Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 original research. Contact me if you want to merge it, or transwiki it. --Haemo 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Society and Star Trek

Society and Star Trek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Suggest to delete because this article is synthesized original research focused on an in-universe perspective. The content fails our Wikipedia:No original research policy and would be better suited for Memory Alpha or somewhere else. Burntsauce 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, nice set of essays that author should take pride in and save to his or her computer. But Wikipedia is not the place for essays of this type. Some of these ideas are expressed in the 1994 TIME magazine article, some of these have been talked about over the years. But most of this is "original research", which is Wikipedian for writing an encyclopedia article based on your own observations. Mandsford 00:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Original research is not Wikipedian for "writing an encyclopedia article based on your own observations." Original research is Wikipedian for writing an encyclopedia based on unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. Meaning if it can be sourced, primary or secondary, it can be put onto WP. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Three arguments, basically: 1. None of the claims that are without sources are of such a nature that they cannot be sourced. 2. The article is a relevant subarticle of Star Trek per WP:SIZE. That article has a 21 books long bibliography, most of which could be used here as well. Would a copy-paste do? 3. The article is from 2005, which makes it unlikely that this is one of the OR essays we often encounter here. Old articles should be deleted only with extreme care, as we cannot blame the original author for the different standards Wikipedia had back then, nor can we blame the author that no one has gotten around to editing the article yet. User:Krator (t c) 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• User:Krator's reason 1 (that the claims are "of such a nature that they cannot be sources") is at odds with reason 2 ("many of [the books in the main article] could be used here as well"). The notion that old articles require "extreme care" is specious; there's no guideline or policy that suggests that. It's just as likely that this collection of OR has sat in a quiet corner for its contents' non-notability and seldom-searched-for content. Anyhow, in the absence of reliable sources, this article should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• he said "None of the claims that are without sources are of such a nature that they cannot be sourced." Meaning that they indeed can be sourced, a statement which I agree with. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Merge All of the information in this article can be verified using a primary source that I just added to the sources. "How William Shatner Changed the World" deals with most if not all of this info on here. Its companion video also deals with all of this stuff. Secondary sources could be found as well. I'm sure even tertiary sources exist with this topic. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, it's clear that you still don't understand why this is "original research". "I saw it on a video" isn't sourcing. If you want to save the article, check out some books like The Making of Star Trek or Star Trek Creator. You can find things in the Star Trek section of your public library. Mandsford 12:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What is clear is that you do not understand that "I saw it on a video" Equals, or =, or is the same as, saying: WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." I think you should read WP:OR two or three more times before you say that videos, and motion pictures are not primary sources. Why some editors think there is a difference between reading something in a book and referencing it and seeing something in a movie and referencing are different puzzles me. They are both published sources and per WP:OR as long as you don't have to interpret the info its fair game for referencing. Viperix 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Also per OfficeGirl's point that this belongs in cultural influence of star wars I change my vote to merge, because I agree. Viperix 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE See WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT This is an essay. It does not treat its subject in the manner of an encyclopedic article. Just because other sources support the arguments in the essay does not make this an encyclopedic article. If we take out all of the essay part the usable bits can be merged and incorporated into Cultural influence of Star Trek. This should be published somewhere else-- somewhere that is not an encyclopedia, as it is a very good essay. Publish it where essays belong, but not in Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OfficeGirl makes strong points, probably better on Memory Alpha.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is not even an essay, but a collection of mini-essays. Transfer the relevant content to Cultural influences of ST per OfficeGirl, the two articles already have some overlap, or to other appropriate articles if some enterprising Trekkie knows of any. Katherine Tredwell 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry, but it's WP:OR. Can some content be merged into existing articles? Bearian 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and revise. Bacchiad 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Any reason why, Bacchiad? We're not in the business of publishing original research. Burntsauce 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve 1. The nominator is incorrect in claiming this is an in-universe article; this article is entirely about how Star Trek was influenced by, and its influence on, the real world. 2. While lack of cited sources makes this article appear to be original research, most if not all of the claims made within can be found in reliable sources; for example, plenty of sources can be found on Google Scholar to support a well-sourced article on society and Star Trek. 3. I don't think this should be merged with Cultural influence of Star Trek; that article appears to be mostly about Star Trek's influence on popular culture, while this article is about its influence on society in general, and how it was influenced by its contemporary society. 4. I've sent the article to both WP:ARS and WP:ICU, as I think the topic is encyclopedic and the article can definitely be improved with effort. DHowell 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletions. —DHowell 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR, POV, and ESSAY. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - See also Cultural influence of Star Trek, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references -- Jreferee t/c 08:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename. It was unclear to me what the article was suppose to be about from the title alone but to me it seems like a decent one so far and simply needs a better focus and a few more sources to prove it's not original research for those asserting it must be and that such sources don't exist, etc. Trekky experts should be lured into our web of drama (perhaps with Shatner swag) to interlink and ensure that all the closely related articles are focused and sourced. Benjiboi 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I'll provide a copy to anyone who wants to make this a category - leave me a note on my talk page. Daniel 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of contract killers

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

This list provides no context and would be best served through categories. My motion is to delete and categorize those that can be reliably sourced. Burntsauce 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unless some explanation is added to why each of these folks are on here, this is what's called an indiscriminate list. Nobody has time to click on each of the blue links, and it evidently hasn't improved since surviving the first nomination. If we want an index, we can have a category called Category:Contract killers. Mandsford 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in its present form--replace by separate lists of real and fictional. The word indiscriminate refers to lists of everything (or everyone) of a given sort without discrimination, and the selection of someone as the subject of a WP article,for example, is an obvious way of discriminating between the important and the unimportant. That presumably is the intent of the "real" portion, and for the other, presumably as the principal character of a work by an important author.DGG (talk) 03:58, 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 keep. Daniel 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brock Air Services

Brock Air Services (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. No non-trivial, third party reliable sources can be found which establishes notability for this small 1 x 4 seat aircraft general aviation operator Russavia 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 10:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. → AA ^(talk) — 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Change to keep per Vegaswikian. → AA ^(talk) — 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently one of a few air ambulance operators in Canada as referenced in article. Also has an ICAO code. While small the apparent uniqueness of it's air ambulance contract is notable. Vegaswikian 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable as per above. --S.dedalus 02:51, 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. Carlossuarez46 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cards speak

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

Suggesting to delete this article because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide, and this article is little more than a dictionary definition that lacks reliable sources. Burntsauce 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are plenty of technical poker gameplay and terminology terms that are used in Wikipedia articles that need to be explained. This is one that needs a longer explanation than should be listed in the already long Glossary of poker terms article. It could use sources of course [which I have now added], but it is not a mere definition nor a mere game guide. Without this page the text would have to be moved to the glossary page, where the length of this entry would be out of place (and an entry of this length is necessary to explain what the term is, and also is not). 2005 00:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Scarian^Talk 11:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per 2005 above. Rray 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per 2005. Katherine Tredwell 02:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP- same reason as Stitch Poker, which also should have been kept. Card games don't count now? This is a bad nom.JJJ999 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per 2005. This is standard poker terminology. Xihr 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Pile On Keep per 2005. Greswik 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)

Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has a non-neutral point of view, is unreferenced, and contradicts the Hyper-calvinism page on Wikipedia. StAnselm 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, merging any useful, verifiable material into related articles. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge to Hyper-calvinism, seems most logical. While non-neutral, unreferenced, and contradictory are not per se reasons to delete, I don't see any hope for this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Predestination. Most people wouldn't think of looking under "Hyper-Calvinism", which sounds like too much Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs for breakfast anyway. I'm more in favor of keep because it's a legitimate link from Calvinism, Hyper-C, and predestination. Mandsford 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hear your point, Mandsford, but I'd argue that the article is somewhat muddled and doesn't have reliable, secondary sources to support its association with Hyper-Calvinism in the first place. --Flex (talk/contribs) 04:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has nothing to say about hyper-Calvinism, but rather uses the term sloppily and pejoratively. No good reason has been given for splitting an article off from Predestination (Calvinism)#Double Predestination. User:Avielh seems to want more space so that he can hit readers over the heads with dozens of direct, extended quotations, which is contrary to WP:QUOTE and WP:SOAP. --BlueMoonlet 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete not a standard term for what is apparently ordinary Calvinist predestination--the "double" seems to mean merely that both the elect and the damned are predestined to their fate. the references given do not support the use of the term in the manner given. DGG (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (I'm not familiar with rules here so this is my effort), I've added external links, I've told Flex that this has nothing to do with ""Hyper-Calvinism", but it is accused as "hyper calvinist" in the sense that it supposedly overemphasize God's sovereignty erronously, it used to be just "Double Predestination", but if you look at papers on it, some use "Double Predestination" as what it really is (consistent with the article), some though use it to refer to a kindof single predestination ("reformed" understanding of Predestination, which they claim is double predestination while the other is hyper-calvinism). That's why I moved it to "Double Predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)" as opponents call it, and "Double Predestination" became a disambigious page. Avielh 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, its defined as "a view of Double Predestination where God predestined (or foreordained) those whom He rejects (reprobate) without regard to their sinful nature." ... because the Reformed view of Predestination (infralapsarian mostly), say that God chooses (as it were) from among sinful men, so that foreordination to wrath is passive... that's why I said "without regard to their sinful nature", that is God is choosing men without any consideration at all that they would be sinful because of the fall, He chose, then foreordains them to sin (without Himself being sinful) and to wrath. It's the only way (I could think of) to precisely diffrentiate it from Reformed Double Predestination (which uses the same terms differently- in a really confusing way).Avielh 15:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You say "it's defined" but you don't provide reliable sources that give this definition. External links are not the same as references, and the burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim (BTW, "Search google..." is not a valid reference; specific citations are needed). The rules are that if something is challenged or likely to be challenged then it must be documented from reliable sources. This AfD is challenging your understanding of the facts of the case (see WP:V and WP:OR) as well as the way in which it is stated (see WP:NPOV). Likely, the only way to prevent the article from being deleted is to prove the deleters wrong by citing your reliable sources explicitly inline. Disputed passages from the Bible and Calvin are not sufficient in this case since different groups come to different doctrines of predestination based on their understanding of them. Indeed the litany of verses that you added since the AfD started is more objectionable in my mind than the article without them because of neutrality concerns. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whether the end result is keep or delete, it's God's will. Mandsford 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

*Keep a proposal for deletion is not the appropriate response to an article which is simply badly written. --S.dedalus 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article is not "simply badly written." It has no reason for existing (Predestination (Calvinism)#Double Predestination is sufficient) except to provide a platform for User:Avielh's soapbox. The article's very title is a misnomer, and no references are cited for framing the discussion in such terms. --BlueMoonlet 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge I see your point. My vote is changed. --S.dedalus 02:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above as a POV fork, and redundant, and not simply poorly written. Bearian 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, merging any useful, verifiable material into related articles. This is soapboxing and more or less original research. Greswik 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, poor quality, POV or SOAP or OR attempt at an article. If the concept can eventually be sourced and notable enough for a stand alone article, it would be better recreated from scratch. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: speedily deleted by admin after being tagged. Non-admin closure of AfD. Thomjakobsen 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The House of Capsani

The House of Capsani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Why is it considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theenvisionv3 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 September 2007

Note that I didn't place the AfD tag on the article (that was done by User:Darklilac), but I'll complete this nomination anyway. As for the reasons: the article is very much like an advert, written by someone closely related to its subject (which is conflict of interest), it has no independent sources, no claim of notability, no reason to think that any outsider has ever even heard of the whole thing. It's nothing like what a Wikipedia article should be. --Derlay 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, makes no assertion of notability, no independent sources, tagged as such. Thomjakobsen 23:28, 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. It's a feel good story, but ultimately not encyclopedic - many rescues get similar coverage but BLP1E really applies to this, perhaps more so because the LP is a minor whose situtation was not entirely of his own making. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shneur Zalman Friedman

Shneur Zalman Friedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a young boy who had the misfortune of beeing swept to sea and then resceued. This makes a great news storry, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Apart from a very public resceue there is nothing particularly notable about his life, and per WP:BLP1E we should not have this kind of article. I'd say that goes double when the victim is a young child. Sherool (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or a compendium of every recreational accident that requires rescue workers, even if it makes for good TV. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are many people with Wikipedia articles solely because of media attention surrounding a single point in their lives. For instance Patrick McDermott, Ray Gricar, even Madeleine McCann. If all these articles are now to be banned then this is defiantly a subject for the Village pump. --S.dedalus 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes a lot of simmilar articles should probably be deleted too, however this debate is about this parricular one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Sherool (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, NOT a policy. The fact that there is a Wikipedia wide president for articles like this is entirely relevant to the current discussion. In good faith I am assuming that you genuinely feel that the deletion of this article would benefit the project, however I’m at a loss for why you targeted this particular one. --S.dedalus 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Google comes up with 1,960 hits for “Shneur Zalman Friedman”[1] and 3,230 hits for “boy survives” “Dead Sea” [2]. That sounds plenty notable to me! Furthermore this article made international news and is no less notable than many other disaster or crime victims listed on Wikipedia. As for the complaint that the subject is a young boy, see WP:NOTCENSORED. All assertions made in this article are rigorously backed up with sources in compliance with Wikipedia’s living person’s rules. In regards to WP:BLP1E this article is clearly of notable importance (especially given the world's current focus on the middle east) and as such it will clearly improve Wikipedia to Ignore all rules in this case. --S.dedalus 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Notability is not judged soley based Google hits and ~3000 hits on Google is not very much. Try a search on "S.dedalus", that's 1.600 hits right there, I hope that doesn't mean you'll write about your Wikipedia username next... Furthermore most of those hits are identical word for word, it's just a case of online newspaper publishing minor storries like this (unedited) because it doesn't cost them anyting to do so. See how many newspapers set aside page space for this incident in theyr paper editions and you might get a better indication as to how importnat they consider the case. Yes there are less notable articles on Wikipedia, but they can be dealth with in due time. You need to convince people that this person is notable not that there are other less notable people with articles. I also fail to see how you figure the attention on the political situation in the Middle East affect the importance of an article about an 8 year old boy who was saved from drowning just because he happens to live in the area. --Sherool (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• The number of hits for my username is because I took the name of a well known James Joyce character, a character that DOES have a Wikipedia article in fact. See Stephen Dedalus. This boy is very notable. It was a unified search effort that required the involvement of Israel Defense Forces, Hatzolah, and ZAKA. It was also international in scale, the government of Jordan was notified to avert an international misunderstanding. This incident was highly important also because it is totally unique. At the time it was called a “miracle.” I believe that it is quite evident that this article is sufficiently notable to fulfill current Wikipedia wide standards. --S.dedalus 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this is WP:TRIVIA and silliness and violation of WP:NOT#NEWS as all kinds of things happen to people and animals and get mentioned in the papers but they don't deserve to be in an encyclopedia. IZAK 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• delelte he is not notable. Will there be news coverage when he gets married, has kids, dies? no. In fact there will not be any news coverage about any part of his life besides this one incident. He is not famous enough for any newspaper to care. Perhaps the incident is notable, but borderline so. If there is some article about children surviving in extreme circumstance, or about the dangers of the death sea, or about undercurrents in general, the story could be merged there. Jon513 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See Search and rescue and Rip current. --S.dedalus 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Good things happen... oh Yes! finely we document good happy subjects, and if it is a public thing it should be here, i do share the concern that this is an underage child, but since it has nothing to do with his judgment or deeds, it should be here lets not censure here subjects becaouse some peaple don't like to read about it. if its public it is pubic, wikipedia does not censure public issues.--יודל 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Short-term news phenomeon, not wiki notable. Many, many people get into trouble and then get saved every day, thank G-d. There is no reason to have an article on each and every one of them. Avi 03:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Subject is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Yossiea ^(talk) 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 06:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Wikinews: this is a well-written, engaging story that may be of relevance to a notable issue in future. Make the most of the contributors' work and document it at Wikinews. Optional: provide a suitable Award to the contributors for their model of high standard text, conforming to Wiki typographical, copy-edit and neutrality standards. Alastair Haines 07:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Well that's one option, provided the license incompatability can be worked out, Wikinews uses Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 so we can't just dump GFDL licensed text there. If S.dedalus is willing to dual license this version of the article it could be copied over though. --Sherool (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to dual license that version of the article under

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 so that it can be Move to Wikinews. However, I still maintain that this article is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as well. --S.dedalus 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. --Shmaltz 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment For clarity I’d like to point out that many votes for this deletion were obtained through the listing of this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. --S.dedalus 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Which is perfectly acceptable, since anyone can be a member of the project or watchlist it; see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. Which is completely different from engaging in aggressively contacting individual editors whoe are believed to have specific points of view, to wit canvassing. -- Avi 20:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Avi. And for the record: I have not been canvassed by anybody. Greswik 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:NOT. Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-league 2nd division

A-league 2nd division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This football competition is not even at the official proposal stage and is merely a discussion point for the media. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In addition, the lack of citations for claims made and sentences such as "It is expected a side from the Gold Coast and possibly Geelong may be given a go, while a Northern Queensland bid and a Western Sydney/Wollongong bid are likely to be given access straight to the A-League 1st Division" make it look suspiciously like original research. Mattinbgn\ ^talk 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mattingbn. Come back when it's gotten past consideration. Mandsford 00:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In no way it deserve to be a WP article. Non-notable, uncategorized and also requires huge copy-edit. So, overall decision from my side will be delete. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sold on some of your rationale, there, Niaz. The article claims (although in a less than clear way) that it would be the second division of a national-level football tournament, so if it ever gets off the ground I think it'll be notable. Lack of a category isn't a reason to delete, and neither is the fact that the article's in need of a copy-edit. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm willing to concede that something like this is being discussed, but if there are sources providing the information that this article claims (not all of which is entirely clearly written anyway), an independent article isn't the right place for the moment. When something concrete exists, in proposal form at least, then a new article could be written on the topic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 13:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Number 57 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I feel there would be much better grounds for keeping this article if some reliable sources could be provided as references, the Australian football association for example. If there are real verifiable plans to set this league up, rather than just pure speculation the article should be kept. King of the North East (T/C) 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • What little I've heard about it offline suggests that there are verifiable plans to set something up, but the detail that this article contains is more than anyone's actually declared publicly yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is this some sort of sick joke. Twenty Years 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as it seems legitimate, but definitely add more sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fernald Football League

Fernald Football League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fantasy football league. — Anarchivist | (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — no third-party, reliable sources provided to establish the league's notability. --Agüeybaná 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No attempt made to assert notability and none is present. I'm wondering why this is back for a second round... is it persistence requiring SALT? Accounting4Taste 01:51, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent protagonist

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

This article has no references. It does not assert notability. The topic seems to be discussed on things like message boards, but it does not seem to be the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. As such, the whole article is original research. Croctotheface 21:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like OR. Know the phenomenon described is factual but unless somebody can show where this has been described in reliable sources it has to go--Cailil ^talk 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep in the hopes that the very valid WP:RS concern above can be addressed. JJL 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it should be possible to find sources. I’ll try the library. --S.dedalus 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Strong keep This article may have problems, as shown by the templates, but a silent 'protagonist' is definitely a notable dramaturgic device.--Victor falk 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep The narrative device is very well known throughout video games, and has been parodied frequently. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• If there exist sources, so be it. As a rule, I certainly don't prefer deleting articles to not deleting them, but this is a tertiary source. If we are just assembling material from primary sources, or echoing the work of people on message boards who have done the same thing, then we are outside the scope of this wiki. There is now a single footnote. The subject of that footnote is NOT the phenomenon of a silent protagonist. As it stands, I don't see any evidence that this topic has been the subject of a single secondary source. How can we verify this information? I see no basis for users expressing such STRONG desire to keep this article when it seems to fail every conceivable test we could articulate. If there are sources, please find them and cite them. If the subject is notable and if the article becomes referenced, I would support keeping it. However, I just don't see the sources. I see people who WP:ILIKEIT the article and believe it could be sourced. Well, it's not. It hasn't been. If it were newly created, I suspect that it would have trouble sticking around because it does not assert that it has been the subject of the kinds of sources that encyclopedia articles are supposed to be based upon. Croctotheface 10:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh. The truth is that video game art criticism is rather thin on the ground, at present. Other than the coverage at TVTropes.org, I know of very little serious structural analysis of video game plots and story conventions. Nevertheless, the phenomena of the silent protagonist is very well known, and we don't always have to be a tertiary source. Anyway, would a "List of silent protagonists in video games" be more acceptable to your standards of notability? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • We don't always have to be a teriary source? This is news to me. Do you have any policy or guideline supporting this position? Croctotheface 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Mario, Luigi, Crono, Link, etc. There have to be sources for this article somewhere, we don't just delete articles because they are unsourced. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that this article lacks sources for its content, thereby failing WP:V (though it does do that, which is not exactly a point in favor of the article). The problem is that the article lacks sources that show us that this TOPIC has any kind of currency in secondary sources, which, contrary to the above assertion, are the kinds of sources that encyclopedias are built upon. If we are synthesizing material from primary sources, then we are engaging in original research, which is outside the scope of WIkipedia. Croctotheface 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I found 33 hits on Google Scholar and 51 hits on Google Books so there are sources, dry for my taste but they are out there. Benjiboi 08:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are any of those sources ABOUT this topic, or do they just mention it? In other words, they go for notability, not just verifiability? If they do go to notability, then great, let's fix the article. Croctotheface 09:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources is no cause for deletion for an article on a notable subject, just for a {{unreferenced}} template--Victor falk 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled that I need to explain my argument yet again after making like five comments on this page already, but I never said that unreferenced meant not notable. Maybe it was a mistake to have "this article cites no sources" as the first sentence in my nomination, since it seems that some people didn't read past that. I think I've been very clear about this point, including in the above comment that you responded to. We need evidence of notability. It is my contention that the current article does not assert notability. It does not assert notability by pointing to sources because it has none. The article reads as though this concept is basically exclusive to video games and there are a few other cases such as Mr. Bean and Silent Bob. From the article, I don't see any evidence that this is not OR. Victor, your comment on the talk page seems to belie the whole article, basically. So it's possible that the concept is notable, but it really needs to be fixed in a major way. All the content that is there now is basically an original synthesis of people playing a video game and saying, "Well, the playable character never speaks, so I'd better write it up in Wikipedia." There could be an article here, and I would be happy if one came about, but right now, I don't see why what's there now is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 09:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps others are not thrilled that instead of fixing the article through normal editing you have chosen to send it to AfD. Per WP:AFD - If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. I will start to go through some of those sources to establish which might best help address the article's needs. Benjiboi 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time I nominated, I did not see any evidence that it could be fixed. It's not my responsibility to prove that the concept is not notable if the article does not assert notability itself. Croctotheface 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These seem to be decent source material and can be viewed by anyone whereas most on the Scholar search were subscription journals of one sort or another. Benjiboi 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time I nominated, I did not see any evidence that it could be fixed. It's not my responsibility to prove that the concept is not notable if the article does not assert notability itself. Croctotheface 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hidden Sensations of Strength in Afro-Brazilian Writings: A Look at Esmeralda Ribeiro's Malungos e Milongas, "A Vingança de Dona Léia" and "Guarde Segredo."
• The Silent Protagonist: The Unifying Presence of Landscape in Willa Cather's My Antonia 《Midwest Quarterly: A Journal of Contemporary Thought》 Shelley Saposnik-Noire 1990 / 31 / 02 P 171,171
• Being black and female: an analysis of literature by Zora Neale Hurston and Jessie Redmon Fauset RP Scott
• John Sayles, Filmmaker: A Critical Study of the Independent Writer-director ... By Jack Ryan
• Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought
• The Contemporary Drama of Ireland By Ernest Augustus Boyd
• Wyndham Lewis and the Avant-Garde: The Politics of the Intellect By Toby Foshay
• The Grove Companion to Samuel Beckett: A Reader's Guide to His Works, Life ... By Chris Ackerley, Stanley E. Gontarski
• Eduardo Galeano: Through the Looking Glass By Daniel Fischlin, Martha Nandorfy
• The Color of the Sky: A Study of Stephen Crane By David Halliburton
• The Columbia History of the British Novel By John J. Richetti
• The Embedded Self: A Psychoanalytic Guide to Family Therapy By Mary-Joan Gerson
• Daughter of the Swan: Love and Knowledge in Eudora Welty's Fiction By Gail Linda Mortimer

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penny Dog

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

A toy, with no sources, no evidence of actual significance, no sales figures, no sign that it made any of the Disney cartoons, and 50% of the information is openly speculative. Cruftbane 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources found in searching. The only results appear to be eBay type listings for Disney collectibles. But there doesn't appear to be any articles about this toy. -- Whpq 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not significant. Scarian^Talk 21:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN. A note can be made under Minnie Mouse or the like. JJL 23:08, 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 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of the Philippines College of Business Administration Student Awards

University of the Philippines College of Business Administration Student Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "event"...actually reads more like a compilation of articles about one of the University's student organizations. --- Tito Pao 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a campus newspaper. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Dhartung -- Whpq 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The very definition of non-notable. JJL 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - agreed. Delete under notability guidelines. Transwiki to Wikipilipinas possible?--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • LoL...I knew someone would say that ;-) --- Tito Pao 22:10, 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 keep. While the delete !votes seem to hinge on the poor state of the article, enough editors believe that the subject is notable and therefore the list satisfies our inclusion standards (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of early 20th-century British children's magazines and annuals

List of early 20th-century British children's magazines and annuals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sad. Only one bluelink, and there only ever has been one. Not a useful "to-do" because, for example, the "Greyfriars Holiday Annual" is much more likely to be covered under Billy Bunter. Trivia fans: I used to live next door but one to the son of the man who drew Billy Bunter. Cruftbane 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't some sort of notice supposed to be added to the article when an AfD is started? DuncanHill 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Twinkle seems to have failed there. Done now. Cruftbane 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not particularly notable. That one blue link does nothing to save it! Scarian^Talk 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Created September 23, 2006; nominated after one year with virtually no improvement. This may have started as a project about Edwardian era culture, but it lost its way. Mandsford 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Obviously not of much value at this point, but the subject is notable. DGG (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An article about early 20th Century British children's magazines would probably be well worth having, but a list which contains only one bluelink is not much use as a navigational tool. If you want to expand it into an article about that subject I guess you could always move it. Cruftbane 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you, DGG, that it's a notable subject, but again, it hasn't gone anywhere after a year. I suspect that the originator had to move on to other things. Mandsford 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

nothing wrong with a stub--I know some people here who might be interested. DGG (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's a valid stub about a notable and verifiable topic. Bláthnaid 10:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've added a couple more bluelinked mags that started in the late C19 & which continued beyond the first half of the C20, and have begun an introductory paragraph about children's magazines in the early C20 which I will try to expand over the next few days. I do agree with Blathnaid & DGG that it is a valid interesting and notable subject, and as part of the early C20 children's lit template, it ought to remain. I suspect the fact that the Children's Literature WikiProject seems to have become dormant doesn't help argue its cause (can this be revived, I wonder?? It is a valid and useful subject which should be properly covered within Wikipedia, but I don't personally have sufficient time to do more than visit and tweak every so often)...Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chozo

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

The article was merged to Universe of the Metroid series because of its lack of individual notability. The conversation went on for a month, and after that it was merged. Now, someone has unilaterally re-created the article, and there is no expectation that it will be any more notable than before. It is just a regurgitation of the plot of the Metroid games as told in an unencyclopedic in universe perspective, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect: To Metroid (series).--_ZXCVBNM 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/keep as in the Metroid Prime AFD, deletion is not appropriate to end a dispute. Will ^(talk) 16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, as stated elsewhere, there is no dispute, and I want the articles merits considered since it doesn't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect, merge if necessary to Metroid (series). A very important aspect of the Metroid series, yes, but no notability outside of it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Metroid (series) - Good information, just dosen't need its own article. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The solaris bug situation

The solaris bug situation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is about a perceived effect of a "synchronistic phenomenon perceived to take place between the 1972 Russian film Solaris and The Lightning Bug Situation's 2007 CD... ", mainly posted on MySpacepages, by some fans of the band. The band itself could possibly warrant an article, but no-one has written this (as I can see.) If they had an article, this effect could be a section there, but being a perceived effect shouldn't warrant an article by itself. The creators claim since a similar effect for Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Rainbow)warrant an article their bands similar effect should warrant an article too, but this is faulty logic- Pink Floyd is a mega-band. My first instinct was db- |hoax/sillyness to promote NN or near-NN -band here, but I guess it's not clear-cut enough for a speedy delete. Greswik 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Miller (the front man of The Lightning Bug Situation and partly the subject of this article) co-wrote two songs on Jolie Holland's last album, wrote the music for one of the songs on her first album, and appears on all three of her albums. To me, if Jolie Holland qualifies for Wiki, then so does this article. Mint Seawalls 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete totally unencyclopedic, a pitiful mash-up of nonsense and fan cruft. Pete.Hurd 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A Google of "Yeats is Greats," Brian Miller's last album, shows that it "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network," as per the Wiki Notability guidelines. Also, a Google of both "Yeats is Greats" and "A Leaf; A Stream" separately shows that they were both "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" as per Wiki Notability guidelines as well.

If I have to write a dang Lightning Bug Situation article I will! But this, to me, was a much more interesting phenomenon than some write up about a band.

Mint Seawalls 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two appearances in the San Francisco Chronicle: here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mint Seawalls (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The only reliable sources offered in the article are ones that explicitly do not mention the "Solaris Bug Situation." Nor do the two linked in the preceding comment here. Fails WP:V. Deor 22:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dang! I was just trying to show noteworthy-ness. Wow. I had never written an article for Wiki before (though have used it countless times)--and I thought I had written a pretty cool article--but I had no idea the wrath that was going to come down! Mint Seawalls 22:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC) -- please dont think of it as wrath, just read WP:FIRST and try on something more substantial. DGG (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The reliable sources in the article itself do mention the Solaris Bug Situation effect, just not by name.

Mint Seawalls 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per this page, reliable sources are not blogs and MySpace pages, and the only sources provided anywhere (in this AfD or in the article) which don't fall into those categories don't seem to mention the subject of the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This probably has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but the whole reason I wrote this article at all was because I actually tried the "Solaris Bug Situation" effect--playing "A Leaf; A Stream" while watching Solaris with the sound off--and it actually worked! Really well! But alas unfortunately I'm not a reliable source... Mint Seawalls 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — unreferenced essay. Wikipedia is not the place to post your personal theories and research. --Agüeybaná 02:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You're joking. Which policies does this actually pass? (Incidentally, this must be a bloody long album if it's "synchronised" with Tarkovsky's Solaris - our article says the film's running time is 165 minutes). --Folantin 08:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In fairness, I'd guess the idea is to play the album a couple of times. Even "Dark Side of the Moon" has to be played at least twice over before it covers the length of "Wizard of Oz". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, it's still non-notable. Moreschi ^Talk 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete web page material. JJL 17:45, 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 Keep. Carlossuarez46 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolic Interaction (journal)

Symbolic Interaction (journal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Journal with no claims of notability. There is no article for the society whose journal this is. As usual, my db tag was removed by User:DGG Corvus cornix 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep it's a totally valid scientific journal stub. The most drastic action against this article that I could recommend is to merge into a University of California journals article, to cover the members of the previously existing Category:University of California journals Pete.Hurd 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Long-standing academic journal (established 1977) which seems a perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia article. A major reason for including articles on source materials such as academic journals is to help readers in evaluating the validity of references to material published there, and this is defeated if only the most prestigious journals are permitted articles here. I don't support merging disparate journals onto the publisher page, as it makes them hard to categorise and search for; also the lists would quickly become unmanageable as big academic publishing houses publish hundreds. Espresso Addict 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a major social sciences journal, though a totally inadequate article as submitted. Included in all the standard specialty indexes, included in Web of science and Scopus. These are the standards for notability of journals. i filled in some of the details just now. Since some publishers publish as many as several thousand, the only practical way to handle them is individually the society might be notable also, but nobody has written the article yet. since we still do not have articles on the great majority of scientific societies, that's not a criterion for articles on their journals. DGG (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Google finds plenty of Wikipedia articles relating to symbolic interaction, many of which cite this journal. In general I see having articles on journals like this one, that are significant within their field although not perhaps themselves the subject of nontrivial secondary sources, as a form of building the web: it connects subjects in the journal's field of study through its "what links here" lists, and it enables readers to verify the reliability of publications in that journal by finding out that it really is peer-reviewed, published by a respected academic press, etc. We shouldn't keep articles on every academic journal, but I think we should keep the ones that have significant numbers of citations within Wikipedia and for which there are secondary sources such as those described by DGG that indicate notability despite not really supplying nontrivial coverage. This journal passes that bar for me. —David Eppstein 22:11, 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. Jreferee t/c 05:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid Prime (creature)

Metroid Prime (creature) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article was merged to Universe of the Metroid series because of its lack of individual notability. The conversation went on for a month, and after that it was merged. Now, someone has unilaterally re-created the article, and there is no expectation that it will be any more notable than before. It is just a regurgitation of the plot of the Metroid Prime games as told in an unencyclopedic in universe perspective, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Change it back to a redirect. There's no need for an AfD discussion. If it doesn't stay as a redirect, go through dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this time it should stay gone. If a month long discussion wasn't official enough, this will be. Judgesurreal777 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep AFD is not a valid way to end a disupte. Will ^(talk) 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute, the articles fate was discussed for a month and someone did their own thing, and so I would like a more official resolution. Are there any arguments as to why it should be kept? Judgesurreal777 12:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if a person is reverting to their version, it is a dispute (even if it's against consensus). The correct course of action is to revert to the redirect and get it protected. Will ^(talk) 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is no dispute, they simply recreated the article; I have not tried to revert it or make him do so. Since there is a question of notability, this is the appropriate forum to address it. Judgesurreal777 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the correct place is the talk page or WikiProject. Will ^(talk) 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, there is no dispute, there is only a nomination for deletion. Any thoughts on the articles notability? Judgesurreal777 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, there is a dispute. Reading the merge discussion, there is a clear consensus to merge Metroid Prime with Dark Samus and not into the Universe page. In actual fact, the only mention besides the merge proposal to merge the Prime/DS articles anywhere but themselves was by an IP, and that was into the article Phazon. Therefore, your claim of a consensus is invalid. So it's an editing dispute. Deletion is not an acceptable way to end a dispute. Will ^(talk) 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

THERE IS NO DISPUTE! The person who recreated the article, the person I am supposed to be disputing with, AGREES that the article should be gotten ride of, aka DELETED, because it lacks notability, and I imagine he will way in soon in favor of deletion. Now, lets discuss the article and its merits. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a moot discussion As far as I am concerned, this is a totally moot discussion because the original merge discussion was from Dark Samus -> Metroid Prime (creature), not Metroid Prime (creature) -> Universe of the Metroid series. There is currently no dispute, because it ended several days ago on its own. In a nutshell: This discussion is moot because the nom is no longer valid, as the discussion ended days ago and the merge described in the nom is not the merge that was actually being discussed. Side note: AFD is for deletion request only, and there is no reason for this article to be deleted, as this is not the place for dispute resolution. Why don't you take the argument between you and that user to the Mediation Cabal? They are quite helpful in things like this. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the merger of Dark Samus and Metroid Prime (creature) was one of several possible mergers discussed. And agains, there is no dispute between me or anyone else. The article lacks notability and should be deleted and redirected to the Metroid (series) article. Judgesurreal777 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, according to policy, you are supposed to put a notability issue tag on the page, wait one month, and then nom it for deletion if it still isn't notable? Besides, I just read WP:N, and the article seems notable to me. It meets all five of the general notability criteria. Are you sure this isn't a deletion based your views? I would recommend reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument here is criteria #4: sources. The article itself has only one cite, and all the info in the article, while direct from the games, very much toes the line with WP:FICTION, as the creature Metroid Prime has received little to no "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" except maybe forums with people complaining how hard he is to kill. As for the month long policy, it was about four days from that when the deletion review started, although a merge and recreation kind of messed with the timing there. Arrowned 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And there was a discussion of its merging into the Metroid series article for over a month. Judgesurreal777 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, unless information is already in Universe of the Metroid series, in that case, delete and replace with redirect -- A screw-up on my part, I neglected to read the page carefully, and looked at the Universe of the Metroid series for my argument that it meets all five of the requirements without realizing it (sorry). Anyway, if the information has already been merged, delete the article so the history is cleared, and then put a redirect there. If it hasn't yet been merged, it should be merged, then deleted, then replaced with a redirect. However, I would like to see what the user who restored it has to say. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's cool; his name is User:Zxcvbnm Judgesurreal777 13:52, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Theory Spectrum

Music Theory Spectrum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article about a journal with no claims of notability. There isn't even an article about the organization whose journal this is. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep it's a totally valid academic journal stub. The most drastic action against this article that I could recommend is merging into a University of California journals article (or section within University of California Press) to cover the members of the previously existing Category:University of California journals Pete.Hurd 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Another long-standing academic journal (in Vol. 29), which seems to form a perfectly valid encyclopedia topic. As I said for Symbolic Interaction (journal), a major reason for including articles on source materials such as academic journals is to help readers in evaluating the validity of references to material published there, and this is defeated if only the most prestigious journals are permitted articles here. I don't support merging disparate journals onto the publisher page, as it makes them hard to categorise and search for; also the lists would quickly become unmanageable as big academic publishing houses publish hundreds. Espresso Addict 04:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I found and added to the article a source indicating that it's highly ranked in citations among music journals. The McGill University Library also calls it an important music theory journal. —David Eppstein 04:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N unless reliable sources are provided that discuss the subject significantly, as opposed to a single source that mentions it in a list or survey. -- But|seriously|folks  06:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That argument can be applied to almost all academic journals. Do you really think we should apply general-purpose notability standards to an important class of article that those standards are such a poor fit to? —David Eppstein 06:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a general purpose encyclopedia . . . -- But|seriously|folks  16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• • PS. I found one anyway, and added it to the article. But next you'll be telling me we need multiple such sources, I suppose... —David Eppstein 07:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so they will, David-- people need to be reminded that the notability guidelines are guidelines--guidelines are meant to be applied with the appropropriate flexibility. Notability is a policy, but how it is determined depends on the nature of the article. But there are good independent sources for notability available for most titles. 1/ Journal Citation Reports is an very reliable source for notability within a subject field as measured by impact factor. Even inclusion of it is an indication that it is one of the top 8000 of the estimated 20 or 30 thousand academic journals. (unfortunately they do not cover the humanities) . 2/Ulrich's is an equally reliable source for how long the journal has been published and what indexes cover it, 2 other major factors in notability. 3/WorldCat is a RS for how many libraries hold a journal, another factor of notability. Though all of these are in a sense lists, the information they provide gives the notability.

• Keep in this case, a very important journal in the subject as shown by the multiple factors. One thing which is not a factor is whether the organisation has an article--most of the important academic societies do not yet have articles in WP. We need to write them. The absences of an article in WP is not evidence of non-notability--just of the shortage of WPedians working on these types of subjects. DGG (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Music Theory Spectrum is actually relatively well known in academic circles. Also “no claims of notability” is not an appropriate criteria for deletion. --S.dedalus 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep per the current sources and indirect indications of notability. --Tikiwont 10:00, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champlain Centre South

Champlain Centre South (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was bundled with its twin, Champlain Centre North, in a previous AfD. For some reason, North got deleted, but this one stayed, even though the consensus was to delete both. This one was kept because it had been listed twice before in other bundle AfDs (one keep, one no consensus). The sources on this article aren't that good, and a Google search turns up almost nothing, so I think the page should be deleted; the mall obviously fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Former shopping mall has nothing to show it was notable. Edison 22:23, 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. Martial BACQUET 11:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London tunnel run / Tunnel Running (moved)

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}}

London tunnel run (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although this mentions some media coverage, I can't find any coverage other than on blogs & fansites. As this article has been up for some months — and is a long and reasonably well written article — it doesn't seem appropriate either to prod it as non-notable or speedy it as an advert (which it does read like). However, despite all the effort that's gone into it I can't see anything that stops this article being a puff-piece for a non-notable club, albeit a far better quality one than most; the sole mention I can find on anything approaching a reliable source is nothing but a Youtube clip with no text. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage on Channel 4, as cited, seems adequate notability. Colonel Warden 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It hasn't been covered on Channel 4 - someone has uploaded a clip to a page hosted on the Channel 4 website. Not the same thing... — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Close enough. The cited Sky One coverage seems even more notable. Colonel Warden 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - sounds interesting Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Generally-unhelpful comments made by single-purpose accounts and IP addresses moved to talk page. Daniel 01:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the fact that the AFD is being disrupted Will ^(talk) 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Greswik 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Cited sources attest to the existence of some kind of tunnel racing, but do not back up any of the assertions in the article, which is original research and unverifiable. Chick Bowen 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment for now, AFD view reserved - the actual subject matter seems potentially notable. But the article is so full of fancruft and fan oriented, and so unencyclopedic in style and approach, it's hard to tell. If it were trimmed back and put in a proper structure and context, cited, and so on, it could well possibly be encyclopedic. But AFD custom is very clear: articles that are sufficiently poorly written and cited may be deleted without prejudice until such a time a proper article is written. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• To add to this part of the discussion; Sky one and Autocar reference material both refers to the subject directly by name and states that no racing takes place which were the main assertions of the original article submitted. I will review it to have less "fancruft" as you put it. I did include the negative aspect Islington Gazette reference material to give more balance to the article. If I find any more articles either positive or negative I will host and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sources exist - Having worked on the article somewhat, it seems likely it's encyclopedic. But unless reliable independent sources that give significant coverage are demonstrated, the decision has to be delete without prejudice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Likely speedy keep - credible independent coverage found, see below and updated article text. I'm now comfortable with the view this is encyclopedic, notable and has sources permitting an article to exist. And have rewritten a lot of it to reflect these sources. But note: article should be neutral, not fancruft. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Update - Two comments containing possibly valuable links had been moved to the talk page. AFD closer should be aware these were identified as SPA's. Now reverted since potentially useful. Sorry 'bout the messy refactor user:FT2: Keep [SPA]. Media citations below: [3] [4] [5] Tina Kant-Bearssed 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)— Tina Kant-Bearssed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep [SPA] - Scan of published Autocar article http://me-tan.wtfux.org/vehicles/TunnelRun/Autocar0206TunnelRun.jpg - Scan of published USA magazine article http://me-tan.wtfux.org/vehicles/TunnelRun/USA-TunnelRunRides.jpg - ME-tan2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) — ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. After the changes to this article, I still stand by my "delete" argument above. The "organisation" section and half the "background" section are still completely unsourced. Without them, there's nothing to make clear the significance of this alleged sport. There are basically two kinds of sources--complaints about the nuisance of people gunning their engines in tunnels, and hobbyist magazines takling about a hobby. Neither of them supports the assertion that this is an organized activity. Chick Bowen 18:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• keep - new updates swing it. Artw 06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Enough references to reliable third party sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richland Mall (Johnstown)

Richland Mall (Johnstown) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very short article on a dead mall in Pennsylvania. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and quickly. Complete waste of space without proof of WP:N from WP:RS. Isn't mentioned in main Johnstown article -- Keeper | 76 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No indications that this dead mall was notable.--JForget 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Gsearch doesn't turn up much in the way of notability. The article makes no claim of notability no sources to show notability. No prejudice against recreation if notability is satisfied. --Fabrictramp 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Controversial Anime

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

Yet another indiscriminate list of information waiting to happen. "Controversial" is such a vague (and inherently POV) term that I don't see how this could ever be encyclopaedic. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating

List of Live Action Anime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete Nom says it all -- how "controversial" is controversial anyway? This is a POV disaster waiting to happen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth with this. The article not only is a POV problem but written in such a way I got a headache from it. Take two Deletes and call me in the morning --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt Vague and article creator is stretching WP:OWN to meet his own opinions only. Nate 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've also added List of Live Action Anime by the same creator — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Salt "Controversial" in whose opinion? There is no way I can see that a good encyclopaedic article could be found under this title. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt -- since the original author won't let anyone add to or subtract from that list, and since it lacks any source watsoever, I say it's definitely both a WP:OWN and WP:NPOV offence. The style of writing in that "article" is also not up to wiki standards. -- azumanga 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Edward321 01:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and SALT. I agree with many opinions above. This is a deliberate and blatant infringement of WP:OWN, hence the SALT, and it's impossible to determine membership on the list by reference to any outside authority. And if it was staying around, it would need to be re-written from scratch in coherent English. Accounting4Taste 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently subjective. NawlinWiki 02:40, 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. W.marsh 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Stevens

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

Non-notable actor. Completely unreferenced. Some of the article seems like a hoax. Davnel03 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you go through the history it looks like there's an IP editor doing some fairly frequent vandalism on the article.--Cube lurker 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I trimmed out what looked like vandalism. Seemed like the right thing to do even though this AFD is ongoing.--Cube lurker 20:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Stuart Stevens is real (googled and Imdb'd), but EastEnders is the only thing he's done, and he's not doing it anymore. Fails notability and reliable sourcing. --Keeper | 76 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a real TV credit. Notable IMO. Tiptopper 03:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - perhaps worth a footnote on the programme page Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• He is noted here as a former actor Keeper | 76 14:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys

List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

sourced article, but the name explains it all, car accidents are very common and hundreds of thousands are killed every year,Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete Jbeach56 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I tried to make it clear in the intro the special circumstances that would make accidents in the Florida Keys notable. When a fatal accident occurs, the sole point of land access for nearly a hundred thousand people is blocked off for several hours. This can enormously affect both people who live in the Keys and tourists who travel there for vacations. I do not believe the article violates WP:IINFO because of the lede, which adequately explains the relevancy of this particular list, and why it is above the normal importance of a mere list of auto accidents. The lede, I feel, also answers WP:NOTE. This isn't just a simple list of fatal accidents, but also includes information about their causes and relevancy. I'd be more than happy to make additional explanations as needed. JKBrooks85 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you merge the intro paragraph to the Florida Keys article then, it doesn't deserve a page in it's own, especially the deaths. Jbeach56 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the full article would really fit into the context of the Florida Keys article by itself. A paragraph, coupled with a link to the list, would be helpful, but I don't think more than that is necessary. As a separate list, a reader could discover the basic information in the Florida Keys article, then access the list for more information about the effect traffic and fatal accidents have in the Florida Keys. After all, if something's important enough to include in a parent article (as you recommend), it's worth creating a separate page if enough information is available -- which it is. JKBrooks85 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• I've added a section about the Adam Arnold Act in Florida state law, which was inspired by an 11-year campaign following a fatal crash on U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys. JKBrooks85 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While I can appreciate all the effort put into the article, it IS best left as a paragraph in the Florida Keys article. There are many things that are important enough to be listed in a parent article, but more often than not, they do not have the merit to stand as their own article. Reading the article, it has repeated basically the information from the Florida Keys parent article, and added some information on the traffic accidents. It's redundent. Merge or delete. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable juncture of information. Merge any relevant info into the Florida Keys article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The information about why traffic accidents are so important in this area is useful and deserves to be in the Florida Keys article if it's not already there, but the list of accidents wouldn't be kept for any other location and doesn't deserve to stay just because it's been loosely coupled to useful info — for all we know, many of these accidents could have occurred off-season or in the early hours of the morning and thus be no more notable than accidents anywhere else in the world. Thomjakobsen 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section to Florida Keys and included a link to the page. I'm just afraid that because this is notable on a smaller scale than, say, Earth, it's going to be deleted on a WP:IDONTKNOWIT steamroller. I'd further like to object to the suggestions of WP:IINFO violations: this article covers a repeated series of events that have large impacts on the area in which they occur and for the people they involve. Every listing in the article can be backed up with a verifiable news source, and if the article was older than 48 hours, they already would be. It's just a matter of searching the websites of local newspapers. I wouldn't have started this if I thought it would violate rules #2 and #5 of WP:IINFO, and am more than happy to make requested changes to fix problems an editor sees with the article. JKBrooks85 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-rhetorical question: if those are your criteria for inclusion, how would you feel about a "List of suicides on the London Underground"? There are around 50 a year, all sourceable, each one causing major disruption on a network which carries more passengers in a day (3 million) than the Keys get visitors in a year.

Thomjakobsen 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to create it, I'd fully support them. After all, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and there's no reason not to include that information. A list is of marginal utility for someone uninterested in the subject, but plenty of reference works have appendicies for readers seeking more information. This is exactly the same thing, and so would your hypothetical article. Nothing is lost by including this information, and for the person who abolutely needs the information, much can be gained. JKBrooks85 22:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't matter whether we know about it or not, JKBrooks85. This just isn't relevant and the list of fatalities violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If any information is merged to Overseas Highway (best) or Florida Keys then it should be redirected, but the only part that's potentially useful is part of the intro and the "Notability" (sorry, but that title is trying too hard) section. The list should absolutely not be included. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A memorial wasn't my intention. If/when the article is kept, what would you change? JKBrooks85 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete that unencyclopedic list, for starters. You do realize that when there's an accident on any limited-access highway that people can be trapped for hours? It doesn't matter if you have an alternate route to your destination if you can't get off the highway. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't believe Wikipedia is the place to list every single fatal motor vehicle accidents in an area.--JForget 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I understand author's argument that the Florida Keys is served by one road and when there's an accident, it's blocked off... but I don't understand why there's a list of the date of each accident in the past seven years, who died, how old they were, etc. Theoretically, Wikipedia could list the names of auto accident victims on every highway in the country, since it has the space to do so, but one of the many things Wikipedia is not... it's not a memorial. The intent here is clearly to add entries every time there's a fatality, and to research past incidents. Someday, someone may create a wiki that memorializes people who died untimely deaths, but we can't open the door to it here. Mandsford 00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Perfect example of WP:NOT.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable topic. — i ^said 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. List of traffic accidents? Really? This goes way beyond Wikipedia is not a memorial. Burntsauce 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as reference guides typically list factual information. The World Almanac and Book of Facts, for example, has whole sections on disaster lists. Since we are not paper, we can expand on our coverage of human knowledge in a more comprehensive manner than a printed reference guide, though. Someone doing research on highway accidents will find such an article immensely valuable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the type of information one would turn to an encyclopedia for, not even a paperless one. Burntsauce 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The topic, however, is not one of loosely connected stuff for which we don't have reliable sources. Considering: "The Sunshine State’s heat has been deadly for dozens of Ford drivers whose Firestone tires have disintegrated, making Florida the nation’s leader in Firestone-related deaths". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That source has nothing to do with the article, it's another region in Florida. Not everything that has a source deserves an article. Jbeach56 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information suits this article pretty well. This is just a trivial list. Wikipedia not being paper, doesn't mean everything should be kept, period. Wikipedia isn't a guide to everything, I think more people need to realize this. RobJ1981 04:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Violates WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Of course there exists media coverage of fatal traffic accidents, but such occurences are simply news stories. This article is merely a list of new stories. As such, this list does not merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per a dásh of common sense - Studies are generally not reliable, and certainly not studies compiled into unwieldy lists.--WaltCip 17:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Tourism Rankings

World Tourism Rankings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a mirror of the World Tourism Rankings published by the World Tourism Organisation. It is, of course, not authoritative, as Wikipedia is not the publisher. The article contains no analysis of the rankings or how they are compiled, only the information, so I believe this article fails Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. I would suggest that it be deleted, a redirect placed pointing to World Tourism Organisation, and we then wait to see if that article ever contains an encyclopaedic coverage of the rankings sufficient to split out again. And we should of course link to the rankings in the main article. Cruftbane 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I moved this text from the nomination, user 80.176.82.42 states: t is possible that by publishing information which is compiled and published by this organisation, that we may be violating copyright. That would apply if the means of ranking is novel or requires collection and analysis from multiple sources. Since the article does not describe the ranking mechanism it is not easy to tell if that is the case. Tiptoety 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that this is linked in {{World Tourism}}, accounting for its high number of inbound links. It makes about as much sense there as having the Fortune or Inc. 500 lists in a template called "Business", i.e., smacking of promotion. If appropriate using the actual rankings as a source is fine, but as with other copyrighted lists there is no purpose to our reproducing the material here. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookshow

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Cookshow. Brand new site this year, only references are self ref's. Hu12 18:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Well, there is one outside reference, but it's from a relatively obscure web-publication (or, rather, obscure AFAIK) and the rest is self-referential. I found some blog entries, etc., but nothing exceptional. I think this is an interesting idea that might just catch on but this subject does not meet WP:Notable yet. And as the outside reference notes, they might be eclipsed by the Food Network. More outside references from more well-known sources would have pushed me closer to retention. Accounting4Taste 18:56, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The District of Tustin Legacy

The District of Tustin Legacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom by an IP, who claims that this article was already deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It was speedied under this name as non-notable (WP:CSD A7) 3 February 2007, recreated 28 May and immediately moved to The District at Tustin Legacy, speedied A7 again four days later, and the redirect from here to the deleted moved page was deleted a few days after that. It doesn't qualify for G4 (recreation of deleted material) speedy deletion, I don't think, as I can't find any prior deletion discussion. —David Eppstein 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -per lack of content. This stub is not asserting anything (as an example, it doesn't explain the size of it), and it is nocontext, allthough you can find out wich country it is in by following the links. It's not much work put into this - but notice this does not mean recreation is easily speedied if they write more the next time. Greswik 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, a1 empty when you remove the unsourced material. NawlinWiki 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journals of the Last Stand

Journals of the Last Stand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no good A7 criteria for speedy (fail to assert for film would cut down on AfD)  superβεεcat  18:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: If it isn't speedy deleted. I think it meets CSCA7. - Rjd0060 18:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless I'm mistaken, this is a non-notable children's film project. Whatever "NIA" refers to, it's not clear from the disambiguation page and I can't track it any further. There's not enough information to do anything except delete this. Accounting4Taste 18:24, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Boy 2

Jurassic Boy 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hack of a hack. No reliable sources. Most of the google hits seem to be places to download it. Smashville 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Greswik 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ancient Jedi

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

The list contains biographies of many unsourced star wars characters who at best appeared in the Knights of the Old Republic games and it is written mainly inuniverse, its style nor its content warrants inclusion on Wikipedia Sherzo 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ancient Jedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Derksen (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, changed Transwiki and delete as suggested by Dhartung Sherzo 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of real-world notability and lack of sources; add an External link at Jedi to List of Jedi at Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Would it also be appropriate to nominate List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, List of minor Star Wars Jedi masters, List of minor Star Wars Jedi apprentices, and List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights for deletion? --EEMeltonIV 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't bundle them in here, but if you feel they violate the policies, go ahead. --UsaSatsui 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Done --EEMeltonIV 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this compendium of minor fan trivia. WP:NOT#INFO applies, I think, and this is also not in line with the fiction guidelines. Cruftbane 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this list, and the info that's worth keeping can be split off onto other lists. --UsaSatsui 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep shear number of reviews of the games and to a lesser extent the books means that sources will exist.Genisock2 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cruftbane. -- Cjensen 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is exactly the sort of thing that Wookieepedia is for. In-universe perspective, no real-world notability, etc. Note that the article is written up in Cracked magazine's The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries, which has been heavily Digged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ...so...the article itself is notable, but the subject of the article may not be? That's kind of funny. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I'm not very happy with deleting material because it makes mocking us easier for those who want to mock us. --Kizor 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I mentioned the Cracked article only as an FYI, not as a rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Apologies. I've seen some other people provide counterexamples lately. It was slightly grating, considering that they were people active in defining fiction notability rules. --Kizor 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "Most needlessly detailed" does not necessarily mean "bad" (I think that royal succession article is a good'un, myself). I just find it interesting that, while List of ancient Jedi could be deleted, we have a source for a potentially notable "List of ancient Jedi Wikipedia article" article, assuming one counts Cracked as a reliable source. (Did I just encoruage bean-stuffing?)--UsaSatsui 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll see you, UsaSatsui, and raise you one WP:ASR. That's been tried before, actually. I think it was a reliable source writing about an article being deleted, being taken as evidence of notability of the topic in the article at AFD. Anyway, my argument has nothing to do with the level of detail per se. I will, howver, change my vote to transwiki as I've confirmed we can do that to most Wikia projects. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete- Awesome article for Wookipedia, totally inappropriate for this one. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete per above reasons. --thither 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Very funny Judgesurreal777!! But although this is an extensive labor-of-love article, the subject matter in neither notable, nor interesting (to many of us). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptopper (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous use of bits, in my opinion. Not notable or necessary.svunt 03:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion doesn't save on bits.Geni 13:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that most of these entries have scanned images indicates that sources do exist for these things, where else would the images be coming from? They just have yet to be put into the article. Same goes for the stylistic concerns. Articles shouldn't be deleted because they're poorly written, poorly written articles are merely works in progress. Bryan Derksen 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources, yes, but sources that are verifiable? --UsaSatsui 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strip down to the basics Ditch the infoboxes, the images, and a large amount of text in each section. I have no problem with the "List of yadda yadda" Star Wars articles, but this is extremely crufty; most of the characters are pathetically non-notable. A primary character in KotOR? Yes. Appearing once in a single comic? No. (I even have a copy of the comic that Qual is in; trust me, pathetically minor character). Removing most of the characters would be perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, while trimming down a lot of the remaining text, and then tossing in a link to each character's entry on Wookieepedia so that people who want the insane amounts of detail can get it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and remove stick from ass. Sorry to be blunt, but yes, I saw that article too. No, I don't think that we should be deleting things because because some crappy website pulls the "article X is longer that article Y" trick. Artw 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody is arguing that, and nobody is asking for deletion because of the Cracked article (if anything, the article supports a keep more than it does a delete). --UsaSatsui 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, and argue keep or not based on wikipedia policies. Judgesurreal777 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: It seems like people are using the what would Britannica do criteria for an articles notability. This isn't Britannica. The resources are greater, and the number of users is larger. It's factual information that is useful as a reference for people watching the movies or reading the books. Sorry if I offend your sensibilities, but ones snobbish opinion of what is or isn't "encyclopedic" doesn't play a part in it. If you really want to do something useful, break the article into subs for each Jedi, and keep the list linking to the article. As to the "sources, yes, but sources that are verifiable" comment, I'm sure I don't know, understand, or care to know what your bureaucratic definition of verifiable is, but I'm sure you could go and look at the original sources, as in the books, that they were referenced in, and verify the information. —Slipgrid 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • There's only one definition of verifiable that counts on Wikipedia. Believe me, if we used mine, it'd be a very small encyclopedia. --UsaSatsui 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks. So, a work of fiction is published, and an article is written about one of it's characters. The work that character was mentioned in is cited as a source. How is that not verifiable? In any reasonable definition of the word, being able to go to the direct source of the information and reading it, is verification. Saying that isn't verifiable, is breaking the English language.

Also, why would you want a "very small encyclopedia?" Is less information somehow better? —Slipgrid 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's verifiable. I don't think anyone said it wasn't (I asked if the sources were verifiable, that's slightly different). There's other issues. First off, how does one define an "ancient Jedi", and what makes one different from a modern one? There's still several unsourced entries (not a reason for deletion itself, but still an issue), and there's no out-of-universe context in a lot of entries. I think the some of the entries can go in other lists, but I don't really think they go well in -this- list.--UsaSatsui 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as clearly failing WP:FICTION and the main notability requirement A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. There are no independant sources, no significant coverage and this article is simply a cherry-picked plot summary which is not what wikipedia is for. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wookiepedia and delete as lacking independant reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki then delete. An extreme level of fictional material without real-world information. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, repeatedly deleted under this and other titles. NawlinWiki 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy comprehension and contol organization

Energy comprehension and contol organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've declined a speedy request on this as it seems to make a vague assertion of notability, but don't believe it warrants keeping. Zero Ghits and veers close to the blurry line that separates "legitimate belief system" from "patent nonsense". — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:08, 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/merge. Wizardman 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rüdiger Sünner

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

I nominate articles about this author, a book he wrote, and a film he made. Only one independent source is cited in these articles: Another book on the topic, where he seems to be quoted. But I'm not convinced that this is enough to establish notability. A merger has been proposed long ago, but also the merged pages would not be notable, I think.

As said, I also nominate the following related articles:

• Schwarze Sonne (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Schwarze Sonne (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Rüdiger Sünner, and merge and redirect the other two into Rüdiger Sünner. I found a book review of his book in Die Welt, some film reviews [6] [7] in Berliner Zeitung and a mention of another film of his here. That said, I think the three can be merged without any loss of information. Bláthnaid 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Rüdiger Sünner and merge the other two, as Bláthnaid has said. I personally would not mind keeping Schwarze Sonne (book) and Schwarze Sonne (film), as these could [eventually] be expanded, but even in that case they could just be splitt off again. Like several more articles in connection with that Nazi occult stuff, these were created by Robert C Prenic. The only one I have found among those that I think should be deleted is Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair. Zara1709 13:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The group's article was deleted in the cited afd, and no other notability was asserted. Carlossuarez46 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visible Idea of Perfection

Visible Idea of Perfection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Full album released by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Super Insurgent Group of Intemperance Talent (link to the group's own AfD discussion). No evidence that the album ever charted or was released by a notable label. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:56, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self Titled (Indonesia)

Self Titled (Indonesia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sister EP to Self Titled (Australia) Article admits only 1,500 cassette copies sold. That's pretty non-notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I did some searching online, but realkyhick is right. Non-Notable. Group itself doesn't meet WP:Band. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:38, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self Titled (Australia)

Self Titled (Australia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP by a musical group that is itself up for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:51, 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--JForget 23:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Fulton (guitarist)

John Fulton (guitarist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The current article (and its accompanying image) reeks of a hoax. There are eight different versions of this article in the history; however, the only valid version I can find is a two-year-old, two-sentence sub-stub. A Google search shows that he does exist, but I can't see anything other than blogs & wikis from which to expand it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a near-complete attack on this guy, whose only claim to fame is playing on 2 albums of a notable band. The good version isn't enough to sustain an article. Will support a redirect to the band, if the community feels it's worth it.--Sethacus 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G10 as attack page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've declined the speedy, as a potentially valid version exists in the history. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It appears to be an attack page, so I'll vote delete per others Yamakiri^T_C 09-29-2007•00:34:20 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN Tiptopper 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable...Iamchrisryan 14:09, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chantel Shafie

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Has appeared on a number of very obscure satellite-channel shows. Claims to have been in some notable films, but they would appear to be as an uncredited extra as this IMDB.com entry would be listing them if otherwise. Thomjakobsen 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also vanity. Creator's only contributions have been Shafie-icious.--Sethacus 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Also, good spot Sethacus. --C-sonic 13:43, 2 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. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source (magazine)

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

This magazine does not seem to be notable. Many organizations publish in-house newsletters. This seems to be nothing more than that. There are no secondary sources cited that mention it. Steve Dufour 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as the article's subject is not notable enough to have attracted much content even after two years in Wikipedia. Foobaz·o< 19:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Just for the record, there is a much more widely-circulated magazine of this title aimed at the hip-hop music industry which might well have its own Wikipedia article (in which case if this one is deleted then the other should be moved here). 68.146.41.232 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That would be The Source (magazine), it certainly does. Neutral on this article. Nate 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Bravehartbear 12:03, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Casal

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

Non-notable DJ, sources given are not independent of the subject, talk page says he was recognized as "the most important DJ in Costa Rica by thedjlist.com" but that site appears to be an unreliable directory site to which over 170,000 DJs have submitted profiles. Thomjakobsen 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Only one editor has actively worked on the article and they seem to have stopped working on it some time ago. Being a DJ does not make someone notable. Google search found no evidence of significant independent coverage.--Michig 19:14, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rsii virus

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

Just information about a non-notable computer virus. Couldn't find any mention of it on google or yahoo either. A^RendedWinter 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I have not followed the Verifiability guideline, but I had didn't know this virus existed until two or three variants of it showed up on my computer a few weeks ago. I run AVG Anti-Virus and McAfee on my machine (it's Windows XP), and neither of them even found any of them. I was unable to find any help on the Internet. I finally tracked it down and got rid of it by brute force, in the process discovering the information which I put in this article. I hope that this info will help other people with the same problem. However, I understand that violating the Verifiability rule makes it subject to deletion, and if it does get deleted, I fully understand. Tolkien fan 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There must be other sites which deal with that kind of thing. Steve Dufour 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Definately not in the same league as the Morris Worm, the Love Letter virus, the Sircam, Code Red, Nimda, Klez, SQL Slammer, Goner, or Stoned Empire Monkey. (i.e. very low damage, low infection, no media coverage virus unlike the ones listed here) --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:44, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pristine (Realmlist Management)

Pristine (Realmlist Management) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software, few Google hits, conflict of interest. Mushroom (Talk) 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Article created by creator of product website (COI), has ignored notability requirements that have been pointed out to them, and continues to repost the article with no changes after deletion. Should also nuke Image:Pristine-logo.jpg & Image:Pristine-screenshot.jpg. Improbcat 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't assert notability in the Wikipedia sense -- the creators obviously think this is an excellent product, but apparently nobody else does. I can't find any reasonable authority that thinks anything of it, and it's always a bad sign when the first two Google hits are Wikipedia itself. This might pass notability guidelines in the future when it's beyond beta, which is why I'm not recommending SALTing, but given the repeated flouting of Wikipedia policies, it's tempting. Accounting4Taste 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable software. Keb25 04:41, 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 Speedy delete g6, inadvertently created. NawlinWiki 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avogadro (Rapper)

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

Requesting a salt if possible. Fourth article with exact same content. All have been speedied. A^RendedWinter 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• 'Ahh #^&$ it's happened again. Writing an Afd and the article was deleted. Apparently I made the article now. A^RendedWinter 15:03, 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 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Vacations

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Classic Vacations. Hu12 14:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. As notability is not inherited, being a subsidiary of Expedia does not give notability, and there is a lack of non-trivial, third-party sources which give this company notability. --Russavia 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability problems. -Icewedge 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Per nom. Tiptoety 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:45, 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. The controversy is notable, which is really the subject of the article. Whether the article should be retitled to something other than her name is not a AFD. The BLP issues raised are not persuasive: the contentious claims are all sourced, and she has projected herself into the controversy rather than being a non-participant swept up in events beyond her control. Carlossuarez46 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tania Head

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK created about this person only after an article in the New York Times questioned the veracity of many claims she had made about being a survivor of the 9/11 attack. This article seems contrary to WP:BLP, but I leave it to the Wikipedia community to discuss it and decide. She did not seem to have encyclopedic notability before the expose. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, not everyone who is in the newspapers needs an encyclopedia article. Edison 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• If it's a permissible option, defer closure for 2-3 weeks on this to see if notability develops or dissipates. It's too early, I think, to tell one way or the other. --Nlu (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. (started the article) This article wasn't meant as and doesn't need to be a coat rack. WP:BLP states "material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." It's contentious, that's true; but all of the above policies listed are being strongly followed (with the possible exception of neutrality). She "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" so we know that she's notable. Regarding WP:NOT#NEWS, is the NY Times article considered "tabloid journalism"? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the key to the nomination above is that she has no independent notability, and "15 minutes of fame" isn't enough to make someone notable. I think we'd have to see if this story persists or not. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But she was in the public eye before the scandal broke. She certainly had "independent notability since she's been written up in publications that have nothing to do with her or organizations with which she participated. But perhaps her 15mins is almost up -- that's a valid argument for removal. My opinion is still the same though: keep. ask123 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is sad that this person is (likely, it seems) a hoax and is likely to become an Internet meme, but she clearly did it to herself. Her notability before the hoax discovery was marginal but close to "notable enough". There were a few frauds near the time of the 9/11 event, but she pulled her hoax off for years. We have not had a word or figure for that yet, but she is it. From now on, anybody looking for sympathy by talking at length about their story who then insists that being held accountable for specifics of their story is "too painful" is going to be associated with this person. Journalists failed to do their job by accepting an excuse like that. Just like Alan Mcilwraith, Essjay, Jimmy Wales as the sole founder of Wikipedia® and so many other imposters.--Mightyms 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC) — Mightyms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. This article from The New York Times that appeared on Sept. 27, 2007 about Tania Head and her possible deception: Tania Head Article from The New York Times. I'm sure you all have seen it. This "siginficant coverage" from a "reliable," "independent" source qualifies her as "notable" per Wikipedia:Notability. ask123 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She's clearly been the focus of independent, credible sources and BLP doesn't prohibit the writing of material which puts living people in a poor light, but says such statements have to have such sources. She lived a lie for years, for instance she was featured in this [8] TIME article from 2004 saying '"People cannot understand. We saw things," says Tania Head, who was injured while evacuating. "We had to make life-or-death decisions. The higher the floor, the more lonely you were. I can't get rid of my fear that it's going to happen again." She was prominent in an organisation set up for those who survived the terrorist attacks and appeared to revel in the publicity. It doesn't matter that she didn't have an article before this story broke. What matters is whether she's notable enough for an article now, and she clearly is. Nick mallory 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First of all, having 1 article about her in the NY Times is not "significant" coverage. Secondly, the Times article was not ABOUT her, but merely mentioned her in passing as a quote. this is just a news story and I see no reason for an encyclopedia entry on her --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you must be reading the wrong article because The NY Times that I linked to in my post above was entirely about her. It didn't just mention her in passing. The entire article was dedicated to her and the alleged deception she perpetrated. Second of all, I'm afraid you're wrong, per WP:Notability. Read it and you will see the following text regarding "significant coverage" (i.e. "notability") of a subject:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

"Significant coverage" is clearly defined and has nothing to do with the amount of coverage or with your personal idea or definition of the word, "siginificant." ask123 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article we are talking about is In a 9/11 Survival Tale, the Pieces Just Don’t Fit September 27, 2007.--Mightyms 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article. Thanks, Mightyms! ask123 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i put an S there when I shouldn't have. the TIME article that Nick mallory posted as a source, does not count as a source, it mentions her in passing, as a quote. And again, I will reitterate that ONE source is NOT enough to establish notability. Please read Wp:bio#Criteria_for_notability_of_people. It clearly states sources (as in plural -- more than one). This lady is not notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge and redirect. Not notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The person is notable for what they do and have done, not a single event. In my opinion this isn't really a "coat rack" article at all, and I know them when I see them. Burntsauce 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If she was notable before the hoax was revealed, then she's notable now. If her notability depends on the hoax story, then she's just a passing news item, and not notable. Many men have beer revealed to fake military careers and medals - those news stories don't make them notable. Being the head of a "survivor's" organization might be notable if she got enough coverage - I'm neurtral on that. MarkBul 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as necessary. This story is making the news the world over. It will definitely go down in the annals of 9/11 as one of the least salubrious episodes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - was just reported on the main ITN Early Evening News in Britain along with a report from their correspondent in the States. Rapido 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep. tania head has been in the news for her work as a "survivor" since 9/11 happened so this is definitely not a case of 15 minutes of fame. expand on her previous news/media appearances and have the recent hoax story be a separate item at the bottom. stolenbyme 18:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Articles in the US, UK, Malaysia and Australia, to name a few. The Chronicle of Philathropy has just reported that she's been asked to step down as head of World Trade Center Survivors’ Network. Regardless, she was notable before this, even if it was a complete lie.--Sethacus 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, probably notable before the controversy, certainly notable after it. Darksun 19:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The "around the word" coverage is just re-reporting what the NY Times story details, and so does not count as multiple coverage. Before the expose, she received passing reference, if that, and was not notable. Now she is notable for the expose. See also WP:BLP1E . Edison 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Notable and verifiable.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is not an article about a person, but about an incident in which a person is involved, and about which there are no provedn facts. There is no article in Wikipedia about World Trade Center Survivors' Network, if it where, a short mention could be made there about this incident. As it stands now this article is WP:COATRACK and and violates NOT#NEWS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A coatrack for what? Whats the secret deceptive message of the article? I coatrack is a deception between the title and the article itself. What is the deception? I am missing it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the coatrack in question is: The article title suggests the article is about Tania Head whereas the article is actually about the Tania Head controversy. To help subside those fears, we need to try to balance the article content between the controversy, and other general biographical information. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think thats just a Wikipedia article, a coatrack is a hidden POV fork, or a way of bringing in unrelated information that is meant for another article. I think you just want a name change, so why the deletion posturing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Two words: Rosie Ruiz. Became a synonym for a particular sort of cheater and cultural phenomenon. Also, this story is just emerging, and, like Richard Jewel, Ms. Head will find herself with a lasting if unwanted notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrekke (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment People who are an embarrassment like this are quickly forgotten - I doubt you'll see her in the news two weeks from now, or ever again. Richard Jewel was accused of a terrible public crime, and Rosie Ruiz scammed one of the major races in the world. The survivor group itself was not well known - I never heard of them until now, and I scan Google News every day. MarkBul 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And both Rosie Ruiz and Richard Jewell have their own Wikipedia entries. And Ruiz was a complete non-entity before her scam. Head was very prominent within 9/11 suvirvor circles. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "I never saw this thing mentioned on Google News" is hardly a standard candle for assessing notability.--Father Goose 07:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep She is the subject of articles all over the world (the world is not all English by the way) and the article is already sourced With NY Times, TIME Magazine, AP, TF1... Wanting to forget her quickly does not make her non-notable. Oh and WP:PAPER also.. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Is WP:NOT#NEWS valid for this event? She has made many claims over the years, this was not all said and done in a day. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• 'Keep the only basis for omission is if we carried nothing that happened in the world in the last year or so. The group she heads will certainly now merit an article--people may not have known about it before, but they will now. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The circumstances and motivation surrounding the creation of the article are irrelevant, if she's notable then she's notable. At any time in the past five or so years if this article had been created it would have been kept; she's a famous survivor of a major disaster and has gone on to become president of a prominent organization based on that disaster. The fact that she's now accused of being a fraud only adds to the notability, it doesn't detract from it. Bryan Derksen 05:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. —Nightstallion 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Keep." 9/11 was notable, and anyone who was either a survivor, or a charlatan posing as a survivor is, by extension, notable. Whether Head's story is verified as true, verified as false, or remains unverified, the fact that she was either a survivor or an opportunist who preyed on others' trust during and after America's worst terrorist tragedy is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.139.6.174 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Your logic is flawed. 9/11 cannot be denied as notable, not because of the event itself (in my opinion) but because of how it has been (and might be in the future) used by others to limit civil rights and start wars of invasion. Simply being a survivor of 9/11 does not make one notable: all one had to do was be there at that time and then evacuate the building. How Important, as an individual, is that? There are 20,000 of those. They do not all get Wikipedia articles. Nor is the list of all 20,000 names ever going to be listed here at Wikipedia. Hangers-on and imposters to 9/11 trail off into non-notability rapidly. Still, Head has made enough of a mess to qualify as notable, not just because of 9/11 or her fabrications, but because of the deep sense of betrayal some feel about her. Finally, it is a delicate point, but I also note Head's lack of physical beauty and how that might have played a role in her decision to create her fabrications. Was it merely for the celebrity? Clearly, she craved sympathetic attention, just as some genuine 9/11 survivors might. I make this last note with caution: Wikipedia is good at Who, Where, What and When, but Why is the more difficult kind of knowledge to obtain. While it might fill you with revulsion, I hope that Head eventually publishes some kind of fair, honest and self-aware explanation about why she did what she did, even if she is paid for the results. I do not want to second-guess what was going on in her mind, but I would like her to attempt to provide the rest of us with such an explanation someday.--Mightyms 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep/merge Definitely noteworthy, it's quite the cunning ruse however I do not feel it's worth of an entire article, maybe put it in the 9/11 article as part of a hoax section or the like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.9.242 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Even if she wasn't notable before (arguable either way) she is now. Nibios 19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately... She’s an abomination. But she is notable. Tiptopper 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She is notable; she has even made into the international media.--Svetovid 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think because of the attention she has gained from her lies we should leave the page to show how much of a liar she is. she has gained more attention than many of the other survivors and it is completely ridiculous that anybody should take her story serious. That's why her page should be left, to show she is nothing but a fraud and the history of what happened on 9-11 cant be warped by her huge lie SOhio142 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She might have been notable as one of only 19 putative survivors from at or above the point of impact and her prominent involvement with survivors' groups. The prominence of her exposure as a fraud seals it. We will have to make sure the article doesn't become a WP:COATRACK, but the subject itself (her act of fraud) is notable.--Father Goose 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Of the other 18, how many have articles? If they don't doesn't that call into question her pre-expose notability as part of a non-notable organization? Edison 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Her story was printed prior to the recent "expose": [9].--Father Goose 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • • Don't be misled by Google searches. some are just passing references and do not really count towards WP:N or WP:BIO while others are just word juxtaposition and have zero to do with this woman, such as "Jason and Tania head to Sauro's place." Try and limit the claim to stories with substantial coverage about her printed before the NY Times exposé . How many are there? Edison 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
          • In that Google search, there are three stories about her, two in German, and those are just ones fetched via Google News. I'd be willing to bet other news sources printed her story prior to the expose as well. All of this lends to her notability.--Father Goose 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
            • The two stories in German are not really about her, but she does receive brief mention. They are borderline as to "passing reference" or "substantial coverage." The "Press association" story might have more coverage, but is behind a paywall. These three would not likely suffice as the basis for establishing pre-exposé notability. Claiming that "other stories probably exist" is not a very convincing tactic. Edison 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
              • It's not a tactic, it's just an attempt to point out some stuff that is falling on deaf ears.--Father Goose 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
                • I hear you re the deaf ears. I say again: Rosie Ruiz was a complete non-entity, certainly not notable in the Wikipedia sense before she cheated in the Boston Marathon. You certainly wouldn't have found any Google hits about her if Google had existed back then. Now she is definitely notable. Head falls into exactly the same category, and certainly deserves a page if Ruiz does. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment 9/11 was certainly a notable event, though not everyone involved is individually notable. What makes Head more notable is that she sought publicity (whereas presumably the other 18 did not) and that she has turned out to be a fraud. The parallel to Rosie Ruiz is apt. There was a complete non-entity who sought publicity for an achievement and turned out to be a fraud. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep this is still notable as many before have said..Despite how it is/was a hoax. Otherwise there will be gaps in Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterchid (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if she has been exposed as an impostor, I think she is still notable precisely for that reason. --Vlad|-> 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She and the controversy about her are clearly notable. It's expectable to find her on Wikipedia, so I believe it is of public interest to keep (and refine) the article. dariopy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is very well done - the addition of the Spanish language material adds a lot that I couldn't find in the New York Times. And it's one of those classic New York City hoaxes, like "Omar's School of Begging."Jmkleeberg 16:49, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodna Shopping Centre

Goodna Shopping Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources to verify the content. Google gives less than 30 uniwue hits, including Wikipedia mirrors, none look like a good source. It has a short mention in the Goodna, Queensland article, and that's all we should have unless we have sources. (The "other businesses" section should be removed in any case per WP:NOT#DIR, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.) Huon 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The shopping centre's actual name is St Ives Shopping Centre. Orderinchaos 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:RP Data has been put down originally as a reference which does provide this information with paid login. Have further added Ipswich City Council reference which provides another point of reference. This and the other businesses section provide detailed information for the area and a very important link back to the Goodna, Queensland article.

If further references are needed for article to those already provided, please advise and I will make the necessary additions. Goodstone 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also have added further reference for the shop list being the centre manager - Ray White Commercial who manage on behalf of Geewood P/L. Goodstone 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be a shopping center like any other. This fails WP:N as not having significant coverage and secondary sources. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable shopping center, important only to locals. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that it satisfies the Australian standards, whatever they may be, such as gross leasable area for a "regional shopping centre" which the article claims it is. (Those 1982 Australia-specific governmental or trade organization standards for Australia[10]have not yet been added to the Shopping center article, despite repeated requests to those saying they have access to them). It is in a town of under 8,000 and in the photo looks like an average strip mall. No independent and reliable references (other than one possibility behind a paywall) to show it satisfies WP:N. Edison 22:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment:The RPData link is a paid service. However the Ipswich City Council PDOnline website http://pdonline.ipswich.qld.gov.au/pdonline/masterplan/enquirer/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=237735&container=on which was added as the second reference out of three is certainly an independent and reliable government source which displays the shopping centre owner. (Note need to enter the “2 Smiths Road; Goodna” address to verify this.)

The suburb it is in does have a population of 7,939 based on the 2006 census (Growth of over 20% over the 2001 census.) However it is also the major shopping centre that services neighbouring suburbs bellbird park, gailes, and wacol with a wider catchment of additional suburbs. The population in Bellbird Park (4,178), Gailes (1,652) and Wacol (2,584) combined is 8,414 and combined with Goodna brings total population to over 16,000 + extra catchment areas. With the size of Australia and the huge sparse area covered by the Australian population this is considered a reasonable size (Remember Australia’s population is 20 million compared to over 300 million for USA).

I would agree with this - Goodna is a major service suburb in outer western Brisbane, and is on a major transport route between two major regional centres (Brisbane itself and Ipswich). This is not clear from the Goodna article, at least partly because there's been some debate between Brisbane and the rest of the project as to whether suburbs outside the Brisbane City Council area are suburbs of Brisbane, and no-one outside is game enough to go in and fix them all :P Orderinchaos 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodna Shopping Centre is not just a strip mall. Initially I only took two photos as I did not want to have too large a gallery initially. This could be added upon as desired.

With regards to the external reference link on (Those 1982 Australia-specific governmental or trade organization standards for Australia[1]have not yet been added to the Shopping center this is a Western Australian planning document and would not be applicable to Queensland where this is based.

Having said that I am very open to recommendations on how to improve this article further and a FA Class or similar Shopping Centre article (especially an Australian one if it exists) to assist in developing this article further.

Again I would certainly continue to argue the case against deletion and this article is within the scope of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers which was added afterwards. Goodstone 09:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Initial Shopping Centre Mall infobox has now been added. Goodstone 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Goodhouse, malls are not of encyclopedic notability, unless there is something specially particular to them (being the first or the biggest in their country for instance).--Victor falk 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this - this argument's been had *many* times before. Orderinchaos 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No claim to notabilty whatsoever.--Victor falk 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 23:12, 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. W.marsh 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freq out

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

Does not appear notable to me, IMHO. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. TexasAndroid 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not meet WP:N nor WP:MUSIC (per nom). - Rjd0060 14:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that it is possible to verify this article from this website as well as this website. Perhaps it would be better to add those links to this article. However, I am not sure it meets notability guidelines. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You are correct. There is a difference between verifiability and notability and this just is not notable according to the standards in WP:MUSIC. - Rjd0060 14:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability is not inherited. Subject of article does not meet WP:Music. A1octopus 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B. J. Nilsen

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

Does not appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. AFD instead of Speedy in case I'm missing something, but as it is he just does not appear notable to me. TexasAndroid 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Although it is a stub, there are guidelines stubs should meet too. This clearly does not. Probably could have Speedy'd it. - Rjd0060 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. A quick google search shows up very few or no reliable hits for this subject. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this subject as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to meet at least criterion 5, having released three albums for Touch Music and three for Ash International. Hal peridol 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Has enough albums out as BJ Nilsen and as Hazard on notable labels to satisfy criterion 5.--Sethacus 01:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "In the early 1990s, he spent a couple of years as a guitarist/bass player in several local bands" yea, so?? NN. Tiptopper 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Appears to fail WP:MUSIC for notability. --Sc straker 04:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, has released seven albums on notable labels, one of his albums is also reviewed on AMG. 96T 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per 96T. Here's a BBC review. Bláthnaid 10:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as passing musical notability -- notable in his genre, several albumns or CD's on a major label. Bearian 15:19, 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 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jana Winderen

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

Does not appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. AFD instead of Speedy in case I'm missing something, but as it is she just does not appear notable to me. TexasAndroid 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Speedy- Not completely notable & does not meet WP:MUSIC. - Rjd0060 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. A quick google search shows up very few or no reliable hits for this subject. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this subject as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC, at least as the article stands currently. Hal peridol 16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. No need to speedy, if something notable can be found in the next 5-7 days then great! Burntsauce 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Tiptopper 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources provided and evidence of notability given. JJL 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'll add references now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, verifiable references needed. Iamchrisryan 14:12, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Strategy Guide

Video Strategy Guide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom (WP:NEO). - Rjd0060 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This should probably have been speedily deleted as spam and nonsense when it was tagged as such, it certainly fails as an encyclopaedia article. The creator argues that it is a term used by video game sites, which it is, but only in a way that is basically obvious from the title. It is another term for a walkthrough, so a redirect (perhaps without the capitalization) may be appropriate. It fails the guidelines on neologisms and is not properly sourced, since the many weblinks are a not to definitions and analysis of the term, only examples of its use. Cruftbane 18:44, 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. W.marsh 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content cut from Half-Life 2

Content cut from Half-Life 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The fact that content was cut from the early storyboards of Half-Life 2 is probably notable enough for inclusion in that article, but what we have here is a level of detail vastly in excess of what is appropriate to a general encyclopaedia. A very long article describing in minute detail by reference to essentially a single source the elements which are not in a game? I think that's the stuff of game websites and blogs, not for an encyclopaedia. Cruftbane 13:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete At the moment, I have to say there is significant coverage of this material, enough to warrant an article. However, with only three refs and one being the Half Life manual, I would have to say it does not have verifiable, secondary sources. Also, most of the edits have been without edit summaries which is always suspicious to me. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't reference the half life manual, it references this book.P4k 04:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The article is pretty well written in my opinion. About notable enough, and it provides too much content to be included in Half-Life 2. Sources need to be found though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for the same reasons listed above and because I found it interesting and informative. It isn't causing much harm by being here. --pie4all88 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete / Transwiki there must be an HLWiki out there somewhere, but this is a pure gameguide and unsuitable. No real-world context or analysis. <eleland/talkedits> 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not a game guide (as the content is not in the game ;) but interesting and valuable background information on the (very notable) game which, as Twsx said, is too much to include in the HL2 article itself. As for sources, this mostly seems to be based on Half Life 2: Raising the Bar (saying so as I have read it myself) which is mentioned already as a source, though per-page sourcing may be appropriate. -mrbartjens 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, could use a little tidying up, but certainly not deletion. 71.246.238.144 14:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC) (User Sparky2002B)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Festival for Peace

Festival for Peace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was originally nominated for speedy deletion, and I felt uncomfortable doing so. Appears to be fully original research and lacking in notability, considering this line from the text: "This is a first-hand eyewitness account and there are few, if any, corroborating sources that still exist today." SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Article does not assert its importance or provide any credible notability. - Rjd0060 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Author respectfully begs to differ on the Notability issue. The article describes a concert which was a) one of a group of such concerts set to raise money for anti-war candidates (as described by Ms Joplin in cited interview on US nat'l television in Aug 1970) and b) the last time janis joplin performed with her original band as well as her last major performance before her death. I do not yet have in hand the proper corroboration of several of the factors that make this article noteworthy, so can not post them yet. As I, and hopefully others, develop them they will be. In my opinion, the function of Wikipedia is to present information and increase knowledge of events and items with some intellectual, historic or news value. I believe that a series of anti-war concerts in the Vietnam era, which drew a wide spectrum of the top folk, blues, soul, jazz and rock artists of the period to raise funds for anti-war candidates meets that standard. Just because an event has been buried for decades does not erode its notability. I hope you'll agree and allow myself and others to work on this article in progress. sincerely,

Bebopnjazz 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• VERY weak keep. A stadium sized concert with that many notable acts could pass a WP:N test, but sources need to be found, so I say "hold on" and give it a chance to be fleshed out by author(s). Also, the last paragraph, as it stands at this writing, is an aside, and belongs in the discussion page, not article page as it does add anything to the encyclopedic nature of the article. W/O major improvements, I'll change to delete. -- Keeper | 76 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable, because of the artists who played there and for historical perspective on recent concerts like Live 8. User:Krator (t c)

• Change from VERY weak keep to Weak Keep. The article is improving based on contribs by Bebopnjazz, but more reliable sources need to be found. Be careful not to just "assert it's importance" based on your own knowledge and opinion, however correct they may be; it makes the article sound more like an "argument for why it should be notable" instead of an article that encyclopedically states the facts as they happened. Doing so will lead to a re-nomination based on an original research (WP:OR) issue. I have no doubt that the event is notable, just needs sources. Have you checked the bio pages/google for the artists that performed? Perhaps their pages will lead to some sources that document the concert (reliably)? Just my thoughts. I don't know enough about the event or artists to contribute myself, sorry. Keeper | 76 15:08, 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. Carlossuarez46 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of seiyū

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

This list is redundant, as all notable seiyū should be in the Category:Japanese voice actors. The reasons for keeping this during the previous nomination are a bit weak: adding red links to non-notable voice actors is against WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. I don't think the list is very usefull, as it doesn't seem to be maintained: the history shows mostly Ip users adding and removing seiyū without giving any reasons. Ninja neko 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The list itself is fine, and it's OK if it's redundant with the category, since the list gives a little info on what they appeared in. However, it's very poorly sourced, that needs to be fixed. --UsaSatsui 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, on top of that, it is just too general of a topic to have a list for. But if kept, should be renamed to List of Japanese voice actors per WP:USEENGLISH. --Farix (Talk) 20:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not useful when compared to the category.--SeizureDog 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Keb25 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like the menu from the hunan wok at the strip mall by my house Tiptopper 01:40, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo G

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

The only assert of notability is that the artist worked in a short period with Three 6 Mafia. The artists is not even signed to a major labe. Tasc0 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: if this results delete, these articles should be deleted to: Remember Me Ballin', Blame It On The Funk, Up In Smoke (album), Up in Smoke (album), The Antidote (album), Live & Learn, Contact (Indo G album).--Tasc0 00:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article does not appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, as per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, point 6: "was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (Three 6 Mafia). Has been a musical influence on the Memphis rap scene (active and recording since 1992 + single with Gangsta Boo). Pia 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: how long is this AfD going to last? For Pete's sake.--Tasc0 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). — Gordonofcartoon 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burcu Güneş

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

There are no sources to confirm notability. I looked, but couldn't find any sources in English. There's an article on another Wiki, but it doesn't appear to have sources verifying notability either. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. Burcu Gunes is very popular even here in Australia. Eregli bob 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think her album discography passes WP:MUSIC, and that the benefit of the doubt should be granted to avoid systemic bias (i.e. risk of assuming non-notability because her work is in Turkish). For the actual information, her official website www.burcugunes.com has an English section with a biography. But to assess third-party sources, you need someone who reads Turkish. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey if anyone can help. Gordonofcartoon 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:Gordonofcartoon, the benefit of the doubt to avoid systemic bias is worthwhile ... and the discography it asserts seems to meet WP:BAND regardless, although as per nom the sources are hard to find in English. (I totally get why this got nominated... it's borderline.) Accounting4Taste 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep WP:BIAS, too early for AFD. The article is quite long for a 6 hour old article (yet it can still be considered a stub). She is a popular singer in Turkey (I am not a fan of her though, don't know why, she has a quite beautiful voice). I did not notice any mistakes when I read the article, but it is unsourced now. I think inserting {{Unreferenced}} would be a better option than AFD for this new article, we should give time for improvements. She should meet the notability criteria. She has been on an international tour. According to tr:Burcu Güneş, her two songs are included in a French compilation album. Her second album (that she created with people like Horacio ‘‘El Negro’’ Hernandez, Jim Beard, ve Arto Tunç) sold 700,000 (not a bad number), again according to that article. Before being famous, she was the runner up for being the Turkish representative in Eurovision. Also you can check her website for news on her in media. I checked Hürriyet only which had 125 news listed involving her. This is only about her. There are interviews with her like this. She was the Turkish representative in a competititon and won a jury award in her early years in the sector [11]. Now I checked the fan site, and I guess the main source of the article is her biography there (no copyvio though). The article needs improvement. Deniz^T_C 13:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw. Okay, okay, I was wrong on this one, and I'm sorry. to my credit, though, it was very hard to find sources in English, the article didn't make it clear that she was so popular, and the creator took off the prod without giving me any kind of information about it. Thank you guys for setting me straight. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also, and to Denizz for checking it out. I think I'm allowed to close the AFD. Gordonofcartoon 13:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Shanks

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

Self-promotional vanity page for a guy who seems to have done some website and logo work for a very small Star Wars fan-film, then had to stop because of other commitments and was somehow credited as "Associate Producer". Fails WP:BIO. Thomjakobsen 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: NN. Article has been tagged since January, and thats plenty of time to fix up the article, which hasn't been done to meet WP:BIO. - Rjd0060 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:Notability, WP:BAND, WP:BIO, or any other notability test (even with respect to model rockets). Accounting4Taste 17:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn Tiptopper 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, way short of WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 02:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, lists own blog as reference Iamchrisryan 14:15, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Laughter Day

World Laughter Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

unofficial day started my non-notable group/movement. Sfacets 12:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While a nice idea, completely non-notable. Renee 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google check did turn up results indicating that this is more notable than just some random made-up celebration. It has been recognized by the governor's office in Michigan [12], and while this is not independent, there is an indication that some celebration in Copenhagen made it into the Guiness Book of World Records [13]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Laughter Yoga would seem to be appropriate. The Laughter Yoga group is barely significant, certainly not sufficiently so for two articles. Cruftbane 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Do I read this right? 27,900 articles about "World Laughter Day"? Maybe some obsessive shithead will cry foul, but this one seems to merit its own article. Mandsford 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep looks notable to me. --S.dedalus 01:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Laughter Yoga. This does not merit a pg on its own. IP198 20:13, 3 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 -- non-notable. --Haemo 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If I...

If I... (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article previously deleted [14] at AFD so bringing it here rather than prodding. Unable to find proof of praise in article (although music video apparently did feature in DVD extras, the song was on a "from and inspired by" soundtrack and did not appear in the film ([15]). Notability is not inherited. All I have found are very brief (one word) passing reviews when discussing DVD extras of [Crash (2004 film)]]. Kateshortforbob 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (ETA: I moved this article to removed quotation marks before nominating it. Original title "If I...". Kateshortforbob 12:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

• Comment: If the article was previously deleted at AFD and recreated with the same content, you can tag it with WP:CSD#G4. shoy 12:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know whether the content is the same or not - there isn't a way to look at previously deleted pages, is there? --Kateshortforbob 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Administrators can see the deleted page log. Useight 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I looked at the deleted version of the page ("If I..."), and, it's a lot shorter, and, IMO, worded differently. Created by the same user, however. Same subject, however. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I also looked and the new version is not eligible for speedy deletion as re-created content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet notability standard. Renee 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If said song really must be mentioned at all then it should be on the band's page. Inadequate notability under WP:Music for it's own article. A1octopus 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illawarra Pelister

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

This appears to be a defunct team in a non-notable league, and the article provides no assertion of notability. Lou.weird 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This almost looks like a backyard or local city's football club. At any rate, it's not notable per WP:N. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom (i.e. non-notable club, NN league). Hal peridol 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. The names seem to be made up, at any rate a NN club in the Wollongong region of NSW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.254.67 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and as unverifiable. Bearian 15:22, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre 2000

Centre 2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Defunct shopping mall. Nothing asserting notability in Google news archives. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• A demolished shopping mall? Speedy Delete --Gavin Collins 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's fun to read about these rather dull shopping malls as of late. I'm not sure why people write about them. Anyway, there is no evidence of notability and, according to the "article", the building does not exist anymore. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The first nomination was a group nomination. Nothing notable about this one. Vegaswikian 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Just because the article is undeveloped is no reason to delete an article about a historically and culturally significant building.68.144.31.71 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)— 68.144.31.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Actually, if it fails WP:N, which it does, there is reason to delete this article. Add some secondary, verifiable refernces and that will help. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This AFD has been spammed to many users by the above IP. See their contributions. Metros 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This was not "spammed", I simply invited those that participated in the original discussion to renew discussion. Not only are you threatened that this article might survive deletion, but you're so frightened by the idea you send me threatening messages to the talk page? How sad for you that you should care so much about what does or doesn't go up on someone else's website. Do you know what fascist countries do to stop the truth from being disseminated - they send threatening messages and prevent people from talking to each other. Whomever emailed me to warn me just took the first step down a dark road. Good luck with your "victory" here. User:68.144.31.71
    • Comment Oddly those who participated in the original discussion and !voted delete were not invited to this. Please see WP:CANVAS. Metros 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sigh' WP:CANVAS isn't a policy, merely a behavioural guideline. If you want to invite the rest of the Deletionist Brigade™ to the party, I see no way in which I can stop you? In fact, I see you've already done so. Let the debate continue in good faith.139.48.81.98 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I've done nothing of the like and would appreciate it if you stopped your wild accusations and comparisons to facism. Metros 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the fact that the mall is demolished is not a ground for deletion; the total absence of any sourced notability is. The page needs sourcing to show that, at some stage, it was notable. TerriersFan 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As TruthbringerToronto stated in the first afd "Once notable, always notable. A mall that was notable when it was operating does not cease to be notable after it is demolished."  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability does not just expire, the building appears significant enough to retain an article about it. Burntsauce 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - sure but where are the sources to show it ever had any notability? TerriersFan 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto in the previous AfD. bbx 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of sources. No notability is established in the article, and very few sources seem to exist online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - this is false. Two minutes of research on the internet found several references, including the use of the facility to host an annual Armenian festival. I don't suppose you looked that hard.139.48.81.98 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the mall closed, it's quite likely that the closure would be reported in the local paper, thus notability can be established with a little research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reply Two minutes of internet research found several references to the mall, including the hosting of an annual Armenian festival. I've updated the article.139.48.81.98 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The one source that would lend me to move to a keep stance would be the one about the Armenian festival. The festival is a big event. But, it coincidentally ocurrs at the site of the former mall. The other three sources, to me, are not worth noting and appear to be lists of some sort indicating dates when stores were in business. Can you find anymore good secondary, verifiable sources like the one about the festival? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This was a small mall that was not notable while it was open. Internet references are, in and of themselves, not signs of notability. An article with the mall as the main focus from an independent source would help. Lacking that, delete. Vegaswikian 06:14, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centennial Mall

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

No assertion of notability. Nothing asserting notability in Google news archives. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• A shopping mall that has been torn down? Speedy Delete--Gavin Collins 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another mall that's appears not to be notable. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Just because the article is undeveloped is no reason to delete an article about a historically and culturally significant building.68.144.31.71 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)— 68.144.31.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The assertion of covering a centenial anniversary would be enough to keep the article. However, it has no references or citations to back up that claim. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability sourced or asserted. TerriersFan 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No claim to notabilty whatsoever.--Victor falk 15:44, 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. Carlossuarez46 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Consulate Siege

Italian Consulate Siege (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fictional siege in a minor British TV series, of no provable independent significance, written in-universe, completely unreferenced. I believe this fails the guidelines for fictional subjects. Cruftbane 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Plot slummary. SolidPlaid 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Moved to "The Italian Consulate Siege" (Ultima Force episode), just in case fans of Ultima Force lobby to keep. I like SolidPlaid's new word... maybe it's just a typo, but "slummary" is what most of these episode summaries are. Mandsford 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• DeletePer above and the grammar error in title. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dividing Line

The Dividing Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Never Go Back (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unreferenced since creation, also tagged as lacking evidence of significance, episodes of a minor British TV series and there is sufficient information about the episode in the main article to satisfy the encyclopaedic purpose of documenting the series. Cruftbane 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both As pure plot summaries. SolidPlaid 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both If anybody was that interested in the plots of Ultimate Force they'd watch the episodes concerned. The information on the programme's main page is adequate for the rest of us. A1octopus 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Redirecting doesn't require an AFD W.marsh 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charla and Mirna

Charla and Mirna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about two Amazing Race contestants as a team.

Not worthy of a separate article, if these people were so notable they would surely deserve their own separate entry for each person. All of the information on the page is already covered in The Amazing Race 5 contestants, and as there is no significantly new information on their page, Charla and Mirna are not worthy of their own article.

The article has been nominated for deletion before, but the entire discussion basically consisted of WP:ITSNOTABLE without any reason or elaboration. I suggest this be redirected to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. Hoogiman 09:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but ensure that whichever season of the programme is relevant (seasons 5 and 10?) contains their names. This doesn't meet the notability requirements for reality-show contestants, in that these people have not won a season's competition, or become notable for some activity outside the programme, or have appeared on two different programs, etc. Accounting4Taste 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I should have been more clear. These two have not appeared on two different programs such as "Survivor'" and "Amazing Race" -- like Rob and Amber, upon whom this does confer notability. Appearing on two different seasons of "Amazing Race" does not confer notability if Charla and Mirna didn't win in either instance, at least that's how I read the policy. Accounting4Taste 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. They are not notable for anything else. --Sc straker 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this alrady passed on AfD less than a year ago as a keep (not even a no consensus, or merge and redirect without deleting as suggested above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This only passed AFD because the keep votes were WP:ITSNOTABLE without any reason or elaboration. As you can see, your vote is as vague as the votes on the last AFD, so why should this article be kept? Hoogiman 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep due to "consensus keep" earlier this year. They have been on more than one AR season, and I believe as individuals, more than one reality show (according to my quick read of last AfD). Still notable. R. Baley 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOTAGAIN, there are several issues addressed here that have not been addressed in the previous discussion. The only other assertions of notability in the article were: one had a guest appearance on one episode of a Celebrity Poker Challenge and one went on a few episodes of a Celebrity Challenge program on a cable network. An appearance on one of those programs alone is definitely not enough to assert notability. These subjects did not appear in any more major reality TV shows, nor have any of them won individually any show. The last AFD discussion failed to assert notability, with one exception, a comment of WP:GHITS. Can you say anything else to actually assert real notability towards the subjects of the article? Hoogiman 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sc straker. Tiptopper 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Charla and Mirna, are, I believe, only notable for Charla being the only Amazing Race contestant with dwarfism. It is quite frankly condescending to give them an article constantly praising the team, as while they did race well on occasions, they were definitely not outstanding in any way. Redirect to Amazing Race 5 contestants, they are not deserving of their own article. User:IStalkKirby 13:06, 7 October 2007

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

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

The result was Speedy delete through WP:IAR. A hoax this obvious deserves no more attention. Fram 11:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon H. 3:16

Jon H. 3:16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. No Google hits for "Mikah Yasthabon" and no relevant Google hits for "Jon H"+"Greek Orthodox Church". Nothing for "Jon H 3:16" either. Bencherlite^Talk 09:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - hoax Fosnez 10:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought about that, briefly, then remembered that hoax isn't a speedy delete criteria. Bencherlite^Talk 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax; I'd say speedy but that's not one of the criteria, and it's not bad enough to qualify under CSD#G3. --Darkwind (talk) 10:47, 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. Consensus is that the topic lacks significant coverage to meet WP:N. Jreferee t/c 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy (festival)

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

Contested prod. Non notable new festival with 375 visitors. I haven't found one reliable independent source reporting on the festival (a newspaper or some such). Fram 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There does not appear to be significant coverage of this event and thus fails WP:N. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it's news, not really an article. Can anyone find cites? Bearian 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• If the alumni or attendees were notable, I could support a keep...JJJ999 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Alumni? Of a festival? Anyway, notability is not inherited, if there are no sources about the festival, it doesn't matter who attended it. Fram 07:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• DoNotDelete A quick search of burning related websites turns up several links to the festival. Outside of that it should be kept as it is a subset of a much larger sub culture that was started with Burning Man. As to cites I had no problem with finding posts on LiveJournal as well as MySpace about it. And given court rulings over the last couple of years blogging IS a form of journalism with all the protections that say a newspaper gets. For a wide range of comments and reviews on the festival search Dirty Southern Burners. CLHorus 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep then.JJJ999 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You agree to keep it based on the arguments of a single purpose account which have absolutely no grounds in any policy or guideline? Court rulings have no impact on Wikipedia's considerations of blogs, and Livejournal and MySpace are definitely not reliable sources for Wikipedia. As for "Dirty Southern Burners", coupled with Alchemy it gives only 5 Google hits[16], two of them from MySpace, one unrelated to the festival, and two of the DSB page with reports, indicating that it happened (which wasn't doubted), and that those who went had a good time. Great, but why exactly do you want to keep this article? Fram 07:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trenches (band)

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

It does not follow the WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles guidlines. The band has not released an album, no sources are cited in the article except for a self made myspace page. Gh5046 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsigned, no album releases, no third-party sources adds up to not meeting WP:Band. I wonder why the speedy didn't take? Accounting4Taste 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 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapture debate

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

This unreferenced (and liberally {{fact}} tagged) article appears to be a fork of Summary of Christian eschatological differences and rapture, both of which cover the debate more than adequately.

As a substantial and unreferenced article, it reads as a personal essay. It is essentially as monograph. Cruftbane 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this forking article and merge the good stuff into rapture.
• Delete - The "See article X" wiki linking in this entry covers the information well enough to make this redundant with Rapture and the other related articles. ◄Zahakiel► 02:27, 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. Carlossuarez46 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreleased Victoria Beckham Album

Unreleased Victoria Beckham Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Demo album, unreleased and abandoned. NN per WP:MUSIC#Albums "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel its notable because of whos career it is. Beckham only officially released one CD and whether or not she is doing music is a big part of her career which is wikipedia worthy. This particular unreleased album has been the source of much speculation and news by the media and fans around her. I pretty much spelled it out in the article. Its not merely a bootleg or demo (there is mixes of booth in there) but its actually about 2 and a half cancelled albums that have leaked or been involved in her career. She even released 2 singles from these cancelled albums and released another 4 songs from them. So there is some notability there. There's a lot of disinformation floating out on the net about it; I think it would help if there was a place that was legit and had the legit history of it. Im not sure why it wouldnt be worthy by that; as its an intergral part of her career. However I guess thats an editors decision to make. --Thegingerone 07:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regular editors like you and me can't delete articles. It'll be up to whichever admin closes the AfD. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC for notability. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The only demos/unrelease albums I could see being notable would be from Elvis, the Beetles, Frank Sinatra, or other Major Music stars. Unfortunately, if a regular singer has an Unrelease, Unpublished, forgotten albums, I don't see how those are notable (regardless if she was in the Spice Girls prior to her solo career). --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability of artist is not automatically transferable their work. In the case of unreleased albums and bootlegs I hold that only if the artist is famous and revered on a par with (for example) The Beatles, and the unpublished album in question has large scale (underground) distribution, following, and - most importantly - independent reviews - then it is simply not notable. A1octopus 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G1 Pedro :  Chat  08:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny "Angles" Oakley

Johnny "Angles" Oakley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails both WP:HOAX and WP:NOTE. Note zero G-hits for both "Johnny Angles Oakley" and ["Johnny Oakley" +Angles]. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. 2 year olds winning $17,000 in 2 hours of pool, dating an absurd list of celebrities before the age of 23, and winning a total of $157mil, all without a single mention anywhere else, kinda sails way past remote plausibility... -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:39, 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 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prison Mike

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

The subject matter (but not the actual content, which is poorly written) of this article has been merged to the parent article, The Convict, with consensus of three editors opposed by the original author. There are no GFDL issues. The character "Prison Mike" has only ever appeared in one episode of one show, and at this stage it does not seem likely that the character (actually merely a persona adopted by the main character) will appear in any other episodes. I suggest that we discuss this article with a view to deleting and restoring as redirect, rather than accept the protracted attempts of the original author to remove the link to the merged article. Tony Sidaway 05:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect. I don't see this as a likely search term, so the redirect is unnecessary. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect- Something this minute doesn't even approach deserving it's own page. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- He's a minor character who only appeared once (for a whole 3 minutes) and is unlikely to appear again. In addition, most of this article is just rehashing the episode and Michael's life, which are already in their respective articles. Reading over Talk:List of characters from The Office (US), it has consistently been the consensus that characters who do not appear in at least two episodes do not merit their own article, nor even a mention in a list of minor characters, due to their non-notability.Eatcacti 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others, probably no reason to even keep a redirect at this stage. Wizardman 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly; this is (to use an overused phrase, but appropriate here) fancruft. Cruftbane 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Well written, informative, no harm. Tony Sidaway's opinion that the article "poorly written" is not only wrong but it sounds personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay123 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  I apologise for that. I could have made my point without making a hurtful statement of opinion. I think I've been unnecessarily antagonistic in this affair in general, and that wasn't right. I do think that the current write-up of Prison Mike in The Convict is more than adequate, however. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 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. Carlossuarez46 04:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Guteklint

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

This musician is not notable; fails WP:MUSIC. The band in which he played bass for 1 year is notable, but he has not inherited that, as a quick google search confirms. Any useful content that could go in the article in the future could be merged. As it stands, there is no useful content. Markdsgraham 04:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article fails WP:BIO. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete My take on the article: Guy joins a band for a year, gets fired, band moves on. That's it. There is clearly nothing of note about this person. Fails WP:BIO horribly.--Sethacus 01:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need It Feat. Dane

Need It Feat. Dane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nn single from nn album by red-linked (and nn) group, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 04:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No use keeping songs from a deleted band. I've had several of these speedily deleted before. Spellcast 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We actually agreed on something! Bearian 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dane Farwell

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

Delete basically sub-stub BLP of nn stuntman and actor, fails WP:BIO with those red flags of non-notability of modern-day bios: we don't know where or when he was born Carlossuarez46 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO although I note he was a stunt double for whoever it was in the Ghostface costume in Scream -- which I thought was an anonymous stunt performer. Accounting4Taste 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN - too bad his Scream role was uncredited... Tiptopper 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. --Sc straker 02:26, 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. Carlossuarez46 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CryptArchiver

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

Software article with no reliable third-party sources attesting to notability. A search turns up download sites, but not the kind of coverage required. Thomjakobsen 03:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an archive of available software. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:25, 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 keep or at least, there's clearly no consensus to delete all of these. W.marsh 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Mirror Image

My Mirror Image (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

My Best Friend's Baby's Baby and My Baby's Baby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Coffee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Friend With Money (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

His Story IV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Road to Nowhere (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Perspective (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Therapeutic Month (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Night to Remember (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Fishbowl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Scrubs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My No Good Reason (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Long Goodbye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Words of Wisdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Their Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Turf War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Cold Shower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Conventional Wisdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Rabbit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My Point of No Return (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've packaged in all the articles in the sixth season of Scrubs except for My Musical. Wikipedia:Notability states that articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These episodes haven't received much, or in most cases nearly any, coverage from secondary sources and consist of plot summaries, trivia, songs used, and other primary information. 17Drew 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. They just need more sources. Like any other TV show or movie, primary information is going to dominate the article, as it should. In this case, it's Scrubs which I don't even need Google to know it's notable. And may I ask, why just season 6? All the other seasons still have their episodes. - Rocket000 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scrubs is notable, but individual episodes are not since notability is not inherited and there is not out-of-universe information from secondary sources. I only nominated season 6 since nominating every (or nearly every) Scrubs episode would be rejected since there would be too many articles for people to have the chance to evaluate each one's notability. 17Drew 03:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please don't cite "essays" to argue your case, since consensus has not been previously established. Second, I meant because of the notability of Scrubs I don't have to use Google to know there's information out there on each episode, not the show itself. Actually, nevermind, I'll just point you to WP:IMRIGHTPOLICY ...once I write it. -Rocket000 04:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this then: The fact that the show is notable and has received coverage by secondary sources does not mean that each individual episode has received coverage by secondary sources. Referring to the essay is a quicker and less patronizing way of saying the same thing, where as referring to WP:IMRIGHTPOLICY (which would be an essay, not a policy) could easily be rebutted since there's no reasoning behind it. If you are aware of significant coverage by secondary sources, please provide it. From what I see, almost all of the information out there is from unreliable sources, and there's not enough information to provide an encyclopedic article with out-of-universe information from independent sources. 17Drew 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, I just searched for an episode at random - My Turf War - on Goggle yielding independent information (which simply confirmed stuff already in the articles) in addition to reviews/commentary, which I added a few links to the bottom of the page. Honestly, I don't watch the show and have little interest in expanding the articles, so the burden of proof shouldn't be on me, even though that's what happen in a situation like this. If we had some really dedicated fans trying to keep these articles, significant references would be provided, and they would be kept. It all comes down to timing - when an article is nominated and who is reading/responding the nomination at the time. That's why things are nominated over and over again until the desired result is obtained. POV deletionism. Another thing, this season comes out next month on DVD[17], which will generate a lot more secondary source coverage. - Rocket000 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From the sources Rocket provided i was able to start a critical reception passage on My Turf War, only a paragraph, but thats all i have time to do tonight. However, just from a quick google source, Rocket has instantly removed the main source of your complaint, Real-world info does exist, it just isn't on the articles yet. Be patient, remember that wikipedia has no deadline, and is not Paper, and you'll get your sources--Jac16888 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Two links were added. Two sources cannot sustain a whole article. Especially considering TV Squad is not a reliable source. It's published by Weblogs, Inc. and has little to no editorial oversight, essentially amounting to an organized blog. 17Drew 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats why i said it was a start, How many links do you want?. TV Squad has its own article, and its writers are "expert bloggers" basically another way of calling them reviewers. You want real world sources, and some have been added, and more will be--Jac16888 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "expert bloggers" are "expert bloggers", meaning that the site doesn't have much editorial oversight and shouldn't be considered a reliable source. There should be enough sources to establish the article's notability and that the articles don't fail WP:NOT#PLOT. 17Drew 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment They don't need "more" references - they need "some" references. Without secondary sources, each episode must go. And primary sources should not dominate articles - television shows are not exceptions to Wikipedia requirements. Plot summaries do not make encyclopedic entries. MarkBul 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but why delete these, I think they're at least a start. Why have someone re-do what's already there? I always hated do the summary part anyway. With these in place, it'll be much easier to make worthy article. By the wording of your first sentence, you make it sound like there are no sources. No, they need more/other/different/additional references. Anyway, with all the books out there on TV show seasons, I know there are plenty to choose from. Or just pick up a Entertainment Weekly or a TV Guide. By the way, I meant primary information should dominate not primary sources. When you go to a article about a movie, your gonna want to know what it's about, who's in it, what's it rated, when it came out, what songs are in it, etc. That's primary information. Things obtain directly from the source. It should be dominate. I mean reviews are important, but, since those are POV, not so much in a encyclopedia. Facts are better. - Rocket000 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I am tired of seeing things like episodes of notable TV shows and albums by notable artists WP:LAWYERed into deletion based on WP:NOTINHERITED. A description of each episode of a wildly popular TV show is inherently encyclopedic, but would be way too long to merge into the parent article, so it makes sense to split them off from the parent article. Demanding multiple independent source coverage for every episode does nothing but remove relevant, encyclopedic content and make this website less worthwhile for people seeking information about the show. Some of us are trying to write an encyclopedia, here. Chubbles 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  If you disagree with subjects needing coverage by secondary sources, discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Notability. But the fact that you disagree with a pretty fundamental guideline doesn't mean that there isn't consensus behind it and that it shouldn't be followed. 17Drew 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Again, you are adhering to the letter of the policy while violating its spirit. The notability of Scrubs is unquestionable; the content of its episodes is the only reason it has an article, because if it did not have episodes, it would not be a TV show, no one would watch it and no one would write about it in reliable sources. The content of the episodes is encyclopedic. If you have a better suggestion for where this content belongs on Wikipedia, I'll hear it, but "in the circular file" is a foolish answer. Chubbles 07:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOT#PLOT unequivocally states that articles about fiction require out-of-universe information from secondary sources, in both letter and spirit. It also states that it applies to series and stand-alone works. An appropriate level of detail is already present in List of Scrubs episodes. 17Drew 07:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Scrubs isn't Doctor Who but it's a notable TV programme and there is enough useful information about each show to warrant an individual article. How would wikipedia be improved by removing these pages? Nick mallory 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  It would be improved because it prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. TV episodes should not have articles unless they have out-of-universe information from secondary sources. 17Drew 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —17Drew 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Guys, this unquestionably violates WP:EPISODE (and yes, that's a consensus-approved policy). Read it, this is precisely the sort of thing it was written for. This is not WikiLawyering, it's called enforcing consensus, which is sort of what this place is supposed to run on. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 08:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - the deletion proposal itself violates WP:EPISODE, which is quite specific about promoting merges and discouraging deletion. Furthermore, there are numerous additional sources available for most if not all of the episodes, including independent reviews from notable secondary sources, and cast and crew commentaries. "Needing improvement" is not grounds for deletion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - further to my note above, WP:EPISODE specifically states:

"Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."

This is clearly not the case with these articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

None of what you've said amounts to a speedy keep. Regardless, nobody has shown yet that "there are numerous additional sources", and it's hard to argue that cast/crew commentaries being published by ABC would be independent sources. WP:EPISODE suggests merging and redirecting before AfD. List of Scrubs episodes already has brief plot summaries, so I AfDed the articles since it seems unlikely that there are many people searching for a TV episode titled My Coffee, though I wouldn't oppose redirecting. 17Drew 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about his, episode My Fifteen Seconds, a mid-season article of little importance compared to other episodes. Do a little rummaging, and oh wait, whats this [18]? Why its an article from a Nursing organisation, critising scrubs for portraying Nurses wrongly. Hmm, that sounds like an independent, 3rd party source providing critcism. Hows that?--Jac16888 10:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to 17Drew's comment above about no one searching for the episodes, I actually have been. I've been looking at each episode page lately and I've been glad they were there finding them quite useful with all the information they contained. DeathJake34 7:48, September 28, 2007 (EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.224.111 (talk)

See this is exactly what i mean, just a random person, not a regular editor, with 1 edit not including this one. Usually, this would make his !vote pointless, but here, its arguably the most valid argument? It shows that at least one person tonight has gone on one of these episode articles, not to edit, not because its on their watchlist, but because they actually want to read it. Remember, there are more readers than there are editors, and how do you think all these people would react if they came one day, and the info wasn't here. Do you think they'd say "oh well, it didn't meet WP:Episode and broke WP:NOT#Plot" I very much doubt it.--Jac16888 01:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was stating that since it's unlikely that people will search for individual articles, I nominated them for deletion rather than redirecting them to List of Scrubs episodes. Most of what I've said still holds, and a comment like this doesn't affect whether or not the articles should exist, only if there should be redirects in their places. 17Drew 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Chubbles. --Itub 09:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this nomination reeks of someone trying to WP:Point, and notability can be established, see My Musical, well on its way to be a FAC, and it won't be the last. Also Keep per Ckatz's quote from WP:EPISODE, actually telling you not to do this. Finally, Keep because, even if you do delete all these, it won't last, because these episode articles are essentially why thousands of people come to wikipedia, to read the episode articles for all the hundreds of tv shows that have articles. You've got a problem Drew, you're looking at this the complete wrong way, as an editor trying to follow policy(far too rigidly by the way). What you need to do is try and put yourselves in the shoes of a reader, remember there are far more people who come here purely to read articles than there are who edit. What do you think a person who misses an episode of a program and comes on here to find out what happened wants? a brief entry in a list, or a detailed plot summary with some other bits of info thrown in. And yes you can say something "they can go to another wiki", but they wouldn't. They would(and do, in July the scrubs article was the 40th most viewed article on the whole of wikipedia, [19]) and if they found no entry, that could put them off wikipedia, which is nothing without editors. Why do you think trivia sections are so common on episode articles, its because people, ordinary non-wikipedian people watch the show, notice something they think is amusing and decide to add it to an article. I know because thats how i became a regular editor, a plot summary wasn't long enough, so i added to it. I bet there are many, many other editors who started out this way. Lets say for a second you did delete all these articles, how long do you think it will be before someone signs up and makes a new one? If you want an example of this, look at The Todd's article. A while ago, the list of his "high-fives" had gotten too big so it was removed, it was unencylopedic anyway. But practically everyday, someone adds another one to the short paragraph making it bigger and bigger, till eventually we will have to remove in again. You need to stop thinking like an Editor, and try thinking like a reader. Sorry for the long rant--Jac16888 10:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, what made you choose Scrubs? It wouldn't be because you though you could get these deleted easier because its not one of the most popular shows. Why didn't you nominate the Heroes articles? Would it be because you know that there would be that much backlash against you, they'd all be speedy kept, even though those articles are even worse than the scrubs ones, with about as much "real world" details as one of Dubya's speech's--Jac16888 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT has nothing to do with this; WP:NOT#PLOT does. It's really quite straightforward; TV episodes that don't have significant out-of-universe information from secondary sources don't belong on Wikipedia. These aren't the first in-universe fiction articles I've nominated; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl (redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All My Circuits (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama products (2nd nomination) (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secondary characters from Futurama (delete). If people are coming to Wikipedia looking for plot summaries, that's a problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I didn't "choose" Scrubs, by the way. I was surprised that there were article episodes for it, so I brought them here. If the Heroes ones are bad, they should be deleted or redirected too. In fact, that was going to happen but didn't because of a revamp project that doesn't appear to have done anything. 17Drew 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jac16888. Nominations like this need to stop. POV deletionism, hatred of trivia, policycruft, and applying blanket exclusion rules to things that need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis are hurting Wikipedia. Some people forget what Wikipedia really is, and would be better off working for Encyclopædia Britannica Online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If Wikipedia has policies saying individual episodes aren't notable, then Wiki needs to change. Scrubs is very popular. Lots42 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. There is List of Scrubs episodes which covers the matter in a quite appropriate level of detail, therefore merge is not necessary. I must note that the nominator is right citing WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:EPISODE and WP:N, and most keepers are quoting WP:NOTPOLICY, WP:PERABOVE, WP:ITSINHERITED and WP:ITSNOTABLE. We merge only when there's something to merge, and all I see are plots, plots, plots. Duja► 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All: Per WP:EPISODE. These clearly do not meet that guideline. - Rjd0060 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per the nomination, fails the WP:EPISODE guidelines. Burntsauce 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Once again, WP:EPISODE does not endorse deleting these articles. They are not "unverifiable" and they are not "original research", which are the only cases where the guideline even mentions AfD. In fact, these episodes quite specifically meet many of the points in the guideline that would suggest keeping the articles. There are qualified independent reviews available (not fan sites, but reliable sources such as IGN), and the episode commentaries do count as valid sources. Add even the few items other editors have found from quick searches, and WP:EPISODE dictates keeping and expanding the articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All You naughty boys didn't tell me there was already a List page of all these episodes. MarkBul 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep due to WP:EPISODE telling you specifically not to. No prejudice against a merge, however. Will ^(talk) 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Your reason doesn't support speedy keeping at all. I also don't see what there is to merge. List of Scrubs episodes already has brief plot summaries. Since WP:EPISODE's first suggestion for problem articles is to merge the episode articles, the next logical step is to finish the merge and get rid of the original article pages. 17Drew 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I think you've misunderstood part of the WP:EPISODE process. It specifically does not include deleting pages after a merge; if an article is merged, the page is redirected, so that the content remains accessible. It is never deleted, except possibly for cases I've mentioned earlier. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Either way, the information becomes unavailable to the average reader. So how then does this support your !vote to speedy keep everything? 17Drew 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Because this is a vote regarding deletion. WP:EPISODE quite specifically recommends against deletion for these articles, as they are not OR or unverifiable. (In fact, given the availability of sources and the interest in improving them, the guideline recommends keeping them rather than merging.) Therefore, in this discussion, where the choice is between "delete" and "keep", it should be "keep". --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  Anyone who's been involved with deletion discussions knows that keep and delete are not the only choices. And so far, it's been established that there is one reliable source (the IGN reviews) available for each article. That's hardly "significant coverage". 17Drew 05:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  (reset indent) It looks like Buddy TV has recaps that frequently mix in a review. TV Squad seems to have reviews for at least the later episodes. Google's free news archive has a number of reviews. Looking at "My Mirror Image," we might be able to establish notabiity for it with a Google archive search, but it would cost about six bucks. - Peregrine Fisher 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep – These establish they're episodes of Scrubs, therefore they are inherently notable (you can quote your essays all you like, essays are equally opinion.) A search turned up numerous potential sources that could be used, so yea… there's no problem. Matthew 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Nothing is inherently notable', that's a pointless statement - and even if they were notable simply by virtue of existing they would still violate fundamental policies if we could not demonstrate that they have each been the subject of substantial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources (because Wikipedia is not a directory or episode guide and absolutely requires independent sources). The sooner we can get rid of the many hundreds of huge and useless articles on individual articles of programs, which really belong on fansites not an encyclopaedia, the better it will be for us. In this case we already have a list page, is there any particular reason why we need more than that? Apart from the fact that, for fans of any given show, more information is always better, especially if they were the one to glean it from their ninety-third viewing of the show? Most of the actual content appears to be written from observation of the episodes themselves, so if kept they will need very substantial rewriting to be an encyclopaedic analysis of the episode, its significance and its place in the story development - otherwise all we have is a series of massive forks of an overly bloated plot summary. Cruftbane 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. Colonel Warden 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems pretty apparent to me that the body of evidence in this case certainly points to them being kept. Being as they are from a fairly popular television show, they are are notable enough to at least be merged, if not kept. There is a plethora of sources on the episodes and with enough time they could certainly be expanded to completely satisfy WP:EPISODE beyond a doubt. Eternalmonkey 22:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  You may want to re-read the discussion. There's nowhere to merge the articles since List of Scrubs episodes already contains the plot summaries. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But it seems to me that most of the individual pages are more detailed than List of Scrubs episodes and that level of detail is neccessary for what the common user of wikipedia needs. The List of Scrubs Episodes summaries are not detailed or conclusive enough to be of any value. Eternalmonkey 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - If episodes are to be deleted because notability is not inherited (so.. what? We would only have one article per TV show?) then we would have to delete just about every article about every TV show episode on Wikipedia, leaving only those especially significant ones. Nah.. keep 'em. There's nothing in WP:EPISODE that says individual episodes should not have their own articles anyway, so whoever mentioned that seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. If some articles are poorly (or not at all) referenced, then fine.. they need to be improved. But that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Otherwise you would be saying that all stubs must be referenced on creation, or not created at all! EuroSong ^talk 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Scrubs is a popular show. Whenever I see an episode coming up on TV Guide, I always come to Wikipedia and search the title so see what the episode is about and if I have seen it or not. Definitely keep these articles. 65.40.190.100 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)— 65.40.190.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.