that appeared in a single episode of a single TV show. If the fictional restaurant is indeed notable, if for example there are reliable sources that support the notion that there were diners named "Mel's" that were founded based on the TV show, then they should have a standalone article and be in Category:Fictional restaurants. But 99.9% of fictional restaurants are not and never will be notable and an endless list of them is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As stated above, there is nothing in the restaurants that demand inclusion. An in-universe existance does not support notability in any sense. Very few will have any refereces to cite, and those that do can stay on the associated main page. MarkBul 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I actually used this info in an essay. Fictional restaurants are more noteworthy than real life ones because they have come to the attention of a film or tv audience of millions.Operating 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- As written, the list doesn't require such an audience size. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 23:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I was wondering when this list would get here. I've added a few restaurants to it myself, and I like the list, but by Wikipedia's guidelines (which I don't necessary agree with...) this is a poster child for deletion. Unsourced context-free list. Not encycolpaedic content. Capmango 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Even if some of the entries have notability issues, I think it should be kept. There aren't many places where you can find decently comprehensive lists like this. I find myself very often looking things up on lists when something is too detailed to warrant its own article, and it's less haphazard than trying to dig through other pages for passing references to it. It makes Wikipedia less useful and less unnavigable to get rid of things like this. Sifaka ^talk 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Selective. woefully incomplete and arbitrary list. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of fictional restaurants. Why should Wikipedia have a list of some editors' favorite ones, which lack any independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, and so fail WP:N and WP:V? Any notable fictional restaurants could be in a category. Edison 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Indiscriminate information, as other editors have said, there are thousands of fictional restaurants, a list of them is meaningless trivia. Entirely unsourced as well. Crazysuit 04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep reply to objections: 1/ it should be limited to those significant in significant works included in WP, and this is an editing problem, for the article talk page. We do not delete all articles with some erroneous content. 2/ If there are some not included, add them. 3/If there are thousands, it shows why we need the list. 4/Some of the entries have context & the others can have the appropriate line added. 5/ Lists are navigational devices & do not have to repeat the sourcing of the article, or nobody could ever make a list. If the articles dont justify the listing, edit them. 6/ judging my the comments, some people dont think lists appropriate content, some people dont think things in faction appropriate content--and for all I know, some people may not think restaurants appropriate content. None of these are policy. DGG (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1) If it is limited to only those notable enough for Wikipedia entries then it is completely duplicative of the category. 2) Adding more non-notable restaurants to an already indiscriminate list only makes the list more indiscriminate. 3) If there are thousands of non-notable fictional restaurants that will never ever become notable, it shows why we don't need a list. 4) Adding internal fictional "context" does not make the list any less a conglomeration of unassociated items. 5) This list serves no navigational purpose as its contents are not and in the vast overwhelming majority of cases will never be notable enough to sustain independent articles, and even if they somehow did become notable enough to sustain articles this list would still be nothing more than a linkfarm. 6) This last gripe is nothing but your usual "I like everything, everything should be kept despite its utter lack of encyclopedic content" stuff that you haul out in in almost every one of these debates. It is a deliberate mischaracterization of the content of other editors' comments and opinions and does not address the policy and guideline violations that have been brought up. Otto4711 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

there is no section of WP:NOT called NOT#linkfarm,. NOT#LINK does not refer to this sort of material, NOT#INFO gives 5 types of material to which it applies, none of which are remotely this one. NOT#LIST mentions only "loosely-associated" but nowhere gives an example relevant to this sort of material. So where is the policy you keep referring to repeatedly?DGG (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

rejoinders 1 & 2 contradict each other: if it contains the same items it would be redundant, if it contains more it would be indiscriminate, and I suppose if it contained fewer it would be incomplete. Thus we can delete every such list. That's not WP policy, and amounts to a outright refusal to follow either the letter or the spirit of WP:LIST. DGG (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither the letter nor the spirit of the guideline WP:LIST trump the policy WP:NOT. A compilation of every fictional restaurant that appeared in any single film or single television episode is clearly a directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common. Otto4711 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are a few notable fictional restaurants, like Sponge Bob Square Pants Krusty Krab and that place on Northern Exposure (which isn't listed), but including every dive ever mentioned in passing is ridiculous. A category makes more sense. Clarityfiend 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
delete nothing notable in here, sorry. Is just a random and arbitrary collection of stuff.JJJ999 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. This list will never be complete and serves hardly any encyclopedic purpose that I can think of. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I said above there are hundreds of thousands, not thousands, of fictional restaurants. This is conservativeThere have been millions of fictional books written in the world, and additionally millions of movies, TV and radio dramatic episodes. And in most of them, fictional restaurants are mentioned, sometimes several per novel or story or TV episode. Someone's choice of a few is an arbitrary and indiscriminate list. A complete list would be ludicrous and useless. Edison 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - A problem with this list is that no reliable source independent of the creator of the fictional restaurants is cited in the article. This first news article mentions two fictional restruants identified as "the best fictional restaurants I have ever read about." This second news article mentions "there are ads for fictional local restaurants filling the intermission" and lists some names. Those should be entered on this list because there are reliable sources for the entries. The actual entries on this list are not supported by reliable sources independent of the creator of the fictional restaurant entries. While the list is interesting, there are not enough reliable sources independent of the creator of the fictional restaurant entries to develop a list of more than a few entries in the list. -- Jreferee T/C 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete; this is just more flotsam & jetsam that drags this whole project down. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - not really worthwhile, but also doesn't really hurt anything? Disagree with the thought expressed above that a minor article drags the whole Wikipedia down. Guroadrunner 10:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete More non-notable fictional junk per WP:NOT. Eusebeus 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this is ridiculous. This is about as loosely associated as things come. --68.163.65.119 16:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ack. This violates WP:IINFO. There is no criteria for listing; any fictional restaurant can be included. No. — i ^said 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
keep if we have articles for fictional restuarants, a list of them only makes sense...logic - try someCholga^talK! 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we have articles on fictional restaurants, a category for them makes sense. Otto4711 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Make a category. AniMate 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Don't make category, this is unencyclopedic listcruft. Dannycali 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Do not make a category either, it is non encyclopedic garbage as already mentioned. Burntsauce 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or make a category. Content seems encyclopedic enough for a non-paper encyclopdia and provides a reference for anyone researching fictional restaurants. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is a category, so we can put you down for a delete, right? Otto4711 12:19, 27 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 as hoax. The Publisher's Weekly article does not mention "Janson Roker". Similar information was added to Al Roker the same day that this article was created, by an IP whose contributions don't show good faith (i.e., blanking the entire Al Roker article as "unsourced" after his/her Janson edits were removed as unsourced). No Ghits except Wikipedia and its mirrors. Claims like this by a person as well-known as Al Roker would have some Web presence. NawlinWiki 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janson Roker

The article seems like a hoax as zero independent ghits - I would expect there to be some press coverage given the content. Possibly inflamatory tone to the article as per talk Kernel Saunters 11:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I tried to trace this a number of different ways and came up with zero. Seems like a hoax. Accounting4Taste 15:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment definite lack of reliable internet sources, but the Alex Haley article mentions this, and gives this (Deahl, Rachel. "The Long Strange Journey of 'Roots'", Publishers Weekly, 12/11/2006, Vol. 253 Issue 49, p4-4, 3/4p.) as a source. This [32] is the version I found online -- I don't know enough about the publication to know if this is the whole article, or just an online snippet of the entire published article. --Fabrictramp 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus--JForget 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Omega (game)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ethan Haas Was Right

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Upcoming game with, according to the article, "little to no media attention", and online promotional campaign wih, according to the article, no offline coverage. Main article violates WP:CRYSTAL and both fail to meet WP:N. Main editor removed prod, confusing it with vandalism and leaving a personal attack on my talk page, so I'm listing them both here. Percy Snoodle 10:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as Wikipedia's not a tool to promote your upcoming game. "Little to no media attention" likely means no coverage in reliable sources, meaning it doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've just become aware of the previous AFD for EHWR; now noted above. Percy Snoodle 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The page is not promotion for anyone's upcoming game. It was written by a Wikipedian user, not a PR agent. There are plenty of stubs that have little to no information about them, but are about upcoming games; shall we delete every single one of those as well? The article contains plenty of information about the game, and there are outside sources that give information, therefore it's not simply original research. There is no rule on Wikipedia that it violates, period. Just because something receives "little to no press" outside the internet is not a good reason for deletion. There is plenty of stuff on the internet that offline media doesn't cover. Again, there is no reason to delete this page. La Bicyclette 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also, "little to no media attention" in the article refers to offline attention from mainstream television, radio, etcetera. I've changed the page to reflect this. Furthermore, there was no personal attack made, simply a warning/suggestion regarding vandalism, deletion, etc. Wikipedia is not a battleground. La Bicyclette 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keepthere's no reason to delete this under wiki policies and it's a helpful articleSakamonster 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — Sakamonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The article in question is well-written, informative, and the reasoning that it violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N is ambiguous at best. A quick Google search will show that the concerned game is at the very least well-known amongst its target demographic. Furthermore, the article does not seem even remotely PR-esque, nor is it overly speculative, as it only details facts about the gameplay of the concerned RPG, as well as related press coverage and events.69.1.52.252 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 69.1.52.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment More information has been added under the "Press" section in the article. La Bicyclette 22:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep There's nothing promotional about the article, and it's useful information. It doesn't seem to violate the notability guidelines, and I don't think the grounds for deletion are very strong. 217.95.219.199 22:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 217.95.219.199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Nothing wrong with this article, useful information, used it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.249.15 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 24.202.249.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep It doesnt look promotional and it has some sources, no reason for it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.223.135 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 71.7.223.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep The game does exist, and the author of the article has no affiliation with the game makers (Mind Storm Labs) This article contains no opinions of the game, and simply has helpful information about it. This article was waiting to be created; an empty link had been on the disambiguation page for a number of months. The article in question is one more addition that helps keep Wikipedia complete as a whole. 71.200.136.20 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 71.200.136.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Having a booth at a gaming convention, even a major one like Gencon does not prove notability for the company, let alone its products. All 'sources' listed are from the company or ads, none are independant. Edward321 05:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's an unreleased tabletop RPG, so of course it doesn't have a lot of press yet. But it seems interesting, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find the information useful. It sure doesn't look like promotional stuff to me, and just because it might not be as well known as, say, Dungeons & Dragons, that doesn't mean it's not notable. 71.37.167.150 06:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 71.37.167.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Looks like this AfD was linked to from the Alpha Omega forums. As a result, I've placed the afdanons template on this AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why is EHWR even mentioned in this discussion? It does not have its own AfD page, and the link located here redirects to the old discussion that already voted to keep the page. Alpha Omega, though related, is independent of EHWR, and the tag on the EHWR page shouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Bicyclette (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the two articles have been nominated together. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. Percy Snoodle 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Both articles quote reliable published sources, which consider these games "worthy of notice".
Ukulele 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Really? All I see is just reprints of press releases and a non-notable RPG blog. The latter isn't a reliable source, and press releases are not enough to establish notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It asserts notability and it has coverage my multiple third party sources. Buspar 04:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment None of the listed references are third party, they are press releases, etc. Where does the article assert notability? Edward321 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep If we delete an article about an existing game, that means we must go through Wikipedia and delete every other game. That includes Monopoly, Candy Land, Super Mario Bros. and Dungeons & Dragons. --Koji 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not exactly a strong argument there. The games you mention have had coverage in reliable sources, which means they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This game and it's marketing campaign do not; ergo they are not notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Ooh... is dat some serious Wikitrolling? So your "argument" is that if it's obscure, it is not notable and must be deleted? Okay... delete this and this and this and this and this too. Here's some obscure authors too for shits and giggles: Diana Hignutt, Louise Cooper, and Brian Stableford. You've got a lot of deleting to do, as there's a lot of obscure things in the world that are in Wikipedia. Best get cracking so you can fulfill your goal of making this fine website one page long. --Koji 04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - You missed my point. Obscure is not the same thing as non-notable. Obscure things can have coverage in reliable sources, making them notable. Read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which all those subjects you pointed out meet) first before making ridiculous claim and demands. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      - I have, and they're obscure on this issue at best. --Koji 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Seems like the third and fourth references given on the list are actually the same press release from the company. Press releases aren't "third (or second) party" sources. As such, the claim that the game has "received attention" from RPGnet and Sekodu is true if you believe that regurgitating a company press release qualifies as real "attention". --Craw-daddy | T | 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment in fact, the RPGNet and Sekodu links go back to a press release at PRWeb which was written by Tom McLaughlin at Mindstorm Labs - hardly independent. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - If the article is not researched or sourced enough, then put those tags on it, not an AfD. If it sounds too much like a press release, then edit it. I have heard about this game and the mechanic sounds notable and worth inclusion. Web Warlock 10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment which game mechanic is that? Do you mean the dice pool or the customisability? Neither of those are new. Regarding the media coverage, neither the RPG nor the promotional game have had any third party coverage, and neither have had any coverage since shortly after the release. Notability is not temporary. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment yes, but my ignorance of whether or not something is notable is not enough for me to choose delete over keep. I'd like to have the chance to research the game more without being under the gun of an AfD. Web Warlock 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment So s I understand it you agree that, as it stands, it looks non-notable; but you think there might be some evidence of notability if you had more time to check? The meat puppets brought in by La Bicyclette from the EHWR forums have failed to find any third-party coverage of a game that they're the experts on; all they've dug up is a few press releases written by the game's authors. I don't think there's anything else to find. Anyway, if they *did* find evidence of notabilty, they can always recreate the page and cite it there. Look at the sixth example in WP:PROBLEM. Percy Snoodle 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions and list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)--
Comment These should not have been listed together, given the prior AfD for only one of the two articles and the radically different citation-situation in the two articles. These are similar, but not similar enough to have been listed together. MrZaius^talk 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ethan Haas - Many borderline RS sources make it worthy of retention. Needs major cleanup, however, as half the article reads like a game manual or hint sheet. MrZaius^talk 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Having had a chance to re-read the AfD, I'm somewhat surprised this even came up again. Closing admin had a perfectly acceptable rationale for closing keep that is no less accurate today. AfD was relatively recent, as well.
- Comment although I wouldn't have added EHWR if I'd been aware of its AFD at the time I nominated it, I do think it needs another look now that AO has been announced. It received some coverage because it was mistakenly associated with J.J. Abrams; when it became clear that it wasn't related to him, the coverage stopped; and since Notability is not temporary, temporary coverage doesn't make it notable. Percy Snoodle 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. That said, the sources do appear to warrant review, and, possibly, a second AfD - just isn't nearly similar enough to be fairly considered here. MrZaius^talk 12:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Alpha Omega (game) - Absolutely zero assertion of notability, no secondary references whatsoever. PRNews is just that - just press releases. MrZaius^talk 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Alpha Omega (game) - Notability seems to be asserted, but not actually justified. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this meets any sort of appropriate notability guideline. SamBC(talk) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ethan Haas… - coverage in various online reports adds up to notability in my book. SamBC(talk) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - these really aren't sufficiently closely connected to be covered in one AfD, in my opinion. This is evidenced by the number of people who feel that one is keepable and the other not. SamBC(talk) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment athough that may turn out to be tha case, I don't believe it was obvious at first. If we do keep EHWR but delete AO, it may make more sense to merge AO into EHWR than to delete it outright. (though I still think merging both into J.J. Abrams would be the right thing to do, since all the EHWR coverage is about him, not EHWR.) Percy Snoodle 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Alpha Omega (game) - How can one even now this game exists, given that no sources are given about the game itself and that, well, it does not yet exist? A non-existing non-sourced subject does not deserve an article. Of course an article can be written when the game will be published and covered by reliable source. And, as a comment: I assume good faith as much as the next man, but how is it that so many anonymous editors are positive about the fact that the article is "useful" (which is not a reason for keeping) and that the authors are not affiliated with whomever produces the game? --Goochelaar 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael A. Dane

Prod tag removed without comment. Not notable, no google hits, no references. Derwig 08:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agreed -- no google hits, no references, no notability. Accounting4Taste 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above. No notability. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Operating 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Unsourced, timeline contradicts itself. And since when does Mossad try to recruit American middle school students? Edward321 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. An amateur comedian? Is this article part of his act? Clarityfiend 06:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Chapped lips. If a Chapped skin article is ever created, then this page should be redirected to the new article (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapped

Original Research, not encyclopedic tone, better covered as a subset of a medical article, advertises a product. Mbisanz 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a dictionary definition. The poor writing and advertising can be cleaned up but the subject is a simple one-liner in a dictionary. If not delete then redirect to Lip Balm - Peripitus (Talk) 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Chapped lips. Mystache 13:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Mystache. Hut 8.5 14:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to chapped lips as above. Despite the stubbiness of chapped lips there seems nothing to merge from this version. —David Eppstein 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete belongs in a dictionary. Avoid redirect to Chapped lips, can describe skin as well. -- Derwig 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge to/with chapped lips -Domthedude001 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per others. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Espresso Addict 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsessed person

This reads strongly as original research, has no outside sources, duplicates much of the material in psych articles about OCD, etc, and while not a reason for deletion, is poorly formatted/spelling errors Mbisanz 08:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was about to nominate this myself. Looks like original research, the author has just written their personal opinions. The creator has written several similar articles (eg Chapped), mostly tagged for deletion as nonsense. Hut 8.5 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Obsessive-compulsive disorder as this is not an unlikely search result. The article is original research and largely incomprehensible otherwise - Peripitus (Talk) 13:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Peripitus. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus per Peripitus . . . --Evb-wiki 13:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per the above, minus the attempts at humor. This could almost be speedied as nonsense, it's written so badly, but that's not quite correct, of course. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment @ written so badly- let's assume good faith. It looks like the person who wrote it wasn't trying to be funny, and was trying to contribute. --Domthedude001 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm not trying to say the person was a vandal, just stating that it really isn't written that well. If I considered it vandalism, or something in bad faith, I'd have recommended deletion, not redirection. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think a redirect is necessary. It doesn't seem like anyone would put "obsessed person" in the search box anyways. -Domthedude001 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. It doesn't seem like anyone would write an article about it either. --Evb-wiki 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The band probably is notable, but the keepists made no argument as why the album is notable. Wizardman 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Are the Dynamite!

This is a non-notable yet-to-be-released album by a non-notable band. A Google search produces only Youtube, Myspace and a BBC Wales entry on a site where up and coming bands can upload their own profile. B1atv 07:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't get close to WP:BAND. -Domthedude001 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep If you can't nominate an article for deletion without insulting the band, you're not going to get much support. U-Mos 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Can you please tell me where I have insulted anybody? (And why your user page redirects to an article?) B1atv 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't give a good reason for them being non-notable, and as they are a reasonably well known band with a large following I just interpret that as "I don't like them, so the article should die". And my user page can be a redirect if I want it to be, can't it? U-Mos 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to interpret anything I say. It is not necessary as I say what I mean in very clear terms. I don't know if I like them or not because I haven't heard of them; and I did give a reason for them being non notable. I said: "A Google search produces only Youtube, Myspace and a BBC Wales entry on a site where up and coming bands can upload their own profile". The criteria for a band being notable is outlined at Wikipedia:Notability_(music) it is for the article to explain how they fulfil those criteria. It doesn't. I did my own research and found nothing to suggest that it complies.

With regards to user pages redirecting to article space, I don't think that is allowed because it has the potential to confuse. Users aren't allowed to have a user name which is the same as something or someone else - you have (allbeit fictional), and rather than being a coincidence you redirect your user name to an article about U-Mos. I think you should consider changing it. B1atv 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this band is notable. To directly tackle the points in the article you linked to above, come next Monday they will have two album releases. They are headlining a concert tour later this year, and have previously toured with Lostprophets. They have been played on Radio 1. Basically, they reach notability as does, in my opinion, any band who have got further than the local clubs and etc. U-Mos 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Band is notable (AfD them if you like), and that makes the album notable. WP:BAND#Albums. Get some sources. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:02, 30 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, but probably better is a Merge to band article (which needs heavy cleanup). ELIMINATORJR 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Blackout! The Blackout! The Blackout!

This is a non-notable album by a non-notable band. A Google search produces only Youtube, Myspace and a BBC Wales entry on a site where up and coming bands can upload their own profile. B1atv 07:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep How this band is non-notable is beyond me. How this album is non-notable is beyond me. And if info is hard to come by on the Internet, that absolutely cements the need for coverage on Wikipedia. U-Mos 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge. The Blackout are clearly notable, but I cannot see any strong reason for a separate page about this album. Move the info over to the band's page. Bondegezou 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Band is notable (AfD them if you like), and that makes the album notable. WP:BAND#Albums. Get some sources. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:BAND may apply, but this looks like some sort of single album or promotional album, which would not meet WP:BAND#Albums. The article calls this album a "mini-album", which seems to indicate the promotional nature of the disc. Bonus tracks for a regional release (including alternate versions of the same song - in this case, the acoustic track on the Japanese version) also seem to support this interpretation. As noted above, additional, independent sources could clarify the issue. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legacy (song)

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable album track. TubularWorld 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - per rationale on These Colours Don't Run.--E tac 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge back into the album page - there's noting on the song page that can't be said on the album page. Fanboys seem to think that giving each song its own page makes their favorite band more important. Wikipedia is not a fan site. MarkBul 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are plenty of good album tracks which were never singles. I'm not a fan of the band, its a simple case of a notable album from a notable band, so many people have heard this song. Operating 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- So in that case, the sources demonstrating its notability shouldn't be hard to find. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge, per MarkBul -Domthedude001 02:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it didn't chart. Merging is useless. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article has no real content, and notability is questionable. LuciferMorgan 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect to the album it's on. I beg to incorporate MarkBul's comment by reference. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of Light (song)

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable album track. TubularWorld 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - per rationale on These Colours Don't Run.--E tac 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per mine. J Milburn 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it didn't chart too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pilgrim (song)

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable album track. TubularWorld 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - per rationale on These Colours Don't Run.--E tac 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per mine. J Milburn 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it didn't chart too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brighter than a Thousand Suns (song)

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable album track. TubularWorld 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - per rationale on These Colours Don't Run.--E tac 17:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per mine. J Milburn 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it didn't chart too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the Greater Good of God

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - per rationale on These Colours Don't Run.--E tac 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per mine. J Milburn 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it didn't chart too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to leave a redirect to A Matter of Life and Death (album). Neil ム 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These Colours Don't Run

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/These Colours Don't Run

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - The articles contain additional information on songs from a notable album by a notable band. The additional information that would be to long if it was added to the albums page. The fact that they aren't singles does not mean they are not notable and should not have articles. We have an article for pretty much every single Metallica song because they are well known and there is enough information to have an article for each individual song, the same would be true of Iron Maiden.--E tac 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless reliable sources are provided. Yes, adding this information to the album article would swell it to an unmanagable size, but is the information completely relevent? Are these songs independently notable? Have there been reliable sources written about them? Adding information about every shop in Barrow in Furness (an article I am working on passively at the moment) would swell it- does that mean that every shop should have an article? No, not unless the shops have notability of their own. And, as ever, the fact other songs have articles is irrelevent. You don't like it? Nominate them. J Milburn 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

When you cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you should bother to explain why these articles are "crap". Yes the information is relevant, if it wasn't then multiple editors wouldn't have taken the time to find it and choose to create articles about it on wikipedia. I like the Metallica song articles because they are informative to anyone wishing to find out more about the songs, there meanings, etc... so why would I nominate them? You seem to be the one with the problem so why don't you nomminate them. Also I regret to inform this to you but heavy metal music is not about having hit singles, and the bands don't just make albums with a bunch of filler crap and 1 or 2 "notable" songs. Many songs that are not singles are very popular amongst fans and they would definately want to read about them. Rather than quoting policy like a parrot use some logic and ask yourself if this article would help to more deeply inform someone who is interested in it's subject and if many people would want to read about it.--E tac 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

E tac, I don't know if you remember, but we have clashed before over metal related articles. And, if you take a look at my 'prize' articles, you will note I write about metal bands far, far less notable than Iron Maiden, so yes, I understand that metal is not about top ten hits. I cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because one of your arguments IS that other 'crap' exists, in the form of the Metallica songs. Now, I may have a problem with those articles, but, quite frankly, that is irrelevent, let us judge this article on its own merits. I explained why these articles are 'crap', as did the nominator. There does not appear to be any notability, and you are yet to provide any evidence of whether there is, whether or not metal is about achievements and success. How can we write an article without sources? As for your 'multiple editors' argument- that's just irrelevent. If multiple editors write about something, it does not change the fact that it doesn't meet our policies. Please bear in mind when talking to editors that we also know what we are talking about- I know both about Wikipedia policies, and about the heavy metal scene and music, so please try not to be condescending. A final point- these songs (or some of them) may be notable. However, without sources to verify this, there is no way we should have articles on them, otherwise they will be based entirely upon original research. J Milburn 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't say what you are saying I said. I never said the Metallica song articles are crap. I said. "they are informative to anyone wishing to find out more about the songs, there meanings, etc...". Not that they are crap. I think they should be on wikipedia and fro similar reasons I think these should be as well. If you think the Metallica articles are crap then nominate them, I don't and I don't think these are either. Then you claim there are no sources and everything is original research, the fact that each of the individual songs were discussed in a major music magazine and that is sourced asserts notability. Have you even looked at the articles?--E tac 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This particular song has a passing mention in an interview, (a primary source) yes, I took that into account- that does not assert notability. As for the other point- when I cite the essay regarding the 'other crap exists' article, I am not calling any article crap, nor am I suggesting that you are doing so. I am referring to your 'there are other articles like this' argument, which is invalid. We are not discussing those other articles, we are discussing this one. J Milburn 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So we are not allowed to discuss similar articles in order to show an articles usefulness?--E tac 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Not in the way you are doing so. The fact that there are other, similar articles is of no real relevence, because, of course, you will then have to justify why they should be kept. In some cases, comparing to others is fine- comparing to The Beatles discography, a good article, or Category:Discographies to demonstrate that a discography article is not an 'indiscriminate, usless list', for instance. However, as you have no doubt noticed, many Metallica songs have now been nominated for deletion too. Take a read of the essay I linked to in the first place- the point of the essay is to save people such as myself from explaining why what you are saying is not as relevent as it may at first sound. No, it's not policy, but neither are my arguments, and I should hope you don't ignore them. The essay speaks sense, and is definately worth a read. J Milburn 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I see all the Metallica song articles have now been tagged as well. Hey I have an idea why don't we just delete all the valid heavy metal information of wikipedia since it isn't important enough to have an article.--E tac 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As the lack of sources is demonstrating, this is not relevent information. Relevent information has reliable sources discussing it. J Milburn 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to who? --E tac 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To Wikipedia. And don't scream 'oh, that's because Wikipedia hates metal'- how on Earth do you expect us to write articles on subjects without sources? I know of some excellent articles on heavy metal songs- "Angel of Death" and "Enter Sandman" spring to mind, but without substantial sources, we just can't write an article. J Milburn 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So what makes Angel of Death so relevant? Because it is about a nazi death doctor and they play it live? Just because the article is of higher quality does not make the subject any more notable. Tell me why Angel of Death is more notable then this or any of the other songs on this album.--E tac 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there have been reliable sources written about it? J Milburn 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where? It isn't the main focus of nearly everything that is referenced on it's page but rather is a "passing mention in an interview" or review.--E tac 05:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. Given, however, that it's a featured article, I'm willing to bet that it isn't the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well rather than making bets and other wild accusations you should look into it for yourelf.--E tac 07:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that I will in due time. I'm currently focusing my efforts on the songs I've listed at AfD right now, but I'll investigate everything on that album at some point. Again, nobody's stopping you from nominating it for deletion if you don't feel that the sources establish notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would I want to nominate an article for a song by a notable artist on a notable album that by the way as you pointed out is also a featured article and provides the reader with exactly what they are looking for which would be more information on the song. Also if that article meets the criteria for being a featured article, many of these Metallica and Maiden song articles are at least worthy of being on wikipedia right?--E tac 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning there at all. Firstly, you've been arguing that the article on "Angel of Death" isn't adequately sourced and could therefore be nominated for deletion. I've responded that such a nomination would be unlikely to succeed, given that it is a featured article (and therefore has been looked at by any number of editors in order to establish that it is adequately sourced). I've also said that, in due time, I'll investigate the articles on Slayer's albums and see if there are non-notable songs which have articles. I'm just not doing that right at the moment. However, if you're complaining that the sources are only passing mentions, that suggests that perhaps it isn't notable, and I won't mind a bit if anyone nominates a non-notable song which I was going to nominate someway down the track. In relation to the second part of your comment, that doesn't follow at all. "Angel of Death" is a featured article because there are sources demonstrating its notability. Why that means that any other article about a song by Slayer, Metallica, Iron Maiden or the band my friends are in should stay is beyond me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that at all. I believe it is sourced fine, although the song is not the focus of the sites being sourced and just briefly mentioned which you basically said doesn't account for much of anything on wikipedia.--E tac 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, are you prepared to wait for me to investigate that (and the rest of Slayer's discography) in a few weeks? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not will you refrain from doing so?--E tac 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Will I refrain from investigating the articles on Slayer's songs and proposing deletion of non-notable songs? No, I won't refrain from doing that. Why should non-notable subjects have articles? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then why did you ask me if I am prepared?--E tac 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you were making a big thing of the sources on that article. What I was saying was that I'll look into it later, and I was wondering whether perhaps that might bring the discussion here back to the article at hand. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this article currently has no sources but I have read one of them and heard similar stuff to the other magazine article. I don't know how to properley source something like that though but I am sure they are legit.--E tac 09:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If the sources are available online, just give me the link on my Talk page and I'll set up the citation template, so that you can use it on future articles. There are citation templates for offline sources too, but obviously online ones are easier to double-check.

BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(Deliberate killing of indentation, which was getting ridiculous) E tac, should you provide sources for this article, that would only change my mind for this article. You will have to prove that each song is independently notable. J Milburn 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more to The Longest Day (song) although the Kerrang! interview image which is the same as the one this arrticle refers to is no longer on that URL.--E tac 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete because it didn't chart too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This song was mainly written as concerns the Ozzfest controversy, and there have been reliable sources who have written about it. The problem is that the majority of Metal editors don't source their articles. LuciferMorgan 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources out there, they should be in here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This article cites direct quotes from both Kerrang! magazine and Rhythm Magazine. Where is the proof of these quotes? How would I, as a first-time reader of this article, be able to verify these sources? In addition to mentioning these Magazine entries, they need to be cited using a cite template or reference template, with all pertinent information made available; i.e. publication date, page #, url if possible, etc. ♫ Cricket02 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. LuciferMorgan 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Kerrang! bit can be proved by looking at this. LuciferMorgan 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete and replace with a redirect to the album. Non-single songs are generally not notable. Verifiability also in question. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete (3-1). Stifle (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Longest Day (song)

De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - per rationale on These Colours Don't Run.--E tac 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per mine. J Milburn 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it didn't chart. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I added some more sourced info that may help to asert the articles notability.--138.192.78.248 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G.o.d jewels

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rocket000 07:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - only possible claim to notability is the statement: "...G.o.D. Jewels released “Mirror” to Chicago’s Power 92.3, the most prominent hip-hop and r&b station in the city. It was played regularly during the “Power Hour”.", which may satisfy criteria 11 for musicians in WP:MUSIC. It's quite flimsy without references to back it up though. How many times per week is it played? Is Power 92.3 a major network? Marasmusine 08:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete, since I think the spirit of WP:MUSIC would probably exclude this. --Gwern (contribs) 06:04 23 September 2007 (GMT)
Speedy delete per nom.--Tasc0 00:31, 27 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). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Luchagors (album)

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rocket000 06:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, unless the band is found to be non notable. Official studio album from a band which seems to be notable, therefore notable. J Milburn 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge There is no reason to make a separate page for the album when the main band page is so small. Anyone who wants the album will find the reference on the band site. MarkBul 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There really is no precedent for this. It's like (to use an analogy very similar to one I used a few seconds ago) merging an article about a notable shop into the stub about the village the shop is in. Albums have notability independent of the band they are from- there is a lot of relevent information you can put in an article about the album which would be fluff if put into the article about the band. J Milburn 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Mahram. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghayr mahram

Dictionary definition based on the concept of mahram. I think voting redirect would be a find solution, but deletion isn't a bad one, either. gren グレン 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete no sources. Original research. Yahel Guhan 08:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Blank and redirect to mahram. The concept is notable, but there is no need for a separate article.Bless sins 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Mahram, ghayr mahram means "not a mahram." the mahram article implicitly gives insight into who wouldn't be a mahram by specifying the requirements to be a mahram in the first place. ITAQALLAH 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fragments

Promotional stub on minor exhibition. Good cause, poor prospect for establishing notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Even though the software says I created it, I merely moved it to avoid potential naming conflicts. I don't think it meetings the criteria for an article. I've also notified the original creator of this AFD per policy. Mbisanz 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. No reliable sources demonstrate notability. -- But|seriously|folks 07:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing found in Google News Archive to attribute notability to reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 15:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete this funky expedition. Per nom. RFerreira 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no reliable sources are cited to establish notability. No assertion of notability. Dlabtot 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nomination. No sources, no article. Burntsauce 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Eways

Fails WP:BIO; only google reference is for a community award - prod removed NeilN 05:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:V, I can only find trivial mentions in sources. Hut 8.5 11:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Vanity bio. Keb25 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements, any mentions are very local and small-scale. Accounting4Taste 15:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this community figure might just have enough to meet the requirments. The work is impressive and for a decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter what good causes this person has supported, to have a Wikipedia entry he must meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). He doesn't. Hut 8.5 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a truly creative person who stands for community and giving back to the people. Although we understand Wikipedia rules, sometimes there is a talent that should be supported. More people should do as much for these types of causes, which is bigger than all of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanson102 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Look at the work and think about how many people have been helped through it. This person has not only supported his community but uses sports and the arts to push positivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanson102 (talk • contribs)

I have lived in the Westchester county area for more then twenty years. I have followed Mr Eways career, there has never been a person who has brought a flair to the community as he has. Who knows what history will say about his work but it can not be denied that it is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE. Mr Eways has a large following in Port Chester. He has brought energy and inspiration to the Port Chester Village. Eways is not hollywood or political. He is a true role model. Do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC) DO NO DELETE Eways is one of the most talked about people in Westchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) OUR GROUP FEELS THAT EWAYS IS A NOTABLE RESIDENT. DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk • contribs) Eways has become a local star in Port Chester over the last few years. Although at times he can be an enigma. When he is creating events and programs for the community he stands alone in a class by himself, Group of 75.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk • contribs) I have never met Ed Eways but I have attended some of his events in the 90's. I still read about him in the papers and see him on tv. I remember when I first saw Eways at one of his events I thoughthere is a young brash guy who is more of a show then a role model. The more I learned about Eways over the years I noticed he had such a desire to make a difference. I saw a fire in his eye's that is hard to explain. It was this non stop machine that would not quit. There are few people that have this kind of drive. There have been many talks about certain talents that has come out of our community, Eways has been brought up many times within are group and other community groups. He stands the test of time and should have his place in history Group 75 also joined with City Club of Westchester. I never went to any of Eways events but I have been a fan of his work. I did see him speak at a youth show in 2000. I felt here is someone that will make some noise, did he ever. Group 75 proud to be at 87 members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - A phrase search on this person's name in Google has only 7 hits, two from Wikipedia. The article lacks references to independent, reliable sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The sources fall short and into the "trivial" category in my opinion. Burntsauce 23:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE The sources do not fall short. This man they call Eways has inspired a generation of youth in the Port Chester community Group 75. I heard about Ed Eways and his works for years in Port Chester and Rye Brook. Athough in the 90's it was the Eways era. Now I would say it is the post Eways era. Not as active as he once was,still brings alot of style and a powerful presence in Port Chester. He has done amazing work for organizations and the youth. Eways is a notable person Generation x 101 we are at 44 members. Look we are on all these different computers talking about Ed Eways. That has to tell you something about this guy. What it tells me is that he has left a mark on us and a town. I know Eways started in NYC as a model and improve guy. Came back to his home town and began creating programs for the school district. At 21 this guy wins a Westchester County Youth award. Then gets two community service awards. I think he is the only one to get two not sure. Anyway Eways is a figure and his name and legacy has grown to symbol status. Larger then life type person in his town. I will make this statement I am not going to say I am a big Ed Eways fan. I have approached him in the past at some of his events and tried to get an interveiw. He always seemed to busy. With that said I am very impressed with what this guy has done since 1994 till now. Very gifted and has a real passion to make a positive impact on his town. I would say he needs to be on here Do not Delete Mpod newsletter serving Westchester.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 19:51, 27 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) 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directional microphone

Procedural nomination. Wrongly tagged as nonsense speedy. No personal opinion on the matter. Pascal.Tesson 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think that is the correct definition. It's a definition anyway, and those get send to wiktionary. SolidPlaid 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the definition is incorrect but in any case, this is not material for wiktionary. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not nonsense but clearly incorrect. Except for "omni directional" microphones all microphones have directional characteristics. There is nothing to save here for a future article called Directionality (microphone) - Peripitus (Talk) 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep — If the definition is invalid, there sure are a lot of sites using the term: 252,000 ghits, including commercial sales, technical sites and a patent. Whether it makes sense to merge this with microphone is another matter. I think there's enough material available to produce a worthy article. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Directionality is already discussed in the Microphone article. In practice, all microphones are directional (even those described as "omni" have subtle directional characteristics). The term "directional" does seem to be used in some places to describe mic setups with an intentionally extreme directional character (see Siemens talking about their hearing-aid technology, or here for the term being used to market shotgun mics), but this article is more specific than that. Delete it with no prejudice against recreation as a fork from Microphone should this useage ever attract significant coverage there. Thomjakobsen 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete with no barrier to future creation of a valid article about this important topic. This article reads like pure fiction or misunderstanding of technology. Directional microphones have been around for many decades and are very important but do not work as described in this incorrect and unreferenced article. Google hits are completely uninformitive as to the desirability of keeping this article, since they do not disclose websites which have a definition consistent with the mistaken one given here. Edison 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edison, perhaps it might be simplest just to replace the text with a correct stub here and now? Then we'd have a start on article & give at least a little correct information. DGG (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete ~~Strong Redirect~~: To Microphone array as per 'before you AfD' instructions page. (The nonsense bit was added by 87.160.246.155 as their one and only edit.) In the first world war it was used to locate long range enemy guns. Phased array systems are forever gaining importance. A redirect will help to readers who are uncertain of the correct terms to enter in the search box. High performance radar have used the same principle for many years as have Radio Hams. On page three of this PDF is some mathematical representation's which might enhance the article which has -what I think- is the more descriptive name. [33] After I leave this, I shall add the PDF link to Microphone arrays -as it lacks any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be what the article text is about, but I don't think a redirect of its inaccurate title to Microphone array would be appropriate — "directional microphone" has a far more general and widespread connotation that would be better served by a redirect to Microphone#Microphone polar patterns. Thomjakobsen 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Having had enough time to look through the other articles I agree that this collective term [directional microphones] would be a bad way to create a sub category, as it is based on 'use' rather than 'principle of operation' and thus duplicates main article on microphones.--Aspro 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge or redirect to microphone. Worth at least mentioning. JIP | Talk 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, obvious violation of WP:NOT#NEWS — Caknuck 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Venice

WP:BLP. Article based on (very) recent allegations of rape and burglary leveled against a non-notable adult film actor. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP issues. --Evb-wiki 14:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Whatever marginal notability this has is superseded by the BLP concerns in publishing all this lurid information about allegations. Even if he's convicted, I'm still non-plussed about an article without more sources.--Chaser - T 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faith (dog)

A dog. I don't believe that the appearances on TV, even if they can be verified, establish notability for this canine. Its owner, Jude Stringfellow, is also the subject of a current AfD. Deor 05:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Appearances on those major shows suggest public interest in the two-legged pooch. Such people might look her up on Wikipedia to learn more. The fact that there isn't much more is not an AfD issue. SolidPlaid 05:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with SolidPlaid. I've found a reference to Faith being on Oprah, which I'm going to add to the article now. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable doggy. • Lawrence Cohen 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:N. I'm not sure what constitutes celebrity for a dog, but being the featured guest on Oprah is probably part of it. There are more references to add. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Media coverage seems to satisfy WP:N. Derwig 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Without question, this dog has been sufficiently covered in the press, as well as being a "guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show more than once. This is unquestionably sufficient to verify notability, and while this article may not ever be extremely long, this dog quickly became a "media darling" and was widely covered, as well as the fact that this dog is used to do charity work. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the dog is notable as per all the comments above. Into The Fray ^T/C 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are We There Yet?: Tales from the Never-Ending Travels of WWE Superstars

Seemingly non notable book. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete nn wrestling book, no assert of notability. Dannycali 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, award winning book with plenty of reliable sources. Will expand article to reflect these facts after this post. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment As I have said before, this above user stalks me in AFDs that I participate in, and votes opposite to spite me. Again, not every book related to wrestling needs their own article, just a rehash of an Amazon.com summary. There is a WWE Books page that properly lists the titles. Furthermore, the award you claimed the book won is not an award, the book was just mentioned on a reading list for teens. That is a trivial mention and shows no assertion of notability. The book never sold well, and does not deserve its own page. Dannycali 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please note, that Danny has a tendency to post after me in many AFDs apparently just to disagree with me. Consider, for example, my post on 06:35, 25 September 2007 followed by Danny's post on 03:30, 26 September 2007. He is in no position to make allegations against anyone. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment You are dead wrong, I do not post discussions on AFDs just to spite anyone, I know you do, but I do not. You are in no position to make allegations against anyone since you have been banned here previously for misconduct. How else would you have known about this discussion? You more than likely just looked at my contributions history and just posted a keep argument just to tinker around. You need to stay away from me and stop it with the stalking. People like you are what is wrong with WP. Dannycali 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Please do not edit other people's comments and please stop harassing me. You are distracting from the actual discussions. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Both of you are making unacceptable guesses about the other's motives. Please comment on the actions of other editors and not their motivations; motives are nearly impossible to assess in a text-based environment. I requested that you two avoid each other. If you're not going to do that, you need to participate civilly with other contributors on this project or not at all.--Chaser - T 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Dear Chaser, if Danny comments on my posts in the future, should I just ignore him then? If you think that would work best, I'd be willing to give it a try. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Yes, you should ignore him. He can't argue if there's nobody to argue against. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        If either of you continues in this manner, I will block for a short time to prevent any further disruption. Ignoring assumptions of bad faith is often effective, but neither of you should be enduring comments like these from the other. It, of course, is simpler if you just avoid each other, but we haven't been able to do that so far.--Chaser - T 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as non-notable Nikki311 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Also, WTF was this soap-opera above this? Dear Lord, The Hyb rid 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep for having a minor award and several reviews. A pretty unimportant book, but it appears to meet the notability guidelines and we aren't running out of space.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment You should have looked at things more closely. First, this book is not "award winning", it was put randomly on a reading list. Second, there are 3 reviews listed, but none of them are from mainstream WP:RS, they are just self-published web sources. And the other reference is for a library listing of ones that have the book. Your argument is total junk, especially the "WP isn't running out of space", sure, but we still need to set standards. Dannycali 04:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the most obnoxious comment I've seen on AFD in a while. For what it's worth, the argument that you refer to as "especially" total junk is actually part of Wikipedia policy - WP:NOTPAPER. I also have to say that your comment makes your statement above ("People like you are what is wrong with WP") ironic, as this kind of pointless venom is really what is not needed at WP.--Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the comment was venomous and the anger was completely unnecessary, but the concerns over the sources ad the "award" are legit. The Hyb rid 06:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete- I vote delete for every minor, two-bit wrestling book/personality, and this will eb no different, much like the ridiculous R.D.Reynolds, who was somehow kept.JJJ999 13:19, 30 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, very short article, no assertion of notability. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sholem aquatics center

Presumbably a public pool in a medium sized town in middle America. Unless it gets hit by a tornado, I cannot see it ever being notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under A7. Notability not established. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete One non-wiki ghit, which is just a routine government document. No claim of notability. Seems like this could have been prodded. --Fabrictramp 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. With no sourced content, merge is not viable. GRBerry 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entil'Zha

An extremely minor term within the Babylon 5 universe. Of course, it is uncited and non-notable in the real world. It is another name for Valen, who in turn is Jeffrey Sinclair. Merging is pointless, since nobody will be typing in this term correctly. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect: you underestimate the powers of the fan side. If you will not link, you will meet your destiny. Not a very strong vote, though, as I'm sure the B5 wiki already has an immense amount on the topic. Alba 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fans don't need a redirect. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are free. Someone could use it as a search term, or even link it from an article or meta-page. J Milburn 10:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is deleted first, then a redirect made, I have no objection. I don't like the idea of the old page hanging around on the server forever. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if deleted the text is still on the servr and accessible by admins. Though the Foundation doesn't promise to keep eternal backups, there is currently no way to remove things from the database except direct developer intervention. Eluchil404 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Ranger (Babylon 5) and clarify there the difference between Entil'Zha and Anla'Shok Na. Pinball22 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Shearn

The producer of a minor program on a minor network. In googling, the only reference I found was his YES Network bio. Taking a look at the history, there has been a ton of libel against this person from one particular IP address. I don't see any reason to have this bio here. B 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability. Dean Wormer 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I'm working through "C" on our Uncategorized articles and would have Prodded the page had it not been up for AfD already. Nick 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did add a prod before nominating it ... it was removed by someone with an ax to grind against this individual (admins can check his deleted edit) --B 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above Bleh999 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the single letter group cabal. Burntsauce 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buninyong Urban Fire Brigade

A bunch of Australian fire brigades that were nominated for speedy based on non-notability (WP:CSD#A7) - I bring them to the community to decide their fate(s).

I am also nominating:
Buninyong Urban Fire Brigade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Beacon Hill Bushfire Brigade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mount Riverview Rural Fire Brigade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Davidson Rural Fire Brigade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Carlossuarez46 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original nominator. All the above are small volunteer fire brigades that make no attempt to assert notability. Their parent organisations may be notable but this does not cascade down to the individual units. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 07:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete All non-notable and not likely to be notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Mattin. Twenty Years 13:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Country Fire Authority and Rural Fire Service as appropriate :: maelgwn - talk 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- non-notable. - Longhair\^talk 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Harvey

deleteNot Notable JJJ999 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Seems to be notable among Toastmasters, even two google news higs from Arab news. Dean Wormer 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. A World Champion in a notable organization (Toastmasters International) deserves to have its own article. Satisfies WP:BIO as far as I can see. Truthanado 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The link is broken, so I'd obviously dispute it. 25,000? Prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Rebuttal. Apparently Toastmasters revamped their web site. I found an appropriate link and changed the reference so the link is no longer broken. As for 25,000 participants, I couldn't find a reference for that number but it is understandable. If you sift through the Toastmasters web site, you'll find that the competition starts with each club and works its way up through local, area, regional and district competitions. Since our Wiki Toastmasters International article says there are 11,000 clubs, that would mean each club would have 2-3 contestants, which is plausible. I would be in favor of removing the 25,000 claim unless someone can find a verifiable source for it. As far as overall notability, I stand by my original statement - KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthanado (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Toastmasters didn't change their website. The old link was to http://www.worldchampionspeakers.com/, a promotional website for an event including multiple winners of the title. The 25,000 claim is on the front page, but it's not an independent source. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, award is non-notable (and the award title is disputed among three organizations). Harvey is one of just four persons listed in World Public Speaking Championship who has an article; all the others have claims to notability beyond the award. Unless notability can be attributed to independent sources, there isn't much here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The only think notable about him is that he won the Toastmasters public speaking tournament. I don't think that alone is enough to make him notable enough for wikipedia. Dorange 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Eragon (character). Any merger is left to editorial discretion. Eluchil404 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zar'roc

The main sword in the Eragon books. Non-notable, no citations given. Tellingly, it is found only 10 times in the English Wikipedia. Page is duplicative of other pages about Eragon; its loss will not cripple our understanding of the series. I make no assertion of fancruft; I argue that the page duplicates other fancruft. Since the sword changes owners in the series, merging is problematic. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Eragon the character. It relates to him the best. And I suppose I should get on with it... — i ^said 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I will hold off on nominating other Eragon articles for deletion for a few days, since it looks like the Eragon WikiProject are looking into the matter. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Excalibur is a sword worthy of a separate article, it took centuries of legend for this to be the case. I'm fairly confident nobody will have heard of zar'roc in 800 years time. Operating 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge into the character, per I. --Gwern (contribs) 06:02 23 September 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Template also deleted. Neil ム 11:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Like U (album)

If the artist isn't notabl enough to have a page, then his album is not notable. Mbisanz 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - promotional. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Note that you cannot determine notability based on the existence of an article on Wikipedia. However, this album fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in WP:MUSIC and is somewhat promotional. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This looks promotional, as the artist page was speedied. — i ^said 03:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G4 recreation of previously deleted material, see the logs for this page. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, CSD G4 doesn't cover speedy deletions and prods, only XfDs. So it doesn't apply here. Just so you know. — i ^said 19:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and take Template:Yung D. with it.Kww 10:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Non-notable album and singer. Keb25 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: if this is deleted, then Template:Yung D. should probably also be deleted under WP:CSD#G6 (housekeeping). This is the only non-redlink remaining on that template. Xtifr _tälk 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD submitted same day as this, pending with no votes to keep. Mbisanz 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Those supporting deletion make a strong argument that there is little that could properly be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood-Oath Celebration

Retelling of the end of one of Paolini's Eragon books. Has no redeeming features at all; is non-notable, original research, spoiler, and uncited. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not for plot summary, has no useful content. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As per Hersfold. Operating 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge back into the novel article from whence it came. --Gwern (contribs) 06:01 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Merging leaves the history. Don't you mean, delete and redirect? Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to delete the history? No, that's not what I mean at all - quite aside from considerations like people might one day decide differently than those commenting on the AfD (and said people would probably be quite interested in the history), if the content is merged back in and then the original history is deleted, you could possibly have GFDL problems. --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Delete Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't the place for overly-long plot summaries, or going into too much detail on one subject. This is exactly what this article does. I see no content which could usefully be moved to Eldest. Una Laguna^Talk 06:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nomination. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Burntsauce 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
While, I'm not opposed to keeping and sourcing this information, it seems relevant enough for a merge and redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems relevant enough: merge to main article as per Le Grand Roi.--SarekOfVulcan 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Only because it has enough of discussion on the Eldest page and thus does not need to have the history for a merge. — i ^said 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Jacob Ellis

fictional artist, information, person Caldorwards4 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is a completely made-up person with completely made-up artistic projects. Qworty 03:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD G1. Dean Wormer 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Eric444 04:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax/fake bio. Keb25 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fake, yes, but so thorough and detailed -- must be a copy of someone else's real article with names substituted. Accounting4Taste 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Snowball delete as obvious hoax. Total bollocks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Pal tackle box

Non-neutral article on a non-notable tackle box (or company that produced them, hard to tell), no references. Would have put up for speedy under G11 if it weren't for the fact that these aren't made any more and this has been floating around since April. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sign of notability. Maybe an antique box would make it some how, but this just doesn't do it. MarkBul 05:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Beloved, perhaps, but not notable. Can't source the Emergency! claim (though there are screenshots such as this that seem to show it), and it's not clear why this tackle box was chosen, what makes it special, or whether the show influenced its sales. It just seems like a random prop. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge or redirect. Merging or redirecting can be pursued editorially. Daniel 04:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Rider War

Part of the backstory of the Eragon books. The page looks like OR to me, I cannot recall if Paolini called it the "pre-rider war." Non-notable, not even worthy of a redirect, in my opinion. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, perhaps merge with dragon riders. (by the way, Paolini did call it the Pre-Rider War).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 02:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge somewhere. The backstory is worthy of description, as I think this is the in-universe explanation of the Eragon name, but not as its own article. --Gwern (contribs) 06:00 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Merging leaves the history. Don't you mean, delete and redirect? Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comment on the other related AfD. Summary for those who don't want to track it down: I said what I meant. --Gwern (contribs) 18:54 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Merge, doesn't need it's own article. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect Leaving the history intact in case someone wants to merge it. — i ^said 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Dragon Riders already covers the main points. The subject doesn't justify its own article. Una Laguna^Talk 09:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Dragon Riders covers a major part.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Groteboer

No sources for anything, short of Mobygames, and that's just a list of games he worked on, with his name somewhere in the credits listing pages for each game. Was PRODded, but prod was removed without reason. I was saddened when he died, but that's no reason for this page to be here. Drat (Talk) 02:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete If his most notable achievement is the one listed then, yes, this doesn't meet WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. I don't think being a VA for one game is enough. --Gwern (contribs) 05:59 23 September 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Move to 2-Nonenal. Espresso Addict 04:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Person Smell

You have got to be kidding me. This isn't encyclopedic. It is complete nonsense. It probably qualifies for speedy, but this will do. Rjd0060 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep:Before you pull the trigger to kill it, read the article. A scientific basis (i.e. an abstract of a referenced article in a peer reviewed scientific journal) for this phenomenon reconginzed in pop culture is included. User:Smulthaup 09:02PM, Central Time, 22-Sep-2007
Delete If only because it could be re-created under an article about Old Age or Odors. Mbisanz 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Move to 2-Nonenal and cleanup. Strangely enough, this article does actually have useful encyclopedic content despite the fact it's currently under a completely unencyclopedic title. It'll need a bit of re-organizing to meet chemical article standards, but it does have potential, and as Smulthaup pointed out, there is a verifiable scientific basis to the whole thing. I saw this in recent changes and had the same reaction Rjd0060 had, but after reading it, this probably doesn't need to be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I originally started to include the content under palmitoleic acid and vaccenic acid. I also considered it under 2-Nonenal but because it touches on so many chemical topics it needed its own page for ease of reference. User:Smulthaup 09:48PM, Central Time, 22-Sep-2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. While the article doesn't exactly, uh, "stink," it's slight and unencyclopedic. Qworty 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable or soundly based yet. All based on one single unconfirmed scientific paper, published in 2001 and cited 11 times only since then, according to Web of Science--most of them about technical analysis & not directly relevant. Two are, "The scent of age" by Osada K, et al: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 270 (1518): 929-933 MAY 7 2003, which showed that doesnt work that way in mice, and "Olfaction and identification of unrelated individuals: Examination of the mysteries of human odor recognition" by Olsson SB et al, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY 32 (8): 1635-1645 AUG 2006, a fascinating more general paper. I've put the abstract of both papers on User:DGG/smell. Maybe turn it into an article on human odor recognition, since I've gotten this far. DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment The scientific journal article referenced in the Wikipedia article is itself confirmation of prior work. The journal article itself references Nazzaro-Porro M, Passi S, Boniforti L, Belsito F: Effect of aging on fatty acids in skin surface lipids. J Invest Dermatol 73:112 to 117, 1979 User:Smulthaup (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Move the encyclopedic content to 2-Nonenal, and I already got rid of the "in popular culture" section. The scientific, encyclopedic content relates to the chemical, but the "in popular culture" references in "The Simpsons" and "The Colbert Report" don't say a thing about 2-nonenal. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)\
keep and clean-up- JJJ999 07:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC), it's not unsalvageable, has some scientific basis
Move to 2-Nonenal, allow some mention of the "old people smell" claim as it's sourceable, but the scientific basis is weak for attributing the entirety of this meme to one particular hormone. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. While at least some of this may be salvageable under a new article for 2-Nonenal, one has to remember that this is, in part, a 'translation error' and a 'cultural insensitivity.' That is, what the article is saying is so politically incorrect, it wouldn't be said by most Westerners. However, we often see less-than-perfect terminology when translating from other languages.Ryoung122 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Move (with the redirect that follows) to 2-Nonenal, per Elkman. This is a legitimate topic, and one that persons are curious about... it's not much different than explaining the role of eliminated platelets in giving something a brown color. Mandsford 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Just reading the article name made me laugh. An encyclopaedia shouldn't do that! Perhaps move. Operating 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Move to 2-Nonenal. The remaining section would be fine for a chemical article, and could be cleaned up w/ the standard chemical information templates. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The article starts: Old Person Smell is a meme found in pop culture. Yawn. As for any substance to the notion, follow User:DGG. -- Hoary 02:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As an "old man" I must say this is a highly offensive title, akin to "Jew smell" or "Negro smell" and has only one possibly reliable source. It fails WP:V and WP:N. Edison 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

incidentally, this is about the feeblest attempt at a pop culture section I have yet to see. DGG (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Move and merge useful content and cites to 2-Nonenal per Elkman, Hersfold, Mandsford, et al. Useful for students who, quite frankly, often searching under highly offensive titles, and are amongst WP's biggest users. Bearian 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Move. The above move seems the best course of action. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Classical

This stub is entirely original research and obviously cites no sources, thus automatically fails WP:OR and WP:V. --Leon Sword 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete seems like an advertisement rather than an article, agree that its obviously OR perhaps to promote the listed groups. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'd Prod'ed this one for precisely the same reason that the AfD nomination is being made, so I'm well and truly in agreement here. It's also borderline free of context, since there's no explanation of what actually makes New Classical what it is, rather than just saying "these bands play it". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unattributed and seems to be non-notable. Carlosguitar 11:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be covered, albeit slightly, in the Crossover (music) article, Neoclassicism in general, and to some extent in the List of popular songs based on classical music. I must say however that there seems to be no agreed upon term for this type of classical-modern music hybrid; even the most commonly accepted phrase ("Classical crossover") is often vehemently disagreed upon. I do not think Deletion should be answer, at least for the moment until a broader consensus can be found. Zidel333 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As the article stood when I looked at it, there's no evidence this isn't a neologism or pure OR. --Gwern (contribs) 05:58 23 September 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Avila

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila

Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila (2nd nomination)

procedural nomination Article was tagged for WP:PROD deletion despite having previously survived a trip to AFD. PROD-nominator states: "Non-notable - Fails WP:BIO". (version at time of AFD) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Most of the information here is already found in the article for the show. He's since been surpassed as highest-winning game show contestant and so, doesn't merit a standalone article.--Sethacus 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Sethacus. It's enough to have him listed in the other article. The long narrative of the questions he answered is not really notable. Qworty 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the above, non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity bio. Keb25 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment & request for input Some of the delete commentary above reads more as a 'merge' suggestion, and I agree with that outcome. A more general question about persons who are 'top winners' in game shows ... should these people ever have stand-alone articles? I'm thinking about the distinction between someone who wins an annual competition (such as a golf tournament) vs. someone who is transiently the top achiever in an area (such as Avila or a sports record holder - maybe longest javelin thrower or person with the most homeruns in a season <= that last added as a strawman as I am sure folks would make a distinction between these two sports examples). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Interesting question. We do have standalones for Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, though I am a little leery about the lack of sourcing on the Rutter. I think we should take a look at whether or not each gained enough notability to satisfy. Jennings, who became a pop culture phenomenon after his Jeopardy performance, certainly did, as did, to a lesser extent, Rutter, who overtook Jennings to become the top winner. His total,though, if I remember, was cumulative, adding his regular performance to his winnings in the Tournament of Champions.

breaking comment continuity I realize after the fact that my comment is reminiscent of arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I do agree with the goal of judging each article on its own merits rather than on the merits of an article class. Thanks for keeping to this goal by advising "look at whether or not each gained enough notability to satisfy." To rephrase slightly my question ... should being a transient Champion be the basis for (permanent) notability on its own. This tends to be a valid criterion of notability for sports, but appears to not be an accepted criterion for "gamers" (looking at the broad swath of games) except perhaps for chess. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

replying here for continuity On its own, I don't believe so, unless there were some notability to it, a la Jennings and Rutter. As far as being the top moneymaker in a game, I don't think so, because anyone can come along at any time and break the record. I was looking at American game show winnings records this morning. If you'll allow me to indulge in OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are 10 people there who have articles. One was a Press Your Luck winner who gained notoriety after it was discovered he gamed the system by memorizing the board. Another is Charles Van Doren. Another is a Tic Tac Dough winner, whose records have almost all been smashed by Jennings. We also have an article on Curtis Warren, a Greed champion who held the top moneymaking record...for 4 days. So, unless it's a notable accomplishment, like a "first"--John Carpenter, the first million-dollar winning game show contestant, springs to mind--then I would say we shouldn't base notability on something like transiency in the fast-paced world of game show. I'm frankly surprised we don't have an article on the first female million-dollar winner. Having said that, the interesting thing is Ken Jennings, with all the publicity surrounding him, wasn't even a first. There was a guy before him who won over 2 million on Jeopardy. With sports and with chess, I would say it's different, because there's a semi-permanency to it. If you win, say, the Master's, that's yours. Your name is in the books as having won that tournament for that year. Same holds true for being a Grandmaster of chess.--Sethacus 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article were merged, where to? As I stated previously, the Greed article already has this information. It is possible to redirect to the Greed article,though I doubt many people are going to come looking for Daniel Avila here. I note one of the other top winners on Greed had an article which did not survive Afd. I think reliable sourcing should be the benchmark.--Sethacus 04:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment I apologize. It's Ed Toutant, a Who Wants to be a Millionaire? contestant whose article was deleted.--Sethacus 04:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Needs evidence of recognition in independent sources. Otherwise, a couple of game show wins isn't notable. Ward3001 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn Tiptopper 12:19, 29 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 Mr.Z-man 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Cook

I speedy deleted the article as being a CSD G12 blatant copyright infringement of AbsoluteArts.com. A disputed as to whether it was a copyvio caused the article to be restored by another admin. While that issue is being resolved, AfD seems appropriate since Steven Cook has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Steven Cook to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

comment I just commented on the talk page earlier saying this. I don't think he's noteable.Merkinsmum 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Is there some ulterior motivation here? The copyright thing was obviously frivolous because even a glance at the website in question makes it perfectly clear that the wikipedia article is not a copy. It seems as though we are just looking for an excuse to delete. What is the real motivation? -- Lilwik 02:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I take it that you agree with the nomination in that Steven Cook has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Steven Cook to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly never said that, and I do not agree with that. I honestly don't know anything about Steven Cook, but I know this sudden push to try to get this article deleted by any means possible is wrong. A good editor wants to improve articles, not hold grudges against articles. This article should be marked and considered as a stub and it should be given time to collect more material in the natural course of editing. It is far too young to delete for lack of content. (And it certainly shouldn't be deleted while the article itself is hidden because of a copyright issue. One thing at a time, please.) -- Lilwik 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep (for now anyway) I can't see the logic of this: "While that issue is being resolved, AfD seems appropriate" - we are discussing it and trying to resolve the issues as a number of editors who have commented don't even think the current version is a copyright violation. Until we address that, and work on improving the article following suggestions made I'm unsure how we can even start the ball rolling on an AfD. (Emperor 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

If you know of reliable source material that may be used in the article, then list the cites here in this AfD. If you do not list any in this AfD, then the closer will understand that you could not find any reliable sources either. -- Jreferee T/C 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It will take time to develop the material for an article like this. It doesn't have many editors, but that doesn't mean that it is worthless. -- Lilwik 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Uh, the entire article appears to have been deleted. Qworty 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Check the article history prior to the addition of the copyvio notice for the complete article text. Postdlf 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  - here is the last version before or all the tagging and such like. Also see the talk page for discussion on the copyright violation issue and on improving the article. (Emperor 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
comment well the version a few versions back which I tagged, looked to contain a lot of copyvio to me, and I found it solely because I randomly came across an article by one of the editors involved about Mee (musician), which was a complete copyvio. Regardless of whether a copyvio is there, I think he is not mentioned in reliable sources much. None of the editors supporting his article remaining, have mentioned any sources here. If you think he's had large pieces written solely about him in mainstream media, please mention them here or he will be deleted as non-noteable. This is what we are discussing here in this AfD, not the copyvio issue. No I don't have an ulterior motive, if you look you can see I haven't pushed for deletion in this AfD, merely commented that I'm not sure he's noteable. I'm open to you showing me the sources- convince us!:) Or aren't there any reliable sources?Merkinsmum 16:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Cook is not a very famous person to the general public. I have certainly never heard of him until now, and that means that this article doesn't have a lot of editors, but it doesn't mean that he isn't important and well known by people with specialized knowledge. We are supposed to be a place where people can learn things that they don't already know. If you delete everything that you've never heard of, then no one will learn more than you. This article will take a while to develop because it is more specialized than some, but I'm okay with that. -- Lilwik 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless of whether you disagreed with the copyright decision, matters not. I don't think it was frivolous, the earlier version I marked for copyright had almost all of its content from that other site. This AfD is about notability. It's not a matter of whether we personally have heard of him, lots of things known only to those with specialised knowledge get deleted, because they belong on wikis specifically for that interest, such as one for graphic art or whatever the artist's speciality. Articles on paganism, alt med, all sorts of subjects, get their articles deleted because they just haven't had large enough mentions in mainstream or reliable for that interest sources. If he has been in one of the foremost art review papers or something, that might count. You still haven't shown us the sources.:) Suggests they are flimsy.:)Merkinsmum 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I got the copyvio wrong, I think I was going on an earlier version by one of the editors, who had already had one article deleted as being completely nicked from another site, with no other content. A lot of the article seemed a bit like other stuff online though. Anyway, I deeply doubt he's noteable or meeting the criteria to have an article on wikipedia. Sources please.:)Merkinsmum 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't look to me to produce sources. I've never even said that they exist. I don't know if they exist or not. I don't know anything about Steven Cook but what's in the article and I don't really care. I just think that it's too early for an AFD. -- Lilwik 21:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - we are still two issues behind here - the copyright violation speedy deletion seems to now be accepted as being incorrect - jumping to an AfD while we are discussing this and we are discussing improving the entry. The only way forward is to scrap this AfD and give us a month - see what can be done. Although this is pretty solid a review by Warren Ellis is a big deal. There is no reason we have to rush to delete this and since the initial premise for the deletion seems rocky I think we should take a step back and try and sort this out first. (Emperor 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Oh and, all the large block quotes in exctly the order given, that were in the article at one point, are copied directly from http://www.alternity.co.uk/hype.html so it has been lifted from various sources. That is all of the article except the intro paragraph is from this source, and some sentences of the intro paragraph are from the source above. Nice job!Merkinsmum 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah I just spotted you've linked to that one, but it is 250 words of it, plus it even calls itself 'hype'. Oh and I've just noticed that page is written by himself to sell himself. "all site content © steven cook 2005 except where indicated." http://www.alternity.co.uk/contents.html. So 3/4 of the article consists of his own 'hype'. No bad reviews shown or anything for NPOVMerkinsmum 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking as if quotes were not supposed to be given word-for-word as the source gave them. Were you expecting the quotes to be original material? It's quoted because someone else said it. I have no idea who Roy Voss is, but even I knew that the Roy Voss quote was lifted from words that Roy Voss wrote. What is your point? -- Lilwik 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They are clearly quotes and show the source of the quote - I am unsure how that counts as copyright violation or we wouldn't be able to quote anything (such things clearly fall under fair use). As has been discussed on the talk page it isn't the kind of format we really want and they'd need trimming down or removing and if they are to be used them it should be as part of a larger "reception" section. Note that hype section contains a lot more reviews and feedback from other notable sources (although I'd not use anything that isn't sourced - the Grant Morrison quote could easily be the result of him being asked for a marketable quote, for example). (Emperor 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Delete per Jreferee T/C, article seems to be of marginal interest at best and very borderline on the copyright violation; either way not very strong notability. Modernist 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying that there is a copyright issue? Whose copyright is this supposed to be violating? I mean, even in a borderline case there must be a supposed victim, right? Can anyone point to any copied text? -- Lilwik 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are about 250 words from the 'hype' page. Wikipedia rarely uses 'fair use'justification any more, the criteria for it here are very strict, and it wouldn't justify quotes of that length. Also pretty redundant as from the author's own page. I could probably collect 'lovely things people have said about me'. Where are the negative quotes to provide a Neutral Point of View an article here is supposed to have? There are many victims mainly the reader and the encyclopedia itself, as we are not providing them with anything they couldn't read on the other site, so as such an article here is redundant (or free advertising?) It reflects on peoples opinion of Wikipedia if we simply cut and paste. It says a lot that you admit Steven Cook is not a victim of having his copyrighted work put here. It is clearly not under the GFDL, which all content here should be, as he put a copyright stamp on it. Is one of the authors of this article, him? Plus- it's not about whether there's a 'victim'- it's a legal requirement I think, or at least a requirement for wikipedia.Merkinsmum 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't look for a victim because of any legal requirements, I just wanted to know who everyone thought the victim was, because until now I had no idea. I admit that Steven Cook is not a victim because none of his words are used in the article. Are you saying that he is a victim? Can you cite the words that belong to Steven Cook that we are using in the article? -- Lilwik 03:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Ok, I'm going for delete as no Wikipedia:Reliable_sources are being provided. There's no evil crusade/grudge against this article, to say there is shows a lack of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. It's just that as other editors have said, this is an article with little notability, and other editors saw some copyright issues, and as good editors we try and keep wikipedia free of articles like that, and advertising. We've never even heard of Steven Cook before, well I hadn't, so it's not personal and I have no sinister reason for wanting his article gone.Merkinsmum 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the article being young and should be given time to collect content, it's been here almost 11 months.Merkinsmum 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not so old for this sort of article. Of course, if this were an article about a popular TV show then that would be ancient, but you've got to give articles about real people more time. Articles only grow as interested editors discover them and if you delete real world articles just for being in the development stage then wikipedia will end up so full of TV content and little else that it'll be like TV Guide. I say we should delete the quotes and mark the article as a stub, then wait a few months to see if anything happens, then AFD if still appropriate. -- Lilwik 03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete nn artist. Marcus22 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not only are no secondary sources that fall under WP:RS provided, but none seem to exist in the popular press. GNS turns up jack for "Steven Cook." That said, the blanking doesn't seem necessary at present. MrZaius^talk 11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn artist. --Fredrick day 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Itchy & Scratchy Show

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Itchy & Scratchy Show

After a Google search, there are lots of hits. However, there aren't any that make this notable. It has sources, but they're all Simpsons Episodes or DVD sets. These verify the information, but does not make the subject notable. This is just Simpsons cruft. — i ^said 01:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak delete~~ There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from independent sources, but I can't help but think there might be more sources like the interview with MSNBC that are just harder to find. 17Drew 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And it looks like said references have been found and added. List of Itchy and Scratchy cartoons I'm less sure about, and it may be a good idea to nominate that at some point. 17Drew 04:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Given that every damn character on the show has an article, it's hard to argue that this page doesn't belong. If they put as much time into math homework as they do in this crap, we'd be living on the moon eating space-pizza now. MarkBul 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Every damn character on the show has an article"? I find that incredibly offensive because the Simpsons WikiProject has worked incredibly hard in cutting down the cruft and merging pages. We're down to 50, when we could easily have over 100. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- We know other things have articles. But that is irrelevant. As a side note, most of those should be deleted. — i ^said 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: The article clearly passes the WP:FICT guidelines and it has a section of real world info (see: Background). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

- Note: I am in the process of adding refs from IGN and Vanity Fair. That counts as two refs from independant sources and thus every guideline is satisfied. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Scorpion. As the article correctly notes, this is the "show within a show" that is a part of each episode of The Simpsons. Besides being a bizarre parody of Tom and Jerry, it's always been a clever satire of gratuitous violence in film and television. Mandsford 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep A show-within-a-show that's more notable than most actual sitcoms. Real-world-info is easily available, and there's plenty of third-party analysis. [34]. I'm very confident I could make this a FA someday. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I'm sure that some citations exist showing its impact in the real world. There are so many weak articles on fictional subjects (see the ones I've nominated above) that we don't need to attempt to delete pages on truly popular subjects. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep A very notable part of the show, I see no reason at all as to why anyone should even think about deleting it. As for characters, I think the ones that are left are all notable enough and pass any sort of guidlines.Rhino131 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If any show deserves that many character sub-articles, it's The Simpsons. To quote Neil Steinberg:

There isn't room in 10 columns to discuss the delights of the Simpsons. So I will limit myself to one observation, based on an ad for the new movie, which opens Friday. The ad shows the residents of Springfield lined up to buy tickets. There are 48 characters behind Homer, and if I couldn't name every single one, I could name most and knew the personalities of the rest.

That's astounding. Most novels fail to offer up even one strong, memorable character, never mind 49. There aren't that many multi-layered, deeply nuanced worlds in literature -- Proust's Combray, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. Springfield, wherever it may be, is surely one of them. (Chicago Sun-Times. July 23, 2007. p. 20.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Per Rhino131 Reginmund 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Fee Fi Fo Fum. However, I would recommend cutting down the in-universe "history" of the characters per WP:WAF. --Metropolitan90 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Cut some of the summary down, add some more real-world information (which seems fairly probable that it exists, in addition to the existing real-world information), and we'll have a pretty decent sub-article. In the 20 some-odd years that the Simpsons have been on, even Itchy and Scratchy have impacted and effected the real world enough to be included on Wikipedia (which is out of the norm for most fictional topics). -- Ned Scott 05:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Rhino131. Maxa megalon 2000 06:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly notable. • Lawrence Cohen 06:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It has many sources and I think that the subject is as notable as any tertiary and maybe secondary character on the show. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 06:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It needs a copy edit, but clearly has enough OOU info. Gran² 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Are you serious? It's Itchy & Scratchy! - Rocket000 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Probably the most famous cartoon-in-a-cartoon known to man. Bad faith nom, who should have an anvil dropped on his head by an Irishman. Although I'd like to see a Worker & Parasite article, and one for Stingy & Battery... Lugnuts 08:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep How can you even consider not having this? Not notable? Start deleting things like this and Wikipedia will disappear up its own arse to be run by research scientists.--Egghead06 10:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Egghead06. I am serious here. -- Ekjon Lok 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A major element of an extremely notable television series. 23skidoo 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously deserving of a Wikipedia article. --Michig 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per all of the above. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems to pass WP:FICT. Not exactly a shining article, but seems to have sufficient out-of-universe context by now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep Mr.Z-man 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximus Inc.

Tagged since April 2007 for sources and references, this minor stub article fails notability criteria Trident13 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This desperately needs sourcing and expanding, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies as notable, given how many governments use their services to manage things like child support. Pinball22 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep. ~~A lot of governments use a lot of different companies for a lot of different things. It does not make this company noteworthy.~~ Appers to pass WP:N although the article still needs a lot of work. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Here's a few references that make me think it's probably notable... here's an article from BusinessWeek from 1999 saying "Maximus runs welfare-to-work programs for nearly a dozen states, and manages child-care and Medicare programs for dozens of local governments. If Maximus were a state, it would have the 29th-largest social-services caseload of all the states in the U.S." and it's in the Washington Post's 125 biggest companies in the D.C. area for 2007. Also, this article talks about it settling a $30M Medicaid fraud suit against it in July of this year, but then here's an article about the state of New York awarding it a contract to fight Medicaid fraud just this month. Pinball22 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per BlindEagle. Non-notable company. Keb25 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, sources given above and found in Google News Archive indicate it passes WP:CORP and is even notable within its niche (although such things are transient by nature). This isn't a company that supplies the Pentagon with toilet paper, this is a consultancy that has privatization of public services as a major focus of its business, and as such is often connected to policy debates and blame/credit scenarios. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~Speedy Delete as I can't see how this one line entry warrants an encylopedic entry. --Gavin Collins 14:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Just because the article as it stands is an uninformative sub-stub doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. Pinball22 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment True, but time of writing, this article does not assert notability, and there is no reliable and verifiable sources to support such an assertion.--Gavin Collins 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources I linked in my earlier post seemed quite reliable and verifiable to me... do you not think they support an assertion of notability? Pinball22 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment They are verifiable and reliable as you say, but they read like PR copy, and do not provide analysis or context, and fail to demonstrate notability. For a consultancy close to government, you would have thought there would be some secondary sources. They could be notable and keeping low profile, or they are just doing what they are paid to do.--Gavin Collins 11:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They all mention problems the company has had and criticisms (especially the one about the lawsuit against the company), and I don't see how the Washington Post and Business Week could not be considered secondary sources, so they don't seem like PR pieces to me at all. Pinball22 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But not in this article. Its too thin even for a reasonable stub. I would say deletion is on the cards, if not now, then someone else will prod it for want of content. --Gavin Collins 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... are you saying that you agree the sources make it notable, but you want to delete the article anyway just because they haven't yet been added to the article? If so, that's not supposed to be how this works. If not, could you clarify what you do mean? Pinball22 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest that sources have to be added to the article to provide evidence of notability; but one or two sources will be insufficient if the article itself has no content. In my view this article probably could be a speedy deletion. --Gavin Collins 14:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the article does assert notability (by claiming the US Government as a significant client, so it's not a speedy candidate. Asserting notability and establishing notability, however, are two different things. --UsaSatsui 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

~~*Delete~~ unless we can get some of those yummy, reliable secondary sources into the article. Just having a government for a client isn't enough.

- And we have. Keep.--UsaSatsui 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless notability actually gets asserted and justified in the article. The article's not worth keeping if these justifications can only be found in AfD. SamBC(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - notability now asserted and justified, I see no cause for deletion. SamBC(talk) 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I've expanded the article with some of the references I listed above... what do people think about it now? Pinball22 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply - I have changed my nod to keep for now. One of your references is to a corporate description by the Washington Post. I really don't think that counts as they describe many, many different companies that are not worth noting here. However, the articles from Business Week and the other from the Washington Post are good references. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! The one that's a corporate description is included because the listing is as part of the Post 200, where they describe the biggest companies in the DC area. Maybe I should add the main listing part as well to make that clear? Pinball22 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about improving the article, perhaps this should be done on the talk page. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:48, 28 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 cleanup (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zwiesel Kristallglas AG

I originally prodded this article for failing WP:CORP link. The prod was removed later link. Since then the article has been improved but it still fails WP:CORP. It does seem to be a good translation of the de:Zwiesel Kristallglas AG article on it, however. It was created by someone under the same name as the company. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also bundling these two duplicate articles on one of their products:

If the vote is to keep, these two same articles should be merged with the company's article and deleted.

Comment I am not very familiar with WP:CORP, but the quick google search I did found some press releases, claiming it is in the guiness book of records with over 500 million sold glasses[35], and that it's in the Top 100 of the most innovative companies of Germany, in the top ten in the category "innovation success", alledgedly the world market leader in crystal glass, and the biggest employer in the Bavarian Forest with 550 employees[36]. "Zwiesel Kristallglas AG" has 15,000 google hits[37] and has 114 products on the German amazon.[38] That said, I have never heard of this company. Still, I lean to keep, with the possibilities of tagging it with {{citations missing}} or stubifying it. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Press releases don't qualify as secondary sources criterion under WP:CORP because it is a WP:SPS. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I know, that's why I said "quick google search" and provided other references to suggest notability. Furthermore, if the press releases were completely made up, I doubt there were that widespread on German newspages. The are enough other website articles that suggest a big enough notability: finanznachrichten.de, glassglobal.com, pnp.de (Passauer Neue Presse), ostbayern-tourismus.de, niederbayernobenauf.com... nachrichten.com says 2000 people in and around the town of Zwiesel are employed in the glas industry, so this is a place where this article could be merged to. There are countless independant mentions of this company, and the more I am looking it up on google, the more I think a straight-out Keep is in order. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    - I guess enough notability is out there it just needs to be tagged or added to it to pass WP:V. Also seems to pass WP:NPOV to me. What do you think about the duplicate product articles? Shouldn't they at least be merged to the main article, according to WP:CORP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Historic company--of course the two product articles should be merged in, but that doesnt need Afd. DGG (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - sources given above IMO enough to demonstrate notability of this in any case well-known company HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - agree that the circumstances of creation might cause suspicion, but as has been mentioned this is an historic company that is undoubtedly significant. Obviously it needs to feel less like a translation from German, and could do with expansion of the Schott side of the business and the role in the Nazi war effort (one can understand why User:ZwieselKristall was less keen on these two aspects.....). Given how much Schott glassware is found in science labs, at least in Europe, it might be worth bringing this one to the attention of WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:MCB, they may well be able to expand it? FlagSteward 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Historic company with a long history and widespread current use within certain areas. Needs cleanup not afd.--Nick Y. 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'm familiar with the Schott bottles I used as a chemist in the UK - they were the top-of-the-line in sample bottles. I've used hundreds. This is certainly a notable company, and the article does not read like an advert, it's pretty reasonable. Walkerma 03:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete while awaiting further information. Zweisel Kristalglas AG did not develop borosilicate glass, nor does it sell laboratory glassware [39]. The company which chemists seem to be referring to is Schott AG, see corporate website. These seem to be distinct companies, although both seem to hold certain rights to the "Schott" trademark (see Otto Schott for the glass technologist). At the very least, the article need to be cleaned up to make clear what this company actually does! (it is obviously an important German glass manufacturer) There may well be a notable story to be told here, but for the moment the article doesn't tell it. Physchim62 (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAKUYA∞

He might be notable, but if so, this article's problems are so great it should be deleted and re-created in acceptable form. Biruitorul 01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Biruitorul. I took a stab at a re-write eliminating the unverified and inappropriate content. I come up with a single remaining sentence:

TAKUYA∞ is the stage name of Takuya Shimizu (清水琢也), a singer and composer/programmer in the Japanese band 'UVERworld'.

but at least the facts in this statement have a 'reasonable' reference (Japanese Sony Music.com site). I also added a Japanese musician stub template and Japanese pop singer as category. I have no idea about this guy's notability but I believe this single sentence / stub is the only thing left of the original article after cleanup. If it still qualifies for deletion - that's OK with me too. Pugetbill 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what we have now is certainly better than before. Biruitorul 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The guy is notable, his group has a song for a tv show theme. The article does need some cleaning up, but that doesn't need to be done by deleting the article. what should be done is to ask someone from wikiprojects music to work on it. Icestorm815 03:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
keep per Icestorm815. Digital^Ninja 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The band may be notable, but I see nothing that makes this subject notable outside of that context. Nuttah68 07:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete notability is not inherited, and where does it say he has a song for a tv show theme ? - besides, if "-he is 'specialized' in ignoring his surroundings" he wont notice its been AfD'd. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing here points to notability. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete doesn't seem notable, I also don't see any notable contributions or anything referenced above (TV show?). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per IceStorm815. 96T 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even the fan pages do not say he's done anything outside of being in his band (unless you count flipping the hat off a police officer). The members section of the band page can be expanded to have more information on each member. Giving him a separate page would just be "inheriting" the notability of his band. Denaar 03:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete for now, since he's never done anything outside of being a member of UVERworld. It's not like he's Hyde from L'Arc or anything. Maikeru 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no notability asserted. JIP | Talk 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kancho

Non-notable, has no reliable sources at all. Belongs on urban dictionary, not here. Juanita Hodges 22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 00:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely agree with nom. GlassCobra 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Has some notability, as evidenced by the links included. Decrying it as non-notable sounds like WP:IDONTKNOWIT to me. Lack of sources begs improvement, not deletion, IMO. --DrHacky 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are many sites out there that are not "fan" sites that describe this. It appears to be noteworthy and credible. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

comment looks like material from the external links could be brought inline to provide references. Artw 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as odd as it is, gonna echo BlindEagle's statement; it may be a cultural thing, but referenced enough. No real difference to the wedgie, which is also mentioned in the nominated article, but I'm not using the self-reference as a justification :P Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep agree that it is odd, but also that its no more so than wedgie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep agree with the other keeps. Acalamari 03:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete it might be "referenced" enough, but what I can see none of these references are close to WP:V or WP:RS, they are just blogs, (the teacher editorial doesn't seem reliable nither after a check) and the official Kancho fansite. I'm checking google for anything that meets the sourcing crteria, but can't find any (starts heading to youtube, trivial mentions, and more blogs, and pages irrelavent to the subject). Secret 06:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Needs some work though. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - However, per WP:N. However it needs sources. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again I checked google, no Reliable sources that I could find, without those sources WP:N is moot. Secret 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic slurs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs	Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (2nd nomination)	Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (3rd)
Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity	Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (2nd Nomination)

While still sourced, it's a bunch of dictionary definitions and not really suited for Wikipedia Will ^(talk) 11:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete/Move to Wiktionary. No doubt some editors will want to keep this here 'because it's useful' but this information should be in Wiktionary (where properly sourced), not Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#DICDEF.--Michig 11:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This page has seen this twice now, and I beleive it's useful (and no I'm not racist). Let's go over a few key points from the last two, that I agree with.

"...Fans of linguistics/etymology will probably agree. Some of these words are not even offensive/used any more("Tojo", "3/5er"), but the history of how and why they came into use is still important/interesting..." The point here is that it is useful.

"This list is a remarkable work, comprising over 1400 entries written since June 2003. Deleting them will do more harm than good, possibly creating hundreds of disgruntled vandals and sowing ill will throughout the world. It would also be deleting possibly the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ethnic slurs available." Here the user is saying it's had quite a bit of work, and just like me we beleive the article is comprehensive.

"Dictionaries don't sort entries in this way." self explanitory, but I strongly agree. They don't look that much at all like this, anyone pick up any dictionary and look for a list of see here's with a few hundred words.

"Wikipedia's list is an invaluable source of information, especially considering the regional nature of most epithets. Web readers should not be forced to troll the internet searching random, nefarious web sites in search of racial understanding." Wow how great, and I'm starting to wonder if just personal opinnion was involved in deleting along with political correctness. Yamakiri 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is actually the FIFTH go-round for this article. Before the first and second AfD discussions, this process used to be called "Votes for Deletion", and it survived two "VfD" discussions in 2004. Note:
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs/Archive of previous VFD, September 18, 2004
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs, December 22, 2004
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (2nd nomination)

If one were to post the entire discussion, it would be a book. Mandsford 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per previous AfD noms. Nothing has really changed that justifies this list to be deleted now, while it was kept previously. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete/transwiki - still just a bunch of dictionary definitions. Well-sourced dictionary definitions are still dictionary definitions and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Otto4711 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- And how is Wikipedia not a dictionary? There are a ton of articles on non-offensive regular words, punctuation, origin of names, and origin of letters in wikipedia.--Pilot expert 04:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It promotes bigotry.Operating 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, suggest speedy keep per established precedent. Nothing has changed, and this has been repeatedly nominated and never deleted: well past time to accept the outcome and give it a rest. (The claim that it "promotes bigotry" is hard to fathom; do pages on anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism do the same?) - Smerdis of Tlön 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Mandsford and Smerdis: "Not again..." isn't a real reason to keep - plus, the last AFD was over twelve months ago (and yes, I was aware it was the fifth nomination). Will ^(talk) 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep even though WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Extremely offensive to the point of repulsive, but is notable, well-sourced, linked to other articles, and encyclopedic. Bearian 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We are not a dictionary, slang guide, repository of trivia, et cetera. RFerreira 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Keep this article. It may be offensive to some people but it is very informative and educational.--Pilot expert 04:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Given that NOTCENSORED is basic to WP, consensus is not likely to ever change on this one. DGG (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ethnic slurs are unfortunately notable, life impacting, and worthy of useful coverage in wp. Furthermore, 5th attempt at deletion is a waste of time. Policy hasn't drastically changed to justify another attempt. Horrorshowj 09:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ethnic slurs do occur, and it's useful to be able to understand not just what group someone is insulting but the cultural context and implications of their insult. Simple definitions are for a dictionary, but the level of explanation here is encyclopedic. I would advise a strict WP:Attribution policy for individual entries on the page, though -- this article doesn't need insults that were used once in an obscure context, or that the author just made up. Inhumandecency 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Some of the contributors to this discussion might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You may also like to take a look at Wiktionary:Category:Ethnic slurs, which is where the (properly sourced) information in this article should be found.--Michig 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. A number of words on the list have additional encyclopedic information, beyond definition and etymology, which is not appropriate for Wiktionary. Nikola 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep some of the ethnic slurs have an additional cultural impact beyond their simple definition or etymology, that is encyclopedic Bleh999 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article differs from dictionary material in many respects: its depth, its thematic nature, and its cultural relevance. It also provides historical and cultural information that is rarely found in a dictionary. One (reparable) difficulty I see is that the article often doesn't identify derogatory terms as such. Similarly, terms like "may be used" are potentially harmful and misleading, because the entries are generally seen as inappropriate words that shouldn't be used. I suggest alternatives such as "sometimes used". As an aside, I think some of the folks using "arguments to be avoided" here may partly be suggesting that they are good arguments and should be permitted. Valerius 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Wiktionary does not house articles like this well, and this goes beyond definitions. Randall Bart Talk 04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Just because some people don't like the fact that these slurs exist, doesn't mean it's unencyclopedic. Moving them to Wiktionary would remove most of the point of even having these around, because it's more than just a bunch of definitions: it's an unofficial "record" of the history of racism. Maybe not palatable, but perhaps inciteful into the darker side of cultures past.Agharo 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 05:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Robins

Non notable actress that has a minor role in a Soap opra. β^_command 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Actress who plays Claire Solomon, a major role (by all reliable accounts, not minor) in one of the most popular award winning shows in New Zealand history up for deletion? Easily passes WP:BIO (significant role in notable television production). Is covered in depth by secondary sources [40][41]. --Oakshade 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Definately notable actress. Nomination seems careless, she plays a part in a major soap opera, Shortland Street. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep — per above. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. She isn't Nicole Kidman but not many are.Operating 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't seem to be a minor role to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Oakshade. Definitely seems to pass the requirements of WP:BIO. --Fabrictramp 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Canley 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Major role in a hugely popular TV series in New Zealand. --Canley 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Clary

This article is not notable. I was unable to find any secondary sources on Clary, therefore the article does not satisfy WP:BIO. Carabinieri 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 02:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I am uncertain on notability issues, but if there really exist no independent sources... --Gwern (contribs) 05:58 23 September 2007 (GMT)
Keep. Added some external refs, and the ISBN numbers of his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novickas (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 September 2007

(UTC)

Soccer book now mentioned in the New York Times ([42]). Altho this is spoiling its value as an Xmas present surprise. Novickas 13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Very weak Keep He's published a little. • Tiptopper 29 Sep 07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

'Comment. Publishing "a little" does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. The standard is non-trivial, secondary coverage. The sources in the article and the NYT mention are all trivial coverage. The article from tennessean.com comes closest to establishing notability, but this is just a local online newspaper that covers a lot of things that are interesting from a "Middle Tennesseean" perspective, but not from a broader view.--Carabinieri 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Quantcast [43], Tennessean.com has an audience of 311,000 U.S. monthly uniques [[44]. Its news coverage has been included in the Library of Congress Election 2002 Web Archive [45]. The paper is also mentioned by Gannett [46], and try "The Tennessean" in Google News. I don't know what the notability standards for journalists are, but his byline has appeared in a number of notable newsmagazines. Novickas 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that its a local newspaper that covers topics of local interest. --Carabinieri 02:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kattankudi mosque massacre

This page should be deleted since there is not enough proper or reliable sources as confirmed by multiple users . Much of the article relies on known unreliable sources such as MCNS and spur. Also the use of graphic and gory images only serves to heighten emotions and doesn't serve to be informative. In addition, the article fails notability, with only 6-13 hits at most on google [47],[48]. Sinhala freedom 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On Google Searches please search without quotes like this

thats the correct way to search. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 03:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, we are specifically interested as the name suggests, "Kattankudi mosque massacre", what you suggest will net in unrelated google hits and there are many other mosque massacres that have occurred from other parts of the globe. Sinhala freedom 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The nominator removed the categorization by saying "seems removal of category is fine to me" and he/she removed all the references by giving the same misleading edit summary here are the diffs, removed categorization here and removed all the references without proper justification here. This is a very notable incident in the Sri Lankan conflict and sure deserves an article in wikipedia. There is no basis in saying MCNS and spur are unreliable sources. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 13:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not the only one who is saying it. Please see the article talk page. Blog and unfounded sources can't be used to hold up an article. The whole event is sounding more like fiction to me. Sinhala freedom 13:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed all references without proper justification?? Please refer to the talk page before throwing alegations on editors. Remember to AGF rather than accusations. Also please read WP:RS. You need third-party resouces and not MCNS. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

YES the references were removed without a proper edit summary. The edit summary was "seems removal of category is fine to me" when whats being removed is all the references. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

General Comment I do not want to waste anymore time discussing here who did the right thing or wrong thing, the article has been nominated for deletion, if the references are really unreliable as you guys are saying, let the wiki process take its course and the fellow editors will decide whether the article should stay or go. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete This just another POV fork which is linked to other POV fork articles in this mudslinging battle on Wikipedia. The referenced sources do not even relate to this article. It looks like the editor just slapped them on the page to give a little legitimacy. Even then, this is a very weak article. Wiki Raja 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per comments here.--Addhoc 11:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While there are two reliable sources to indicate the incident occurred (there was none before), this hardly makes the article noteworthy and hence the incident perhaps deserves a sentence somewhere in the Sri Lankan civil war article or elsewhere but not a standalone full article. This is confirmed, as I had shown, with the 6-13 google hits referencing this incident. As others have said, WP is not a collection of newspaper articles either. Sinhala freedom 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete So far only two news articles have been shown and the rest DO NOT comply WP:RS nor WP:Verify. This deems to stay here, where it is already mentioned. Otherwise this entry does not comply notability as a seperate article. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports on someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per User:Wikiality123. If more RS is provided I will change my vote. As it stands now I am on the delete side. There must be more citations for something as big as this massacre of 110 people. Though this information should be put on Terrorist attack attributed to LTTE and say that Sri Lankan Police suspect the LTTE. Watchdogb 01:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong and Speedy Keep.. What!!! Police Suspect LTTE did that ?!! When even the LTTE it self did not deny this!!! And with all the ample evidences to prove the positive ? Bad faith nomination and clear indication of WP:Duplicity by the nominator. Also , SPUR is a reliable source and people who question that should kindly bring evidences for that. What kind of evidences the nominator is asking here ? May be a direct quote from that school drop out?? The whole incident in well depicted in the books written by Rohan Gunaratne and i ll bring them as soon as i can get hold of them.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how is SPUR a third-party in this issue as per the norms of WP:RS? Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the site and go through WP:RS..and I am sure You wont ask the same question, again, later.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My question was Is SPUR third-party in this issue? The answer is simple that its not. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW please do not call fellow editors school drop outs. Just to remind you that you have breached WP:CIVIL and hence the code of conduct. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 08:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I ll be more than glad,if not thrilled, if you can show me where I have called the editor like that ? The person I was referring to is a school drop-out and I think even in his BIO he proudly say that. If you still can't comprehend this, then I would appreciate if you stop saying nonsense about my code of conduct.cheerio Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Iwazaki wasn't referring to any editor as a school drop out, but the real perpetrator of the massacre, lets not haste our selves into unwise conclusions here, please assume good faith NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 08:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed am always pro AGF. The sentence preceeding to the school drop out was directed at an editor. It is upto Sinhala freedom to persue it further if he choses to. But what I'm more concerned is about how is SPUR third-party and in spite of me asking this many times no one has come forward to explain the rational. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the both issues above and really look forward to your comments regarding those.Of course you can always ignore the code you brought here and address the SPUR issue. I am sure by now, You know, since you are heavily involved in SL related articles, who is that drop-out guy. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Iwazaki has violated WP:NPA (dare I say it again). Wouldn't it be more productive to stick to the subject at hand rather than speculating about other users political antics. Sinhala freedom 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or should I dare to say you Don't be a dick??. Or should I use a real warning regarding your degrading of my ethnic group ? I am sure Wikipedia has rules and regulations regarding this ? meantime, should I tell you again not to be a ........ ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the arguments from you have gotten emotional here. It is clearly unprovoked and I sincerely hope you can calm down and come back for a fruitful discussion afterwards. I'll wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinhala freedom (talk • contribs)

Good point by Iwazaki. We can't have have citations from websites run by school drop-outs or other uneducated thugs. But that's a moot point now. There are enough citations from reliable international media in this article.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At a time when school drop-outs run very successful businesses, have become world famous directors, and have been former presidents of Sri Lanka, I wouldn't be so naive enough to dismiss anyone based on their educational qualifications. After all it was an 'educated' Oxford grad who helped create our countries mess in the first place. Sinhala freedom 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Another bad faith nom without having a bit of an idea about the sources and the history of the incident. Anyway now all the issues have been sort-out by the Snowolfd4. Keep it up buddy. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again a violation of WP:NPA assuming a user is acting in bad faith. While there are more sources for the incident now. Verifiability (less so now) and notability is still a concern. Till I can verify some of the sources from the archives, how can I accept some of the figures quoted. Anyway the article fails notability. Sinhala freedom 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me , instead of giving bogus WP:NPA's expecting some friends might hear your ranting, please engage in a constructive discussions. So far we have shown here, that

1 You were wrong with your google hit search
2 You have shown nothing to disprove the notability . Could you please for the sake of Wikipedia bring at least one good argument? Or should I depicted your arguments in a table ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki my friend, everyone can make statements as you just did. But please care to answer the issues I have higlighted with the google hits on top of the page. I trust you somehow skipped the statement in this nest of discussions comments. Sinhala freedom 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So now you are accusing me for violating WP:NPA? If someone violating WP:NPA I know that you know where to go. And I know that some good people who have some good level of common sense and pretty good understanding about the policies are hanging around there too. Then they will decide that whether I violated the policy or not by saying Another bad faith nom. I would like to mention this one too, you are violating WP:NPA by accusing me of violating WP:NPA!!! Regarding the sources matter, goto the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and ask from them whether we can use paper archives as sources. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong, speedy keep. There are enough notable contemporary sources to verify this incident. To name a few currently used in the article,

Xinhua, 147 Muslims Massacred by Tamil "Tigers" in Sri Lanka, Colombo, August 4, 1990
The New York Times, Tamils Kill 110 Muslims at 2 Sri Lankan Mosques, August 5, 1990
The Times, Tamils kill 116 Muslims, August 13, 1990
Associated Press, Tamil Rebels Order Muslims to Leave City, June 17, 1995
BBC News, Army to protect threatened eastern Muslim town, June 24, 1995

There is also enough news stories from later dates covering the incident, proving it was notable event, and not just in the news for a few days.

Human Rights Watch, Human Rights In Sri Lanka An Update, March 21, 1991
Associated Press, Tamil Rebels Order Muslims to Leave City, June 17, 1995'
BBC News, Army to protect threatened eastern Muslim town, June 24, 1995
Daily News, Mosque Massacres Revisited, August 12, 2000
Reuters, Trapped in conflict, Sri Lanka Muslims mull action, July 3, 2006

The motives of the nominator are also greatly doubtful. When I went through news archives and provided sources for the incident in a separate page, he tried to get them deleted so that no editor could use them to verify the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is synthesizing and fabricating his own set of facts. Please do continue to makeup tales and other stories to suit your POV and add unverifiable details to the articles claim them to non-existant archives. Your blanking of content on Sri Lanka makes it abundantly clear how trustworthy or POV loaded your contents are. Where did I ask for the stuff to be deleted. I had merely questioned the legality of the contents on wikipedia. As you had explicitly made clear it was a copyright violation. I had merely checked that with an admin. You have breached WP:AGF. Sinhala freedom 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey hey!! You are speaking like a big shot about WP:NPA and you breached it right now and right here. I asked from you to ask from the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the paper archives. Or you can goto a library and ask for the paper archives. For the copy vio issue, hope you have to read what admin Haemo told in his talkpage. DO not accuse others for your inability. Mind that! Thank you --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only that,

ReliefWeb, Trapped in conflict, Sri Lanka Muslims mull action 03 Jul 2006
Refugee Status Appeals Authority, REFUGEE APPEAL NO. 74796 19 April 2006
The New York Times, Trapped in conflict, Sri Lanka Muslims mull action July 3, 2006
Chicago Sun-Times, 110 slain in Sri Lanka mosques Tamil rebels gun down worshippers at 2 sites August 5, 1990
Stanford Journal of Human Rights Sri Lanka Limbo
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance

So now you are asking from us to have citations from comedy sites like http://www.stoperrorism.com also? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because these incidents are on a few newspaper cutouts or human rights bulletins, doesn't make the incident notable. per WP:NOT, its not collection of newspaper cutouts. Btw, you have referenced the same article many times hoping to show a greater number of articles ? You have missed the point entirely. Sinhala freedom 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reapeted? ah you might be talking about the snowolf's Reuters, Trapped in conflict, Sri Lanka Muslims mull action, July 3, 2006 and ReliefWeb, Trapped in conflict, Sri Lanka Muslims mull action 03 Jul 2006. Yeah one of them were repeated its true. Hope you never heard that after the preparation of the news by the news agencies they were published by the newspapers. Sorry that it was not repeated in Eelam news and Eelanatham but these were published in ReliefWeb and by the http://news.oneindia.in. I think you missed everything, entirely. As I told you before, if you have any doubts regarding our news paper links, goto the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and ask from them. No use of crying here. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 05:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. An archive search brings up plenty of published sources, including New York Times , The Boston Globe, San Jose Mercury News, Austin American-Statesman, Dayton Daily News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and St. Louis Post-Dispatch. As for the WP:NOT#NEWS argument, the incident also find mentions in several books and scholarly papers -- you'll need to search with the alternative spelling "Kattankudy" [49][50][51]. The article could do with some changes, though -- currently it suggests that the attack was certainly carried out by LTTE; while it is known that the attackers were Tamils, according to this book, LTTE denied the responsibility for the massacre. utcursch | talk 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Atmaram, I think the point I'm trying to make here is pretty simple. You would agree that not every event reported in the news for a brief time can be a standalone article on wikipedia. The later mentions do not give enough coverage like you would have on famous incidents[52],[53]. I hope you see the point. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One Hundred and forty seven innocent Sri Lankan un-armed civilians were killed by those armed rascals! and it was covered by the most reputed media bodies. So you are talking that this incident isn't notable? What I have to say is, as Iwazaki said above, could you please for the sake of Wikipedia bring at least one good argument? hmm..? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 11:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε, Even in that case, deletion or a one-line mention is not a suitable solution. I've observed that all the deletion debates involving Sri Lanka/LTTE turn into a "Strong Keep"/"Strong Delete" war between the same set of editors. At worst, somebody should have suggested a merge to Kattankudy (under a new History section) or Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE. An incident involving killing of over 100 people is certainly notable. utcursch | talk 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Utcursch comments are very reasonable and I can buy them. He has pointed to some books with references so, I think my issues have been largely addressed. Merger idea with the Sri Lankan civil war maybe an option as well. As you point out somewhere there is an unacceptable POV problem with the article now, hope you can intervene to fix it. I am also willing to recall my deletion nomination at this point, provided there is some help in enforcing NPOV by an admin and clean up whats there now. Sinhala freedom 12:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Atmaram and Lahiru, I dont think we decide on standalone articles based on emotions, but on media coverage. Please look into the examples I have given earlier on which the media follow-ups are centered on particular incidents and not as we see in Kattanduki massacre where it gets mentioned along with others. Atmaram if you didnt notice I wanted this to stayhere and I would agree if you want to include this with all the graphical details you want to under Expulsion of Muslims from Northern province by LTTE- I would appreciate that too. But as a standlone, nopes! Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Amy Hayes

[edit] Bartosz Brenes

[edit] Ahmad Mustafa Ibrahim

[edit] Medical and healthcare educational software

[edit] Chevron Cars

[edit] Out of the Shadows

[edit] Columbian Red

[edit] Bobby Barr

[edit] FinnWars

[edit] Are Gifts from Employers Included in Taxable Income?

[edit] Hamid Palo

[edit] A Carolina Jubilee

[edit] List of Unicode characters

[edit] Judy Star

[edit] Lauren Fischer

[edit] Penelope Trunk

[edit] Several Monty Python sketches

[edit] SCAR (programming language)

[edit] The Dirty Fork

[edit] Screaming Mimes

[edit] El DoboLocoPapo

[edit] Escort Radar

[edit] Dave Storm

[edit] Fred Lippert

[edit] Erik Prince

[edit] Rock, Paper, Scissors variations

[edit] Harrison Christian

[edit] List of Dragon NaturallySpeaking commands

[edit] Viacom

[edit] List of shopping malls in Houston, Texas

[edit] Games Workshop Online Community

[edit] Lorrie Sprecher

[edit] SolidCAM

[edit] Lee Frederick Holmes

[edit] Lois Jackson

[edit] Revolution Radio Broadcast

[edit] More (band)

[edit] Rodryg Dunin

[edit] Chris Senior

[edit] Cuong

[edit] Sputnikmusic

[edit] RepliGo

[edit] Happy Ghotra

[edit] Playdough

[edit] List of fictional restaurants

[edit] Janson Roker

[edit] Alpha Omega (game)

[edit] Michael A. Dane

[edit] Chapped

[edit] Obsessed person

[edit] We Are the Dynamite!

[edit] The Blackout! The Blackout! The Blackout!

[edit] The Legacy (song)

[edit] Lord of Light (song)

[edit] The Pilgrim (song)

[edit] Brighter than a Thousand Suns (song)

[edit] For the Greater Good of God

[edit] These Colours Don't Run

[edit] The Longest Day (song)

[edit] G.o.d jewels

[edit] The Luchagors (album)

[edit] Ghayr mahram

[edit] The Fragments

[edit] Edward Eways

[edit] Directional microphone

[edit] Jack Venice

[edit] Faith (dog)

[edit] Are We There Yet?: Tales from the Never-Ending Travels of WWE Superstars

[edit] Sholem aquatics center

[edit] Entil'Zha

[edit] Chris Shearn

[edit] Buninyong Urban Fire Brigade

[edit] Randy Harvey

[edit] Zar'roc

[edit] Just Like U (album)

[edit] Blood-Oath Celebration

[edit] Kyle Jacob Ellis