Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 2

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

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Chabot

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

Prodded a while back, prod removed, re-prodded recently. There seems to be a disagreement on notability, so I'm putting it here. Some sources are there too. Procedural nom. UsaSatsui 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:Notability (people). Not a notable local politician. --Djsasso 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep politician of a major city, has moderate coverage and has several sources which asserts notability.--JForget 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - local politicians can be notable per WP:BIO, provided they have received "significant press coverage", as this one has. Sarcasticidealist 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Significant press coverage outside of their local area is what is needed. He has not had that. --Djsasso 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notably enough. GoodDay 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for a local politician, as per WP:BIO. (Contrary to what Djsasso said above, there's nothing in there about press coverage "outside of their local area".) --The Invisible Hand 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No it does not say that in there...what it does say is being a local politician does not automatically mean notability. All local politicians are going to have local press coverage, but this is international encyclopedia not a local one so they need more than just local coverage to meet notability. --Djsasso 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not all local politicians are going to have significant press coverage, because not all localities have significant press coverage of their municipal governance systems (to take an example that is, for me, close to home, try to find significant press coverage - even significant local press coverage - of any municipal councillor in Sturgeon County, Alberta. Andre Chabot has received significant press coverage (yes, most of it local) and, according to WP:BIO, local politicians to have received significant press coverage are notable. The "rule" about said coverage needing to be non-local because this is an international encyclopedia is completely figmentary.

Why are Members of Parliament automatically notable? Well, because WP:BIO says so, but why does WP:BIO say so? Very few of them have received international coverage (and this is, after all, an international encyclopedia), and a good number have received only significant local coverage. But all of them have received significant coverage, and all of them are therefore entitled to be considered notable. The same is true of Andre Chabot. Sarcasticidealist 05:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with the above comment. This local politician has received substantial coverage to merit inclusion under notability guidelines. Being notable at a local level in an area that is rather well-known should be enough to merit an article in an international encyclopedia. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete I'm fairly flexible about local politicians, but I do not see anything the least important about this one. There are two elements of notability cited: he introduced a law for putting ashtrays at building entrances, and another against urinating in public. The coverage for those exists, but it certainly isnt substantial. DGG (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. IP198 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete this is so close to being notable, in my opinion. Unfortunatly, he's just not quite there. Possibly suitable in the future, but obviously, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specimen-X

Specimen-X (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

does not satisfy notability MarkinBoston 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete appears to fail WP:MUSIC. No independent reviews cited, and all music produced thus far appears to have been self-released. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - At first glance they do appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC but if you look closer their album releases are actually "EPs", they charts they refer to are MP3 download charts. All their releases are via online sources in MP3 format. There doesn't appear to have been any "tangible, hold in your hands" releases. Although they state they did local and European tours there are no details, and more importantly, nothing to back it up by way of 3rd party references. There are no independent reviews or citations listed. Furthermore, the article doesn't meet WP:MOSMUSIC. --WebHamster 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article provides no references to prove notability or support any of the statements given. It does however, link to the band's website 3 times. That plus sentences like: "Specimen-X was renowned for the intensity of its live performances, diversity in songwriting, and lyrics and performances themed around the perils of technology and social commentary." make it seem promotional as well. Mr.Z-man 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are album stubs linked to this page. They are just track listings, and should be deleted if the band page is deleted. (note: I submitted this AfD as MarkinBoston above - I need to figure out my password) MarkBul 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Mortem (Boston Band)

Post Mortem (Boston Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sign of notability. A check online finds no support. MarkinBoston 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Um, what is your reason? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oops Sorry about that - Corrected above. Thanks for the heads up. MarkinBoston 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This band has sold 10s of thounsands of CDs and albums and their stuff can still be purchased at places like amazon.com. Please do not delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjohnal (talk • contribs) 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This appears to be an older band, with limited web presence. There are some sources- a few of the external links currently in the article could be considered reliable, and there is a small mention at RockDetector, which is definitely reliable. Searching is made even harder by the generic name, and there aren't many Webzines old enough to cover the releases anyway. J Milburn 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I make no bones about hating crap like this, IMHO it's not even remotely close to music, but having said that they do meet the criteria in WP:BAND. I hate getting old, I'm turning into my Dad!--WebHamster 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets notability criteria easily. Mr pand 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hammerspace

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

This article is about a fanmade term that has had no serious or critical coverage by any sort of media. No one has written about the cultural implications of "hammerspace" nor has anyone written about it in any sort of serious concept. The only two references that are in the article are to a Geocities page and to "animeinfo.org". As such, all of the information in the article is made up of unverified claims and trivial inferences.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I tried to find reliable sources and all I came up with is user-submitted content. If someone finds good sources, I'll change my position, but right now it's largely a user-defined article.-Wafulz 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Rubber cat 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless something comes up. A bummer, since it's something of an universal phenomenon in certain early cartoons, though a nameless one. --Agamemnon2 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral There should be sources for an article like this, but I can't find any, and without them, it's on shaky ground. I will point out to others seeking sources that sometimes, the concept is called malletspace instead. Gnfnrf 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the mainstream media hasn't covered this doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. It's a well-used term in the community of anime fans, and it has been for a long time. Removing this article will probably only cause some confusion when new fans come to look up the term. --Rockhound 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If we can't find reliable sources on a topic, then that topic should not be included as part of an encylopedia. It exists only in the minds of the fans. Not in a proper cultural complex.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a common term for a well-known phenomenon. I don't understand why it's not more common in writing, but it's not because there's no such thing as hammerspace or it isn't really called hammerspace. Notable.Juryen 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Mere existence does not beget encyclopedic coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources or significant coverage. Oysterguitarist 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (try to find an anime Wiki to transwiki to, maybe), fails WP:V, sorry. I do like the concept (Ranma No Baka!) SirFozzie 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, interesting concept, but basically completely original research, with no reliable sources available describing this as a cohesive concept. --krimpet⟲ 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classes in World of Warcraft

Classes in World of Warcraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Glorified game guide page, sourced from a game guide, manuals, and a fan wiki. There is no real world relevance here. At best, merge the little table at the bottom into the main WoW article. Wikipedia is not a game guide or indiscriminate collection of information. Wafulz 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep But attack with scissors. I think lists like this, in moderation and well pruned are good and encyclopedic. They're not their own article, they're List Of articles, which is, IMO the ideal existance. On a side note, the community needs to determine what in fiction deserves their own articles, as a sub article. And that should not be AfD. i ^said 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe this article can be salvaged. At best, the list's real world content would be limited to "These are the classes, and these are the races that can use them". This is summed up in the table.-Wafulz 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to World of Warcraft. 132.205.44.5 02:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not game guide. List of units from <game> serves no purpose other than as a game guide Corpx 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." This article doesn't include instructions, advice or suggestions - just factual information - so there there are no rules against it. Wikipedia may not be an indiscriminate collection of information, but this doesn't come under any of the categories mentioned in that rule either, so that is not justification for deletion. One rule that may be relevant is the common sense one. There are many people who feel this is worthy of article status - just look at the edit history and the previous AfD - so why should we get rid of it? As I have shown it is not against any specific policy, the only argument is to whether the information is important or not and there are many who think it is. Of course the article may still require some clean up, but there are several people working to improve the quality of the article and progress is being made. Raoul 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• this includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. How is this anything but a game guide? It's a list of classes, with no possible real-world value, and it serves only to detail the classes and their abilities. Similar articles have been deleted before.-Wafulz 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't a game guide because a game guide contains instructions, advice, suggestions or "how-to"s, as stated in the quote I gave. WP:NOT clearly says that it is these things which are forbidden, not information about games. As the articles are deleted I can't see how similar they actually are, but it could be that the wrong choice was made at the time anyway. Raoul 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Game guide, video game manual, tomato, tomahto- the video game wikiproject guideline says to avoid these articles since their utility to non-gamers is extremely limited. The articles that were deleted were basically the exact same as this (you can check the various mirrors/Google caches). There's also the issue of sourcing: if your sources consist of video game guides, the creator, and fan sites/strategy links, then you're essentially creating a derivative game guide/manual. Any way you go about it, this article is just a game guide or an extended manual, and outside of WoW, it has no real-world relevance.-Wafulz 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Surely no article has any relevance outside of its subject? I actually first read this article (or the separate articles that existed back then anyway) about a week before I bought the game and it played a role in deciding whether to get it or not. I could, of course, have looked somewhere else, but the idea that the article is only of interest to people who own the game (which, incidentally, the rule of thumb given in the link you provided) isn't actually true. The link given says "While saying that a character can jump, punch, and pound the ground is OK, explaining how to execute them using the controller is not". This article is the equivalent of saying that you can jump, punch, etc., not the equivalent of saying which buttons to press. The link also says "Basic strategy concepts are often essential to the understanding of a game, but avoid in-depth explanations". This article doesn't even go as far as that; it sticks clear of all mention of any strategy concepts (unless it was recently edited and the edit is not yet reverted). I admit the guidelines are a bit fuzzy on what can be included or not, so an argument could be made that this is not notable, but I don't think this article violates any specific policies, so as there are plenty of people who want it kept I don't see why it should be deleted. If it obviously violated a policy then that would be different, but I don't think it does. If you can point out any sections which violate specific policies then I will be glad to edit them to resolve the issue. And again I don't think articles previously having been deleted is a valid argument. Many things have been done before, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be done again. Raoul 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, the biggest problem with the article are the sources. I doubt WowWiki is a reliable source. I could see how worldofwarcraft.com could be a reliable source, but the pages at worldofcraft.com say "Game Guide"[1]. They also say "Game Info" though and I don't think this is really a strategy guide. It could be said that the videogame itself is the primary source, although articles really should have secondary sources. I'm not quite sure it qualfifies as a how-to guide though. It's hard for me to tell the difference between this article and List of Hobbits or Characters in The Sword of Truth. They're all lists of fantasy characters, although The Sword of Truth and Lord of the Rings are book series and World of Warcraft is a videogame (which also has fantasy books written about it). Characters in the Lord of the Rings trilogy appear to have real world relevance and the number of subscribers to World of Warcraft seem to indicate these characters have real world relevance. This article seems similar to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). There are other gaming wikis mentioned in WP:CVG/GL that the information can be moved to. Right now, it looks to me like this article is descriptive, and is not a walkthrough or instruction manual telling people how to beat a videogame. --Pixelface 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with your overall opinion and that WoWWiki is an unreliable source which should not be used as a source. However I don't see the problem in referencing the game guide section of the World of Warcraft website. The official website is deemed a reliable source for the main WoW article and this specific section of the website should be just as reliable as the other sections referenced. Referencing a game guide doesn't make this article one. Raoul 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my comment above. This article looks too long for the World of Warcraft article and this article looks merely descriptive, not like a walkthrough. I do suggest that the WoWWiki sources be replaced with other ones though. --Pixelface 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is a game guide article, it is cruft, merely describing game details. There is not attempt to convey encyclopedic information. WP:NOT#GUIDE. Pete.Hurd 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But shorten it a lot (again) to remove all that is not a basic description of each class's lore and gameplay. I was planning to do it but since an AfD started, I'm not sure pruning the article would be appropriate. The problem of this article is that many editors think it must be extensive. For the "Real world relevance", I don't think this is a concern here (after all, there is a lot of acceptable articles on virtual worlds lore that were kept. I know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I hope you see my point). I agree though that wowwiki might be a problem as a source since it is a wiki (I was wondering lately if linking to permalinks would help), but sourcing applies to material that is likely to be challenged (see WP:V), not ingame mechanics IMHO. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there we go again... World of Warcraft is unquestionably a notable game, so there's no need to have only basic coverage of the classes. m:Wiki is not paper, and we try to include as much as possible relevant information about notable subjects, there's no reason not to do that when the subject happens to be fictional. Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Hendrickson

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

Article for a non-notable person (at least not notable for the philosophical theory/religion(?) presented on this page - highly likely to be a vanity page Anarchia 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, no useful information and reads like an advertisement for a cult. Certainly fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Tx17777 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, or verifiable. It's POV, and might be a hoax (?). i ^said 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete gee I sure hope the "faith" he discovered isn't the true religion. My goodness, that would make us his betrayers. NN Gregbard 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 23:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge over your house argument

Could not find any information on the "Bridge over your house argument". No references listed, possible hoax. Also not exactly encyclopedic. 24fan24 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced. Was unable to find any information on either Chris Finlay or Benjamin Graham (at least nothing obvious. They are both rather common names to put into Google). Sounds like made up in school one day to me. Tx17777 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this weren't made up in school one day it's got no place here — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- a search for "Chris J Finlay" yields nothing, and a search for "Benjamin J Graham" bridge house yields nothing relevent. Beware of people removing the tags from the article- I just rolled back to a previous version as they has been removed by an IP. J Milburn 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• ok ok fine i give in, delete it. yeah its a thing made up in uni to try and prove a point to a friend, Gayan (this is Chris J Finlay btw). He argued that it would be impossible for a bridge, or part thereof, to fall on his house because no-one would fly a bridge over a house...and myself and ben argued the "boyh argument" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.243.157 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merged to List of main characters from Saiyuki. (The minor character articles I have merely redirected to the main article). ELIMINATORJR 10:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Son Goku (Saiyuki)

Son Goku (Saiyuki) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced and notability is questionable. Might be better merged into article for the anime itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Into whatever anime he's from. Saiyuki? I can't really tell. i ^said 01:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the series article, with no prejudice towards a version of this article that's actually written in semi-fluent English. --tjstrf talk 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, readable English now present. --tjstrf talk 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note I rewrote this significantly just now--I hope that is okay. Does it look better? User:CharlotteMR 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's much better. --tjstrf talk 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Notability is shown by the award winning nature of the series, and out of universe information is present in the article's discussion of character design inspiration and mythological roots. At most, I could understand a vote here for merger to a Characters in Saiyuki article. --tjstrf talk 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The series' winning awards does not make its characters notable. Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. That hasn't been demonstrated in this case. Jay32183 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• If the series has won awards, that would make the series notable and deserving of an article - but that does not necessarily make a character in the series notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I found a magazine with two article about the anime, one of which interviews the director about the character designs: Newtype USA, vol.2, num.5, pp.109-115. I'll add some citations after work--hope that helps. CharlotteMR 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Saiyuki characters along with the other main characters per the original intent of WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - as Farix pointed out, a List of Saiyuki characters article would be appropriate. The individual characters do not deserve articles under WP:FICT, and treatment in a list is suitable. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Characters in Saiyuki, not a list of characters in Saiyuki, per WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• How does WP:NOT#INFO apply? A list of characters is not an indiscriminate collection of items. Also note that those refer to two different types of articles. List of Saiyuki characters refers to a list containing the characters of the source material, thus making it along the lines of List of Metal Gear Solid characters. Characters in Saiyuki, on the other hand, would be an article talking about the characters as a whole rather than simply a list. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for how it differs from the aforementioned list of characters. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• The WP:ANIME derived style guideline on anime and manga suggests the use of List of characters in (series) (though List of (series) characters is far more common) instead of Characters in (series). Also, WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply to the article's name, instead it applies to the content of the article. An article that violates WP:NOT#IINFO will still violates WP:NOT#IINFO whether its named is Characters in Saiyuki, List of characters in Saiyuki, or List of Saiyuki characters. --Farix (Talk) 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• The manga MoS should probably be updated to explain the difference between "List of characters in X" vs. "Characters of X" then. Though I think Sessh's point was more that by calling it "list of" we suggest it's a comprehensive list, which, depending on the series format, might be a bad thing (i.e. if every non-main character is a villain of the week type, then we don't want a list of all of them). --tjstrf talk 07:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete mergers point to a redlink... Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Eh? If Son Goku (Saiyuki) exists, and so do several other character articles (Genjo Sanzo (Saiyuki), Cho Hakkai (Saiyuki), et al), then how is voting to merge all of them into a new page impractical? --tjstrf talk 08:08, 9 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 04:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dvar

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

An unknown Russian band, even saying itself to be "anonymous w/ no details known about them". Jmlk17 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you misinterpreted results of a machine translation. Their official page uses the word таинственный, which, in this context, is better translated as occult or mystic rather than anonymous. Declaring themselves occult might be a normal part of a gothic rock band's image. Digwuren 23:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - They are known in the Russian underground goth-scene and there they really have a cult status (and i'm not a fan myself, i dont get their music). The anonymity is used to help their image, as they state in all interviews, as if Davr is somthing "supernatural" and chose them as the "messenger" to deliver "the word". Nevertheless, we really dont have English reviews on their albums. Only a few Russian positive reviews are from real journals and magazines, the rest Russian positive reviews are from fans on blogs and stuff. M.V.E.i. 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- many good reasonable sources linked from the article. Just because they are in Russian, does not mean we cannot use them. J Milburn 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ok, sorry, the sources aren't that great, but the band appears to be notable. J Milburn 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - They do appear to be notable, attracting lots of attention from various English web sites and probably lots more from Russian ones. It would be difficult for an English Wikipedian like myself to dig out all the best Russian sources, but notability seems fairly evident here. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - much as it pains me I have to vote keep as purely by their discography alone they meet the requirements of WP:BAND--WebHamster 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is actually a very notable band in Russia, and while it may be a bit difficult to get English references, I'm sure if you spoke Russian, the references would be plentiful. They definitely meet the minimum requirements for musical groups. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• It appears there are certain cultural reasons, which I will not discuss in details here, that bar this band from gaining notoriety in Europe. Consequently, the notability requirements should only be considered within the Russian culture space, and, as pointed out by several people above, the notability requirements in this context appear to be sufficiently satisfied. Accordingly, there's no need to delete this article, and it should be kept. Its style has room for improvement, though. Digwuren 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High school musicals

High school musicals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't think this is actually a "thing". I've been involved in musical theatre for 20 years, and I've never heard anyone refer to this as being a subgenre. The article is uncited, and seems to me to be unsubstantiated rubbish. —  MusicMaker5376 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What a mess. Looks like an essay. MarkBul 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No such thing. Pure WP:OR. And don't even get me started on the use of "Oh-Ohs" to describe a decade.Smashville 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not a subgenre and just a pointless list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like a synthesis of two things, one being musicals written about teenagers (perhaps in a school environment), and two being the subset of musical theatre productions that are a) content-appropriate, b) budget-appropriate, and c) available cast-appropriate for the high school theatre environment. There actually is a subset of licensed productions such as Disney's Aladdin, Jr. designed for school use, but this article isn't about those. There actually might be value in an article that covered the money/content/cast issues and how productions are modified to work within the limitations of a typical school or even age group, but again, this isn't that article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize any articles about individual musicals into Category:Musicals about high school or etc. Wl219 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There are currently no other categories for musicals by subject matter, and, frankly, I don't think it's something we should consider doing. —  MusicMaker5376 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I beg to differ. There are currently the categories Category:Biblical musicals, Category:Jukebox musicals, and Category:Rock musicals that are either subject or format based. Wl219 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Okay, then we have ONE errant category by subject matter. Format is one thing, subject is another. —  MusicMaker5376 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly a list-style article that is completely original research. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and divide. I think each half of it is notable, if the articles were properly rewritten. DGG (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Keep rationales have been considered and rejected as unsound and not based in policy.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red State Update

Red State Update (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was speedily deleted, taken to DRV and the opinions were one undelete, one keep deleted and one list at AfD.

The subject is a YouTube channel. A question was used in a YouTube presidential debate (so were lots of others). It has some minor attention. It has, however, no real sources outside the closed world of YouTube. Salon signed a deal to put it on one of its channels, but that is not the same thing as substantial independent sources. Where is the critical review in reliable sources? I fail to see how this is an encyclopaedia article rather than an entry in the YouTube channel directory-o-pedia. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable other than within its own environment or however you word it. Has no real notability claims --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The only review that I've found so far is <http://www.betterproductsandservices.com/red-state-update-is-a-hoot-2007-05-11>. Red State Update seems to have captured the attention of CNN, which has now referenced it three times. I'm willing to try to fix any problems with this article. Are there any specific suggestions? If there are too many pointless references, I can get rid of them. Billebrooks 23:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Childzy. Can't see how this is notable in the least. Lychosis ^T/C 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some more changes that will hopefully make the article look more like an encyclopedia article. I hope that helps. Billebrooks 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if I'm allowed to vote for it as the page's creator. I created the page when I saw it on the list of pages requested for creation, then it got speedily deleted but was apparently un-deleted and put here. As mentioned above, they are notable in the circles they run in and have had (or are starting to have) their 15 minutes of fame, but they may not (yet) be notable enough for inclusion here. Rompe 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic--Kitrus 08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. It's just a YouTube channel. Many entities are "notable in the circles," but that doesn't mean anyone else cares about them. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Everything else I'm a fan of is here on wikipedia. I don't see why this should be an exception. Billebrooks 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or WP:ILIKEIT? Lychosis ^T/C 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the person (or possibly one of the persons) who marked the article for speedy deletion. My spot check of search engine results at the time uncovered nothing significant not already listed here. That's not enough for an article per our notability guidelines. Erechtheus 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's not nearly as inane as other Wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.50.19 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Lychosis ^T/C 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola C261

Motorola C261 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. Few references beyond trivial reviews and manufacturer literature. Article consists of a list of features and a how to, just like a product marketing brochure. Nominating after contested prod. Mikeblas 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral its a strange one, i mean im not to sure how notability works for mobile phones, there's so many types and i've seen worse article on them --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As above, I think we need to define notability for products such as mobile phones. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but why has this article been chosen for deletion while many more articles on other phones remain which contain roughly the same information, or in some cases even less? This is probably no more or less notable than any other phone, so its a case of either keeping it or defining a set guideline for how you define notability on articles like this so that the whole category can be cleaned up. Tx17777 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete I'll concede this may fail the notability guidelines as per WP:N, but I still think notability for this type of product is more subjective than many - for example, the phrase "'Motorola C261' review" gets over 100,000 hits, some of which could almost certainly be used to argue notability and 'significant coverage'. But if the consensus here is to delete, it does set a clear precedent for a cleanup of the dozens of similiar articles about non-notable mobile phones. Tx17777 10:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:N provides a suitable definition for notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Regarding the sources in the article, Motorola.com is obviously not independent of the subject, and I'm not at all sure about the reliability of mobile-review.com, nor indeed whether a product review at a product review website constitutes evidence of notability. There seem to be no substantial hits in Google News, etc (compare with iPod, for example, which is a product that gets 234,000 Google News hits and 982 Google Books hits). Jakew 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's no need for defining product notability rules; they're already in WP:N. That review, like most reviews, fails the "Significant coverage" part of WP:N. IT's not a story about how the RF circuity is novel or innovative (like you might find in EE Times or EDN), or about the product's beginnings (like you might find in Wired) or about the interface (like you might find in some industrial desgin journal). -- Mikeblas 02:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete As said, we should define phone notability. But until then, we go with the blanket notability, which this fails. i ^said 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Part-guide and part-advertisement. Not really notable to have an individual article - remove the other less notable Motorola product as well--JForget 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a phone guide, reads like an advert as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article suffered from major vandalism just prior to the AfD nomination. I have now restored the deleted content. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for different markets should be merged. We do not have any articles on Motorola phones that share this hardware platform. If there are they should be merged with this article. -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This isn't a platform; it's a single instance of hardware. -- Mikeblas 11:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Recycle Family

The Recycle Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable short story, and I suspect it doesn't exist at all. No sources at all, and author refuses to provide any, even accusing me of engaging in "original research" by noting there are no Google or Yahoo hits, one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard at Wikipedia. Even if the book/story does exist, it isn't even close to being notable. But it sure looks like a hoax, especially with the author being as defensive and ranting as he is (see my talk page). Realkyhick 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If this book was published in 2002 and is supposedly "well known for its notoriety", why has neither google nor yahoo ever heard of it, and why was the page only created 2 days ago? As well as that, no publisher I know would publish a book by an "unknown author" for fear of copyright violation, among other things, and its extremely rare for a single short story to be published as a book these days. And as for that "scanned cover", I'm prepared to bet I can knock up something identical looking in photoshop in about 10 minutes. Unless the author of the article can back this up, it should be gone asap. Tx17777 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Tx17777 and nom. Not a single google hit seems to be related to this "story". Also, it would take less than 10 minutes to throw together something virtually identical to that "cover".  :3 Lychosis ^T/C 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm going to go with per nom on this one; the article reads like a total hoax to me, just from the family's last name alone. Nate 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No Google hits or Google Books hits. Also cannot be found on any bookseller websites. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Either a hoax or so ridiculously non-notable that it might as well be. Jakew 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ahh you guys are the one of the most paranoid control freaks I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with. There are plenty of things out there that I am sure neither google or any other search engine could ever pick up and just becuase something is extremely rare doesn't not mean it isn't true. As for the Anonymous Publishings look here Category:Works published anonymously]] for a full list. I bought this book off some lady in Grenada maybe you should look around there. By the way I'm a female. I2E4S6 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: So you want us to verify your story by rummaging around in some book stall in Grenada? Yeah, right. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable. Realkyhick 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You seem to be working really hard to get this deleted. Do you know something about this book that we don't? Prehaps the publishing company you work for is in competition with The publishing company of The Recycle Family? I2E4S6 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • How could I be in competition with a company I don't even know? My reason for wanting this deleted is that I think you just made it up, and you're trying to turn the tables on your accusers because you have no case of your own. Frankly, I think you're full of the same stuff that "The Recycle Family" recycles, and you're wasting our time with this nonsensical hoax. Warning messages on your user talk page indicate you have a very cavalier attitude toward our policies here, and this article is just another of your little jokes. Realkyhick 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If yuo were you'd fake that wouldn't know who the competeion was. Well obviously I have to show disregard to the people who keep telling me not to upload those images becuase they just don't like them, the images are free and completely fair use, the only reason they are orphaned is because they want to upload there own. I2E4S6 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are aware of how wikipedia works, right? For all your insistence that the article should be kept, I've still yet to see you provide any scrap of evidence at all to prove this article's notability. I could ask a similar question of you as you ask Realkyhick - why are you so determined to see this article kept, but yet unwilling to give us any reasons to assert its significance? Do you perhaps work for the publishing company yourself? Oh, and why oh why does you being a female have any relevence at all to this debate? Its perfectly simple - if you can show me some real evidence of this books notability, I will happily change my opinion to 'keep'. But until you do, its a clear delete for failing WP:N. Tx17777 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) PS If you'll provide us with the name of the publishing company, I'll be perfectly happy to ring them up myself and see if they ever published this book.
• I'm going to attempt this one more time, but I fear this 'debate' is turning into that interview where I just keep asking the same question over and over again. Where is your EVIDENCE that this book is notable, or even exists?. No verification, no keep. Simple as. Tx17777 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of coverage from secondary sources, which is the determining factor of notability Corpx 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BGTGuide

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

Fansite, non-notable Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• KeepBGTGuide is a informative guide to Busch Gardens in Tampa Bay, providing information about the park for park goers to use. It is updated regularly with new information about the park, including information about upcoming attractions, and contains media to show site visitors what is available in the park. Montu Man 1011 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC) _{Montu Man 1011 is the creator of this article. Crazysuit 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)}
• Delete. Non-notable website. Being "informative" isn't a reason to keep an article. Crazysuit 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability for this site Corpx 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to grammatical conjunction. Transwiki unnecessary: Wikt:but.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] But

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

This is just a dictionary definition. Since this is a conjuction, it can't reasonably be expanded. See WP:NOT#DICT or WP:DICT Obina 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Transwiki as dicdef. Tx17777 19:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Grammatical conjunction. I really don't see the grounds for an article about a conjunction (wow...that was almost a play on words...). As it stands, there is little more in the article than a dictionary definition, and if the article were to be expanded significantly, the only way to do that would be to expand it as a grammatical guide, which is not the function of Wikipedia. Calgary 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to grammatical conjunction per above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Tx17777 to the wikitionary, WP is not A dictionnary.--JForget 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentNo need to trans wiki but is there.Obina 20:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per the droll comment by Calgary. Bearian 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid space theory

Liquid space theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sources do not even mention the subject of the article. Likely either a hoax or a neologism - Google only finds Wikipedia mirrors for "Liquid space theory", which seems implausible for a true scientific theory. Jakew 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as either possible hoax or OR. Although I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the formulae mentionned or whether they are plausible, my reasoning comes from the fact that the first source links to a forum post written by the author of the article, and the third source claims to be "proof" of the theory, and yet never mentions "liquid space". If this theory is genuine and has been proven, then there would certainly be more and better references out there. Tx17777 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, very dubious at best. Realkyhick 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete google pretty much agrees, very dubious [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childzy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More plausible than Timecube? Yes. Notable and verifiable? no.--Bfigura ^(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. He also did his math wrong; according to the formula for force, no force can ever be applied to a stationary object (news to me). Someguy1221 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, I see now all he did was replace "mass" in F=ma with the relativistic expression for kinetic energy, and let that follow through for the derivation of other physical quantities. It's quite nonsensical. Someguy1221 04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete So someone heard one day that the term "fluid" can be applied to a gas as well as a liquid, did some mathematics, and next thing you know, we have an article... but where are the sources, the published research, the excited discussions in science digest magazines? The sources that are provided offer such gems as this: cosmic poetry Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR (FWIW, appears to be reinventing the luminiferous aether, as a predicted consequence in one of the external links is that the speed of light depends on direction). Gandalf61 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Kim Possible characters

List of Kim Possible characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All of these characters are already listed in separate articles. TrackFan 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. All these characters aren't notable enough to have separate articles. They need to be included in this list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Prince of Darkness (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Better with Minor characters in Kim Possible. The Prince of Darkness 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. All these characters can be easily found through the Kim Possible article or the accompanying box and category. There is no need to have this list as well. Tx17777 20:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per The Prince. The major characters have their own articles, so Minor characters in Kim Possible is the way to go. I suggest merging any other necessary content over to that page before deleting this one. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete get rid of this garbage as soon as possible. --=CJK= 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep And merge the indivdual articles into this one. The other ones should not be their own articles. i ^said 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all the characters into this page....They're all written by citing the primary source, with no secondary sources to establish notability Corpx 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If any of the characters listed here are minor then they should editorially be merged to Minor characters in Kim Possible, not here. Otto4711 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this "list" is useless as each entry is just a link to another article. JIP | Talk 10:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keeep and merge all the other ones mentioned into this one. It's the articles about the individual characters that might need the deletion. Much better to have them here. DGG (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Don't we already have a minor character article? WAVY 10 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Reagrdless, a "delete and merge" was never going to happen, because of our GFDL obligations. Please use editorial consensus from the talk page for future merge attempts. However, there is no consensus to delete the article, nor to merge it, from this discussion. Daniel 04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Armstrong

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

Delete and merge. Not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Google searches only return hits regarding his beheading videos, but no articles other than blogs that make him a primary subject of any entry. Strothra 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of news coverage as far as I can see. CNN covered it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, as CNN would have at the time, briefly. However, that does not sufficiently establish this individual's notability. Note that the article is about the person, not the event. --Strothra 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, victim of a widely-publicized crime, with plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Realkyhick 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The man was the victim of a very well known and well covered crime, and as such has gained notability. Who he was and what he did was relevant to why he was killed, and this page serves that end well. 24.11.202.83 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Again, the article is not about the individual so much as it is about the incident. --Strothra 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per previous outcomes and per arguments to keep listed here --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not temporary Unless there has been coverage since the incident, he is not notable. A victim of a crime is not automatically, even if the crime is well-covered in the media. Sadly for his family, this guy is forgottne. MarkBul 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't been much coverage of Jack the Ripper's victim's recently either, but they still have articles. (I know, I know, irrelevent point and WP:OTHERSTUFF). He might not have been a very notable person, but the manner of his death and its relevence to the insurgency and tactics being used in Iraq at the time are, so keep or, if you must, merge with Foreign hostages in Iraq. Tx17777 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There certainly has been recent coverage of Jack the Ripper's victims- there have been plenty of books about Jack, his murders and his victims, not to mention films, dramas, documentaries etc. I can see no lasting significance in this case, heartless as it sounds, and we are not a news service. In any case, even if we were to have an article (if there was lasting significance) it should be about his death, as it is not he who is notable, but the event. J Milburn 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see any historic notability for this either. Unfortunately, there are lots of people being killed in conflicts around the world, but that doesnt mean we should have articles for all of them. Corpx 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge to foreign hostages in Iraq. Pseudobiography on an otherwise non-notable subject. WP:NOT a memorial. Chris Cunningham 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It does fail WP:COATRACK, but that's not a policy or guideline. I think Wikipedia should definitely have some coverage of Armstrong. Perhaps have a list of foreigners killed in Iraq? List of people whose beheadings have been filmed? I don't know.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  That's the purpose of foreign hostages in Iraq, per above. Changed my comment.Chris Cunningham 09:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to foreign hostages in Iraq. Collectively notable. Not sufficiently notable on his own. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but someone sometime might be interested enough in Mr. Armstrong and the others to come here looking. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd support a merge or a keep, but certainly not an outright deletion of any mention of Armstrong.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  CommetI see there was a number of Merges on the prior afd. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The sources show notability "Notability is not temporary" means that once he has been notable, as he has, he remains notable. DGG (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Once you have been notable you remain so. He was notable when the incident occured. --Djsasso 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment He was not notable. The execution was. Chris Cunningham 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment And the fact that his execution was notable makes him notable as a victim of that execution. --Djsasso 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The literal embodiment of WP:COATRACK, which I wish were official policy. Chris Cunningham 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is coatrack at all. He was notable for being killed. Coatrack would be if we were trying to say the only reason he was notable was because he was killed by a famous gun or killed in a famous place. --Djsasso 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't notable for being killed. His death was notable. This is not a difficult distinction to make. It's why wikipedia doesn't have ten thousand articles on individual lottery winners, even though winning the lottery is highly notable. Chris Cunningham 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have added 2 verifable sources. Only 25 Google hits now remain. Hopoefully, more will be added. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Hawaii Bowl

Average bowl game, nothing special about it, wikipedia is not a news service, no sources that indicate why this game is notable. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I think we've already established by precedent that article about individual games for a NCAA Division I sanctioned bowl game are notable. True, the Hawaii Bowl is nowhere near the stature of the Rose Bowl or New Year's Day games, but it is a D-I bowl game. Realkyhick 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is the precendent? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Back in the day, Bowl games meant something. Today, the Charmin Toilet Paper Bowl just doesn't mean the same thing. Most Bowls are just post-season exhibit games and not notable. MarkBul 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just one game and not really notable at that. Unencyclopedic. --Strothra 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I understand this existing for BCS and National Championship Bowls. But, last year alone there were 38 bowl games. There are 38 again this year. Considering the 100+ years of Bowl History, this would mean that instead of about 300-400 games being notable, several thousand would be. With over half the teams in the NCAA making Bowl Games, they aren't all notable. Smashville 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep College Bowl games are notable. And this one more than others. In this game, Hawaii Quarterback Colt Brennan set the single season touchdown record. That's a pretty big accomplishment that should make this game even more notable than other college bowl games. Spanneraol 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is a significant event that just passes notability criteria. I know that this is not the Rose Bowl or the Super Bowl but it is significant.--JForget 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - College football games are notable. This is especially true of bowl games and games between rivals. We have some great articles on college football. For instance, please see 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game, Both have now made it to Good Article status. This article can also get there in time.

There is no reason under policy to justify deleting this article. And there are many reasons to keep it; these include:

1. These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
2. We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
3. We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
4. Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
5. Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.

Thank you, Johntex\^talk 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Again consensus doesn't indicate college football games are notable Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. We have a notability policy that says notability is proven by multiple independent sources. These games have that. Your desire to delete them is out of what with all the editors who write/edit/read these articles. Your desire is out of what with the GA selection process that has chosen these games to be GA. It is out of what with the future. As Wikipedia grows, our coverage on topics such as this can and should become more comprehensive and detailed. Johntex\^talk 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regular season games arent notable but bowl games are. Spanneraol 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Even with bowl games, there is consensus that major bowl games are notable, but this one is minor though, I don't agree that because a record is broken, that indicates that instant notabilty, records get broken every year. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Where, pray tell, comes the evidence that individual bowl games are notable? Other than "Because I said so"? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a postseason game for a significant American sports league. This particular game had some records set. And it's not like we'll run out of paper.--UsaSatsui 03:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge The appropriate information in the season articles for each team, but I fail to see why we should be covering news events like this when WikiNews is the place for it. Corpx 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We have articles about playoff games in many sports. College Bowl games are post-season matchups between top college teams. These are notable. Spanneraol 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • 2007 NBA Playoffs highlights all the playoff games except the championship, and I would equate the Hawaii Bowl to a first round game. Honestly, it takes 6 wins to get to a bowl and that's attainable if you scheduled enough creampuffs. Getting to a bowl game, especially one of the lower tiered bowls, is not that great of an accomplishment. I'd agree with you if this were last year's MNC, but not this bowl Corpx 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Corpx. There aren't individual articles for playoff games, unless something particularly notable happened in the game. In this game, the most notable thing was that a season record was surpassed. To me, that means that the information belongs in the Colt Brennan article, and this article isn't necessary (my delete vote is below). Cogswobbletalk 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Just another college football exhibition, with some minor "records" set. Unless there's the slightest sign that anyone except the respective teams' alumni fans will give a hoot about this, oh, NOW, there's not point in having it. --Calton | Talk 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you want a sign that "anyone except the respective teams' alumni fans will give a hoot about this" as you say then here you go: Johntex - alumus of The University of Texas at Austin, NMajdan - alumnus of the University of Oklahoa, Mecu - alumnus of the University of Colorado. All three have spoken up to keep the article and none of their schools were involved in the game. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All bowl games are notable. MECU≈talk 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The only hard and fast guideline Wikipedia has ever had is that the article be verifiable. In the ensuing void, the Wikipedia community has come up with additional guidelines to further refine the content of the encyclopedia. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the absence of any specific guideline means that the community intended it to be deleted, rather it is more likely that the community has not yet considered it. I generally tend to agree with arguments that the college football bowl system is completely broken. But decisions about the suitability of the article should not be based on what we think about the greed and stupidity of the system, but rather it should simply be about the game itself. The facts are: it was a sanctioned post season bowl game with scads of reliable sources. Participation in the bowl game is by invite only, so on some level, a deliberate decision was made to invite these two teams. Certainly, some line has to be drawn, not all college games are interesting for Wikipedia, but I think a reasonable bar can be set, and I think that bar should be "bowl game". I'm all for having the game described in the individual team season articles too, but its difficult to get an objective and neutral description of the game in those articles, and readers are probably not interested in scanning through the team page to find details about the game. Since fans will always be looking for a place to discuss a particular game, descriptions of it are always creeping into articles about individual players and coaches. I watch a number of pages for coaches and players, and folks are prone to add multiple paragraphs dedicated to a single game if it is not treated elsewhere. So, in the interest of contributing to consensus, this article passes WP:V, Wikipedia is not paper, and bowl games are notable and appropriate. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PAPER. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:PAPER isn't a reason for keeping an article Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is. WP:PAPER points out that Wikipedia is not made of paper and that we have room to be comprehensive. This article is part of a comprehensive treatment of college football. Johntex\^talk 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It also says that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars". Just saying WP:PAPER isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The quote you provide, "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars" still gives no reason for deletion. The article complies with the five pillars, with the guidelines from the relevant wikiproject on what should be included in the article, etc.

Your nomination provides no reason at all for this to be deleting. You call it an "average bowl game" - that is purely a matter of opinion. Some people might say that Grover Cleveland was an average US President or that Boone, North Carolina is an average town. He don't just cover the very best and most exceptional. Johntex\^talk 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did give a reason, it's that there is not indication why this bowl game is more notable then another bowl game, WP:N is a reason. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you mention WP:N. Let's look at that guideline. It says, "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - That means since this topic received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is presumed to be notable. Johntex\^talk 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this bowl game need to more "more" notable than other bowl games? Doesn't it just have to be notable in it's own right. If all bowl games are notable, then it doesn't matter which are "more" notable. Spanneraol 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering how you detemine how one bowl game is "more notable" than another. --UsaSatsui 16:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe in the notability of bowl games. Simply cramming them into the main article would get problematic over time. If the article can be made properly, then it should be allowed. --Bobak 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Seems like there is community consensus that bowl games are notable, I withdraw. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Since there's other delete votes, I'm not sure you can withdraw the nom...at least not for a speedy keep. --UsaSatsui 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I disagree emphatically that Bowl games are notable on their own. There were over 30 different bowl games last year alone, some of which were certainly not very notable, and don't deserve individual articles. That being said, I won't argue strongly that this game was not notable, however, it seems to me that it was mostly notable because Brennan set a season record. To me, that means most of the relevant information belongs on Colt Brennan, and doesn't merit its own article. Cogswobbletalk 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That Other Paper

That Other Paper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Strothra 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be proven. Tx17777 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, non-notable web site, though the independent sources do make this a close call. Realkyhick 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Realkyhick has said, the independent sources do make this a tough decision but all the prove is that this is real, no notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Any source on the circulation of this paper? A high circulation could help establish the notability. --UsaSatsui 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This looks like an indie paper with no real notability. I've lived in Austin for the past 4 years and I've never once ran across this paper Corpx 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Strothra's reason (Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX). -66.69.198.85 06:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field hack

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

Delete. No evidence of notability. Seems to be a WP:HOAX and WP:MADEUP. In fact, the article itself states, "The game rules, for field hack, were written by J. Micah Ferguson, a student of Texas State University–San Marcos, in the Fall of 2006." By looking at the article history, one learns that this individual is also the person who created the article. Strothra 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Tx17777 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A search of Google and Ask.com both using the terms "Field hack" and "Field hack sport" reveals no entry aside from this article. The term "Field hack" seems to be real, relating to programming/coding, but I found no evidence that this article is verifiable. Additionally, a search of the person's name, J. Micah Ferguson, revealed no relevant articles or pages. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, but I sure wish it was! It may have been made up one day, but it looks like a lot of fun and surprisingly well thought out. (I think it may have borrowed some rules from another game that I've come across.) Nonetheless, no sources given, and no relevant ghits. Darn! Realkyhick 20:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think it's a hoax (WP:AGF), but it is fairly obviously something made up in school (or University) one day by someone who clearly doesn't have much understanding of Wikipedia policy, and as such falls a long way short of WP:N and WP:V. Iain99 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, canonical example of WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Iaian99, and as original research. Bearian 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dharmic religion

The result was Closing due to WP:FORUMSHOP. The person who nominated this article has simultaneously opened up and an Request for Comment and a CFD. I found this via the RFC. Most of the comments below appear to be from involved parties.Balloonman 03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Reopening debate per discussion at Wikipedia talk: Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions where it appears that the AFD was in favor before an individual opened all 3---and based upon that discussion (which is being rehashed here), I would agree it is a nelogism.Balloonman 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

obscure neologism, though the subject of Buddhism and Hinduism is well researched, hardly results for google books. The main source for this article seems to be WP:Fringe books by David Frawley, so any redeemable contents could be merged there. See

• Talk:Dharmic_religion#Please_do_not_remove_request_for_citations and
• Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions

Andries 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: closely related category for deletion is here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_2#Category:Dharmic_religions. Andries 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and discuss possible move to Dharma in religions or other suitable name. The subject is encyclopedic. Also, I would avoid making claims of WP:FRINGE in reference to Frawley. Google books is not a library (at least not yet) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think there is good reason to classify the books by david Frawley as fringe. A mere glance at the book titles gives already some indication. Andries 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Frawley is not Fringe, except if you think that Hinduism is fringe and not worth discussing. Frawley's books are popularizations and introductions of Ayurveda and Hinduism. Would you call the "Idiots Guide to Hinduism" also fringe? --Harryhouse 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • If you do not believe Frawley is fringe, take it up at the fringe noticeboard. I certainly intend to remove him as a reference from any article not in his specific area of expertise, which is the teaching if yoga, unless I am wrong. Hornplease 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Frawley's Ph.D. is in Chinese medicine or somesuch at a no-name institution. rudra 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Frawley is clearly a fringe author who is completely unreliable on matters of fact. Buddhipriya 08:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Dharmic religions being part of a classification of religions (as this article asserts-ed) is not attested by reliable sources. Or redirect to Dharma, which more or less covers what this article currently does and which is pretty much what the famous Frawley reference(page 27) merits. Doldrums 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per Doldrums. --Strothra 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. The phrase seems to me to have sufficient currency to justify the article. Johnbod 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On what basis, precisely? Hornplease 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Having come across the term dharmic religion, I came upon this article last week and found its existence invaluable. I was looking for information on Dharmic religions and would not have looked for the Dharma article since I would assume that is about a concept rather than a group of religions. --Dajanes 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Dharmic religion" is a neologism. The religions discussed have multiple points of contact, the concept of dharma being only one of them, as they all emerged in a common intellectual and philosophical milieu. There have been comparativist studies of various aspects, but no academically well-known source has been cited. (Frawley and Klostermeier are dilettantes, Guenon and Cousins are tangential, etc.) This is an OR puff job, with any salvageable material belonging in other pages such as Dharma. rudra 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is difficult to believe that the commonality among these religions has not been discussed by academics - if this isn't the name for it, then there must be another similar name this could be filed under. Providing a taxonomy of related religions is a basic building block of the study of world religions. MarkBul 22:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there is a name for it, (I doubt it) then it is not "dharmic religions". Andries 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Dharmic Religion is a used term [3] and it disambiguates religions from Abrahamic religions. Sfacets 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per discussion on WT:HNB concerning this issue. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sfacets, we use "Abrahamic religions" and don't consider it an "obscure neologism". Just seeing the term "Dharmic religions" used in a text made instant sense to me as a religious student. Also, bad "idea" to remove the term from the articles which use it, and then nominate it for deletion...bordering on bad faith. I notice other users have also pointed out your "personal crusade" and told you to stop trying to remove the term from every article that uses it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a bad idea to remove a neologism from an article that uses it. It may have 'made sense' to you as a student of religions, but we cannot guarantee it would make sense to everyone, and further, we need a reliable source to tell us that it makes sense before it can be used everywhere. Hornplease 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, possibly politically motivated. Less than five hits on google scholar. According to User:Buddhipriya on the Hinduism noticeboard "...its absence from a sampling of well-known works suggests to me that it is not widely used. I did not find it in the indexes of:

• Kulki and Rothermund, A History of India
• Keay, India
• Thapar, Early India
• Basham, The Wonder That Was India
• Zimmer, Philosophies of India
• Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy
• Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy
• Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism
• Conze, Buddhist Thought In India."

My own response on that occasion was: "6 links for "Dharmic tradition" on Scholar (1 on JSTOR), 18 on books, most of which talk about Gandhi, and only 4 of which use the phrase in the sense in which Encarta does." "No results on Lexis, less than 10 results for DR on Google News Archive from reliable sources. One throwaway Encarta reference is insufficient for an entire article title. Meanwhile, the article itself is merely a collection of stubs about Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, with little or no real analysis, obviously, since there are no reliable sources on which to base this analysis. The Buddhism and Hinduism article is better, but here, again, there isn't any organic analysis. This is a neologism. I am now convinced." This was in mid-June. I have waited this long for any major further information; none has come to light. Let it be clear: there is absolutely no justification for perpetrating the hoax that there is reliable research linking these religions in this particular fashion. Obviously comparative studies have been done, but implying that Dharma means the same thing across these religions, that this is their main point of correspondence, etc. etc.... all original research. Hornplease 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, removal of the term from many articles should go on even if this article is kept. I have sought dispute resolution in the case of human (the term is now removed) and I will seek dispute resolution for some other cases if I am reverted. Using this obscure neologism in the article human is absurd. Andries 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If this article is kept, I am rewriting it in line with the only reliable source reference for it, which is about the political use of the term. It might become six lines, and open to PROD-ding by the next person who happens by, but at least it won't be original research. Hornplease 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Buddhipriya didn't read the books, he only looked up the index. The books could use a synonym --Harryhouse 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Of the list he used, only Radhakrishnan and Moore, I think, is not indexed full-text by Google books; if they contained the term, it would have shown up in the search. (And R&M is a sourcebook.) Hornplease 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I would add as a personal comment that in my own experience I do not recall ever seeing the term used in any academic text. I understand that my personal views of this sort are worthless as evidence, but nevertheless, it is the case. There is no question in my mind that this is a neologism that was devised primarily to acheive certain political objectives. It is not in general use to refer to any group of religions. Buddhipriya 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - Per my comments above. I am now more convinced than ever that the term is a neologism and that unless salted it probably will be put back into use. Buddhipriya 02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - As a world religion grouping, Dharmic is comparable to the Abrahamic religions and Taoic religions. The Taoic religion article provides the following support for this specific claim: Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 71-72, 75-76. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055. --Evb-wiki 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Does the reference use the term "dharmic religion"? Andries 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • According to an Amazon search, the book doesn't support the statement in the Taoic religion article (at least in pages 70-76). Incidentally it does not even use the words Taoic or Abrahamic and uses Dharmic only once in an unrelated sense (based on both amazon and google book search). Abecedare 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Google.com has more than enough of results for "dharmic religion" [4]. With such many results, I am more than surprised that Hornplease calls it a "neologism" (which of course it is, like also "Abrahamic or Semitic religions", or "wikipedia", but a widely used one). It may seem a clever idea to use Google Books as a argument in the AFD, but Google Books is not strong at all in Indology books. (No Internet source is really strong in Indology books, but at least one or two are better than Google (I'd have to look that one up.)) Secondly, the term is probably more often used as "dharmic tradition", dharmic beliefs" and such. See [5], [6], [7], Prabhu, Joseph, Some challenges facing multiculturalism in a globalized world, ReVision, June 22, 2001·

Lexis is a database for legal documents and legal research. I don't know, you can search there maybe for a million years for religious terms without success. Why not try the Fauna and Flora of India database?

The motivation (at least for Hornplease) behind this AFD was apparently this:

"It states that the phrase [Dharmic religion] is used as a political ploy to indicate solidarity -and indeed, identity- between non-Semitic religions on the subcontinent by the VHP. I then looked at the talkpage of the article, which gave rise to further concern when viewed in that light. I need some more input on this soon, please." Hornplease 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [8]

First, the book that User:Hornplease describes seems to use the term "dharmic religions" itself for the dharmic religions. Secondly, Hornplease's statements reads like that of a nationalist who is upset when he hears that Christianity is a "Jewish creation", or has a "divide and conquer" mentality. This is probably not true, but he should be careful how he says things, otherwise someone who doesn't look up his edits might mistaken him for such. Thirdly, the term exists and has a history, and all that can be said about the quote is that politicians are not always anti-intellectual.

The Encarta encyclopedia uses the term. [9] It says: :Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism share with Hinduism the concept of dharma along with other key concepts, and the four religions may be said to belong to the dharmic tradition. ...between Hinduism and other dharmic traditions..... In many ways, labeling the other dharmic traditions as non-Hindu has a basis that derives more from politics than from philosophy. Indeed, greater differences of belief and practices lie within the broad family labeled as Hinduism than distinguish Hinduism from other dharmic systems.

There are three possibilities for this AFD: First one, we delete this article together with the Abrahamic religions article. The second possiblity is to keep it, and the Abrahamic religions article. The third possibility is to move it to another title. The major reason for the apparent confusion among some editors is that there are many different terms for the same thing. Prior to 1950, Dharmic religions were usually called Aryan or Indo-Aryan religions in the West. After 1950, obviously the term has become a bit less used (Semitic religions has also become less used). After 1950, in the West, alternative terms like Dharmic tradition or "dharmic beliefs" or more scientifically "Indic religion" are used. Dharmic religions is probably not the most scientific term, more scientific is Indic religions. We could move the article to "Indic religion", and explain all the other terms in the same article. For Indic religion, see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and many others. This website [19] says:

The term ‘Indic’ is how the field is recognized by American scholars, hence our choice.

(I think I cannot vote, thats why I'm only commenting on this, although I am not completely new (I once had an account, I lost it and had left Wikipedia)) --Harryhouse 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this remark. AfD is not a vote, so your comments are certainly not unwelcome. I have no opinion on Indic religions, and will look into that possibility. I myself proposed 'Religions of Indian origin', which seems to be fairly common and is a neutral phrase.

My objection to 'dharmic religions' was primarily that it is a neologism overused on WP, and only tangentially that it may be a neologism created to push a particular POV, so we must be particularly careful. As I said above, I was aware of the Encarta reference; it was considered perhaps not enough on which to hang this article given the paucity of any other sources.

Google results per se are not enough, which is why I linked Google scholar results; Google per se includes a large number of sources that do not meet our criteria for reliability. Lexis, similarly, was checked because it indexes news and reviews from sources that do meet those criteria. The term is practically unknown in reliable sources. Google books contains the entire contents of (at least) the Harvard University library system, which contains a very large Indology section and is the largest academic library in the world.

I have no opinion on 'Abrahamic', which seems marginal; I definitely think 'Taoic' needs investigation. (Oh, and, no fervour of any sort, nationalistic or otherwise, motivates me on WP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Google books may possibly contain the entire list titles of books in the Harvard Library system; it does not contain their contents by any stretch of the imagination - if only!. Johnbod 01:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand over 80% of overall collection and all the out-of-print books have been digitized now. Hornplease 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are most certainly not available online. Surely you have noticed that only out-of-copyright books are all available - a very different matter. Actually hardly any of the books one actually needs on a particular subject aere available. Johnbod 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exaclty. Making Google books a fantastic online resource, but most definitively not comprehensive enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're surely not basing your claim on that 20%? simply put, the onus is then on you to demonstrate that the term is used in several mainstream studies of comparative religion. Hornplease 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but the term dharmic religion or dharmic tradition does not appear in the index of the book A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 71-72, 75-76. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055, so these phraces are most probably not used in the book and not extensively treated. Does anyone have access to the book? Andries 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not every term used in a book is also listed in the index, and the book could also use a synonym. Does it use Semitic/Abrahamic religion in the index? --Harryhouse 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it has been suggested during these discussions that the term is in common use. possible, but that is not enough for us to put together an article without sources that "address the subject directly in detail", as WP:NOTABILITY demands. we haven't found a book, a chapter of a book, a section, or even a paragraph that talks about Dharmic religions as such. what we have are asides - a sentence each in various sources saying these four religions are sometimes grouped together under this name. other than this statement, we haven't sourced anything about Dharmic religions from reliable sources, instead the article pulls together general information about the individual religions - it's a list with lead sections. the non-list sections are entirely OR in the sense that none of it is spoken of in the sources in the context of something called Dharmic religions. there's no source to suggest that what's been so put together is what characterises Dharmic religions. it has also been suggested that sources have not been found because we've not looked in the right place for them (or that there's a synonym we've missed). again, possible but saying so (as opposed to finding it) won't affect this deletion. Doldrums 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But none of the various discussions on the subject appear to have contributions from people who know the current academic literature on comparative religion (the most relevant subject). Everyone appears to be relying on the web. The phrase is clearly relatively recent; it does not bother me that it is not (as mentioned above) indexed in Basham, The Wonder That Was India (1954) or Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy (1957) etc. That it is not books over 50 years old does not make it a neologism. Johnbod 12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not relying on the web. Please review the results of book index checking which I gave above, plus my personal experience with reading books. The term is a neologism not used widely, if at all, in the published academic literature. Buddhipriya 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have searched the following academic article indexes (which AFAIK are the largest and most comprehensive for humanities, social sciences and religion studies) for the phrase "dharmic religion":

• JSTOR
• Thomsons-ISI's Arts & humanities citation index
• American Theological Library Association religion database
• Bibliography of Asian studies

and found exactly zero hits. If you can suggest alternate academic databases that are worth looking into, I can give them a try too. Incidentally, and not surprisingly, all these indexes give thousands of hits for the search-word "dharma" itself. Abecedare 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Dharmic tradition" or "Dharmic faith" (search both "faith" and "faiths")≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I repeated the search for "dharmic religion", "dharmic tradition", "dharmic faith" and their plurals in all four academic indexes, and the result was same as above; except for one anomaly: JSTOR gave this article as a hit for "dharmic tradition" but the article PDF itself does not contain the word "dharmic", let alone "dharmic tradition" and anyways the article does not talk about anything relevant to the topic of the Dharmic Religion article (in summary the article compares the attitudes towards world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism to conceptualization of "primitive" religions like Nuer and Lugbara; Jainism and Sikhism are not even mentioned). Abecedare 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC) PS As pointed by Fullstop the article does contain the phrase "dharmic tradition" but it is used specifically to refer to brahmanical religion, and not as an umbrella term. Abecedare 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that JSTOR contains but a very small subset of articles on religion. I am not familiar with the American Theological Library Association. I will ask an expert on the subject and report back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

@Abecedare: page 210, 11th line from the bottom; page 211, 10th line from the bottom.

@Jossi: religion is reasonably well covered on JSTOR. Just to give you an idea: "Vedic religion" returns 285, "Dharma" 5024, "Karma" 4014, "Dharmic" 187, "Karmic" 894.

-- Fullstop 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fullstop for resolving the anomaly! I have edited my post above for clarification. Abecedare 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is some coverage information for : ATLA, JSTOR, ISI and BAS. Let me know if you learn of any more comprehensive databases and I can check if I have access to them. Cheers. Abecedare 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe idea of this article is interesting, and worth to be worked on. (Its name may be worth changing). Dharma is an all round term, almost impossible to translate. It has the same diffuse status as Logos has in the West. The religions that have sprung forth on the Indian peninsula do have certain features in common, that you cannot find in the "Religions of the book" in this article called Abrahamic religions. All of them believe in a cyclic time of long subcycles ending in the destructing of the cosmos followed by its reapperances (Sanskrit: Shristi and pralaya.) The goal of life is not salvation, but enlightenment/nirvana. In order to attain nirvana/enlightenment you have to purify yourself of the personal side of your being. The personal side is that that clings to the familiar, different desires and cravings, self-importance etc. Patanjali Yoga Sutras classifies the obstructions/klesas: Avidya, asmita, raga, dvesa and abhinivesa (Sanskrit) that is: Ignorance, me and mine, all that we consider our own and are attached to, desire for the pleasant, the enjoyable, disgust of anything, and as the last: fear of death. Reincarnation is also common in all of them, as is the belief of a common substratum of all human beings and the whole world, a metaphysical monism.

I don't know mutch about Sikhism. It is a combination of Islam and Hinduism, and more practically oriented than Hinduism. Of course its Muslim roots ought to be included in the article. Lots of other small faults, like considering "Bhagavad Gita" a summary of the "Vedas". References should be more substantial etc.--Tellervo 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the idea is not interesting, except to support political ideology. From an academic point of view, the sum total content is the commonplace that the religions emerged in a common religio-philosophical milieu, and as a result, have substantial overlap in concerns and terminology. But there it ends. The terms may be the same -- dharma, karma, saṃsāra, mokṣa, etc -- but the definitions differ considerably. That's why rather than trying to "unify" all of them under some common (generally useless) rubric, the bulk of academic effort has been to clarify differences in the individual terms. "Dharmic religions" has about as much validity as "karmic religions", "samsaric religions" or "moksic religions" -- all of them nothing but politically motivated tendentious neologisms. rudra 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly coming at this from a particular sub-continental perspective. In the West the use of the term has no politicl connotations. Actually the web evidence for political use is as thin as it is for scholarly use - what is it? - about 1 1/2 web uses that treally fit your description? Johnbod 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this, mutatis mutandis, cannot be said of Abrahamic religions. The question is not "is the term useful", but "is it notable". dab (𒁳) 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Dharma and redirect to there. Dharma has pretty much the same material but a lot less politicking. Editors who prefer the term "Dharmic religion" can continue to do so with no loss of comfort for the reader.
  The question of whether the *title* of an article is "supported" in the academic world or not is rather moot. If that were the benchmark of all article titles, Wikipedia would all but vanish. The question is whether the *subject* matter of that article is supported, and given that "Dharmic religions" has almost no material not already covered at "Dharma", a redirect would certainly suffice.
  -- Fullstop 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  ps: The notion that JSTOR doesn't cover religion-related subjects is not correct, a search for "Vedic religion" turns up quite a bit.
  Delete followed by re-create protect. Trusting soul that I am, :) I hadn't realized that it was a VHP propaganda phrase. I'm almost surprised they didn't use "Aryan religion." -- Fullstop 00:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to Dharma disambiguate. I am surprised to find the term is not in widespread use, but I have to recognize the evidence presented. The question presents itself, then, what is the umbrella term for "non-Abrahamic world religions" or "Hinduism+Shramana"? Clearly, when categorizing world religions, these should be grouped together, but under what name? dab (𒁳) 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

any enlightenment to be had here? Doldrums 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

the most recent work suggested as additional reading is Fred Louis Parrish, The Classification of Religions: Its Relation to the History of Religions (1941)! Doldrums 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Middle Eastern religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and a variety of ancient cults; (2) Far Eastern religions, comprising the religious communities of China, Japan, and Korea, and consisting of Confucianism, Taoism, Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”) Buddhism, and Shinto; (3) Indian religions, including early Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and sometimes also Theravada Buddhism and the Hindu- and Buddhist-inspired religions of South and Southeast Asia; (4) African religions, or the cults of the tribal peoples of black Africa, but excluding ancient Egyptian religion, which is considered to belong to the ancient Middle East; (5) American religions, consisting of the beliefs and practices of the Indian peoples indigenous to the two American continents; (6) Oceanic religions—i.e., the religious systems of the peoples of the Pacific islands, Australia, and New Zealand; (7) classical religions of ancient Greece and Rome and their Hellenistic descendants.

the disambiguation should perhaps be between Dharma, Religion in India and Hinduism and Buddhism / Hinduism and Jainism (the latter two could be merged). this is obviously about categorizing religions by cultural area. The "Dharmic religions" have a certain common cultural background, while theologically, they are as diverse as can be. dab (𒁳) 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

there is no point of a disambig. Irrespective of how one slices it, there is only one meaning of "Dharmic religion": religions that have "Dharma" as a principle. -- Fullstop 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: judging from the opinions expressed above, there are three issues that are being conflated in this AFD:

• What is the collective name for Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikkhism?
  This is irrelevant to this AFD because the premise - is it possible/necessary to have a collective name for those four? - has to be addressed first. It is in any case perhaps more worthy of discussion over at Indic religions.
• Does the material in the "Dharmic religions" article justify a separate article?
  No, the material in the article is to a great extent covered at Dharma.
• Is the title of the "Dharmic religions" article appropriate for the content?
  There are two issues here:

1. it implies that Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikkhism are so similar that they are treatable as a cohesive unit.
2. any proposal to retain the article title overlooks that the term "Dharmic religions" was coined as a propaganda term, and no matter how "handy" the term may be on an intellectual plane (see #1), any use of it to do what it was coined to do gives the neologism currency.
   That does not preclude that "Dharmic religions" cannot redirect to "Dharmic religions (propaganda term)" and which is fleshed out along those lines.

-- Fullstop 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not bring the other neologism up for AfD too.nids(♂) 15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

... because JSTOR finds 10 hits for "Abrahamic religion" and 48 for "Abrahamic religions" (not overwhelming, but infinitely more than zero for "Dharmic religion(s)"). It is a false parallelism to compare the two terms. Abecedare 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

the concept is useful, but the term is not in use. No problem. Per my EB quote above, "Indian religions" includes "early Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and sometimes also Theravada Buddhism and the Hindu- and Buddhist-inspired religions of South and Southeast Asia". This is clearly what we are looking for. "Dharmic religions should hence be a disambiguation between (a) Dharma (explains the "Dharmic") and (b) Indian religions (is rarely used as a synonym for that group). Problem solved. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem of what to call the concept is reflected in varying usages in academic texts that try to lump these issues together. Finding the perfect term to express the idea of "religions that originated in India and which may still have some things in common, but which may have diverged quite a bit, and spread to other countries" need not be solved here in order to prove that "Dharmic Religions" is a neologism. Thus the finding of a replacement term is not essential to this AfD. Buddhism as practiced in Japan is quite different from the Indian roots. Buddhipriya 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it: there used to be two overlapping articles with merge tags, Major religions in India and Religion in India. I merged the demographic stuff into Religion in India (formerly "Major religions in India"), and made Indian religions (formerly "Religion in India") about the religions of Indian origin per EB. So, the stuff at Dharmic religions should at this point be merged into Indian religions, and the title should either be a redirect there, or a disambiguation between Indian religions and Dharma. dab (𒁳) 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I had forgotten about the article Indian religions which is a much more common term and makes the article dharmic religion redundant. Andries 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. --Ragib 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

comment, what, then, are we going to do with Taoic religions?

• Find sources: Taoic religions — news, books, scholar

it doesn't exactly have more currency than "Dharmic". It is still very useful for topics of comparative religion to be able to say, in first approximation, "Abrahamic: 54%, Dharmic: 20%, irreligious: 14%, Taoic: 7%". --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per dab.Bakaman 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per rudra. Or move to something like "Non-abrahamic indic religions" or some such. Anything but a neologism. Sarvagnya 04:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • there's Indian religions. Just merge it there. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Keb25 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above comments. --NAHID 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I personally find the term "Dharmic religion" convenient and thought that it was widely used outside wikipedia. However a reasonably thorough literature search has shown that the suspected usage is completely absent in academic literature and reliable secondary sources (as evidenced above). The term does show up in numerous (unreliable) website and blogs as seen through a google search, but a passing reference to dharmic tradition in Encarta's Hinduism article is still the closest that I have seen to a reliable source. That perhaps justifies a redirect/disambiguation as suggested by dab, but not an article on its own or ubiquitous use of the terminology on wikipedia. Of course, the article content itself is notable and is already covered under Indian religions - a better if still imperfect title. Abecedare 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete and/or rename to "Dharma in Religions." The term Dharmic religion is used, but not in the way this article is written. As it is, this entire article is OR. Wikipedia is better then that. Sethie 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep as it is a well used term. If the conflict is factual inaccuracies, tag the article with {{totallydisputed}} and fix it. But this is clearly a notable encyclopediac topic and isn't a firnge neologism.--Sefringle^Talk 06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show where the term is widely used? Claiming it is well used isn't enough. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I think that contributors who say that the article must be kept should mention reliable sources with which the article can move beyond the list or stub, copied contents that it is now. Otherwise proponents of the article demand the impossible from other contributors. Andries 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt. –Animum 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zanpo

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

Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. A google search only comes up with less than 30,000 hits, most have nothing to do with the subject. ~ Wikihermit 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs in the British Isles

List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is now redundant on Wikipedia. The monarchs it covers, specifically English and Scottish ones are both in their own, better articles. It is also entirely unreferenced and confusing, and frankly a complete mess. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that it's a mess, and misleading mess at that, but rather than taking it out and shooting it, I'd suggest renaming and repurposing it. Move it to Lists of monarchs in Britain and Ireland and use it as a list of lists page. There are a an awful lot of B&I monarchs lists and a consolidated superlist in one place would be no bad thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, simply too much information to throwaway (agreeing with 'Angus McLellan'). GoodDay 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The information is all available in other lists. Majorly (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I know; but this article offers in (near) completeness the 'evolution' of the monarchies of the British Isles into a single monarchy (ie British monarchy). Sorta ties all those articles together. GoodDay 17:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; User:Majorly has not supplied sufficient information as to what would replace the article, poor as it is. Could do with a reorg along the lines of what User:Angusmclellan suggests, but deletion wouldn't help at all. –EdC 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: the large number of iws (32!) suggests that this is certainly not a redundant article. What would the reverse iw be if this article was deleted? –EdC 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Interwikis are irrelevant. They are articles that aren't the same subject as this one. And are probably better, more accurate and complete. Majorly (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand the reasoning, but it's important to have a single timeline. Deb 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If there are redundant pages, something somewhere should be deleted. MarkBul 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Replying to some of the points raised, what would replace the article is a List of monarchs of the United Kingdoms, to be created from the post-1707 section of List of English monarchs. Some, probably most, of the existing redirects pointing to this page would be changed to point to that one. Interwiki counting is misleading: a lot of the links do point to equivalent articles, but bg:Крал на Обединено кралство Великобритания и Северна Ирландия covers monarchs of the UKofGB&[N]I, eo:Listo de britaj reĝoj is a List of English/UK rulers, I'm not sure what he:מלכי בריטניה is, the kawiki article is English/UK again, so is the Kernewek one, the Latin one is UK/GB, and I think you can guess what lt:Anglijos karaliai is about, and the Limburgs one only covers England/UK as well in spite of its title, so too the Nederlands, Polish, Serb, Suomi, and Chinese. The Swedish article is GB/UK again. Impressive stuff, not that the number of interwikis, or the confusion this one generates among interwikiers, are arguments for or against the existence of this article. As for Deb's timeline, I don't see one of those for Italy or Spain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose:Keep (As you can see from my comments!) Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, the article is the only one that actually documents the monarchs of the peoples of these islands. Yes it needs some work done on it but the content needs saving in one all encompassing article - lets improve it, not ditch it. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in concurrence with above ^† DBD 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well laid out plan and map to help give meaning to the other lists and how they fit in two the whole, without this page you can look at those individual lists and not immediately know how the whole works together,KTo288 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What's with all the votes saying "oppose" instead of "keep"? Atropos 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My misake (meant to put Keep). GoodDay 23:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article is simply wrong. It should, in order to live up to it's title, show the Irish and Welsh monarchies as well, and show the various rulers of the Heptarchy in parallel, in addition to all the early kingdoms in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. This is clearly impossible, so needs scrapping in its present form. It should be a list of links to other lists. TharkunColl 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, but the solution is to expand the article not delete it.KTo288 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Those who oppose 'deleting' this article should vote Keep; those who support deletion vote Delete GoodDay 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with GoodDay and Angus McLellan. Links can be added to what TharkunColl suggest is missing. --Bduke 00:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - very useful -- Roleplayer 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-defined global list that complements the other lists. It needs a cleanup not a deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Should probably include the Irish kings but definitely a good use of lists. Very encylopedic. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Yep, Irish monarchs belong, so do the Welsh rulers (the indepenant Princes of Wales). GoodDay 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be an excellent article. If it has problems, one of the wikiprojects should take it under it's wing to iron them out. It's certainly not the kind of thing we ought to be deleting. AndyJones 12:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it follows the guidelines in WP:LIST, as useful, adding links, encyclopedic, and verifiable and notable in its own right. Bearian 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For all its quirks, this list is more clear and accurate than either of the separate lists of Scottish and English monarchs; together they put forward the idea that the Scottish monarchy ceased to exist in 1707, while the English monarchy continues today. This list more clearly - and correctly - traces the evolution of two monarchies into one. --G2bambino 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I concur with the comment preceding mine. This page is, however, in need of reworking so let's try and improve its quality instead of scrapping it completely! --Caponer 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of covers of the smashing pumpkins songs

List of covers of the smashing pumpkins songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - per strong precedent, lists of a band's songs that have been covered by other artists are not notable. If any particular cover is notable then it should be noted in the article for the song and/or the cover artist's discography. Otto4711 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tx17777 18:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strongly agree with reason put forth by Otto4711. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:NOT criteria.--JForget 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cover versions of muse songs

List of cover versions of muse songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - per strong precedent, lists of a band's songs that have been covered by other artists are not notable. If any particular cover is notable then it should be noted in the article for the song and/or the cover artist's discography. Otto4711 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tx17777 18:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strongly agree with reason put forth by Otto4711. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT#IINFO. And don't forget List of cover versions of Radiohead songs. Crazysuit 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Maxim_(talk) 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Live Lounge covers

List of Live Lounge covers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - per extensive precedent, the coverage by one artist of another artist's song is not notable. If the particular cover version is notable then it should be covered in an article for the song and/or the discography for the performer. Otto4711 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

STRONG Oppose - with all of the others like List of covers of the smashing pumpkins songs and List of cover versions of muse songs I would agree, however the Live Lounge is completely different. The live lounge is popular amongst British music fans whom listen to Radio 1 and this list provides a extensive list of every artist whom has appeared on the show covering another artists' song. The show has also produced an album containing some of these songs after constant pressure from the public due to their popularity (Radio 1's Live Lounge). If the article must be deleted then this list should be moved to the main Live Lounge page. Chappy ^T_C 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• If the album is notable then there should be an article for the album. The notability of the individual artists, the songs or the radio show do not mean that every song that's covered on the show inherits that notability. Notability is not popularity so the popularity of the show is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is an article for the album itself, click the Radio 1's Live Lounge link. I was trying to point out that as the show is MORE than notable and the covers recorded on it are MORE than notable enough to warrant a double album, containing just some of the covers (others have been put up on iTunes aswell) that this list is an important reference for people wishing to find a list of all the covers recorded for the show. Besides it is the covers notability that prompted the creation of the album. It is not just the usual cover list. If all of these were just put on the individual bands pages it would take a user days to find all of them. Chappy ^T_C 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would say this was as notable as List of songs in The O.C. and this article was kept after an AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in The O.C.. Chappy ^T_C 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• The notability of the show segment is not inherited by every single cover song that's played on it. The album of covers may be notable but that again does not automatically impart notability to every other cover. It was not the notability of the covers that prompted the album, it was the popularity. Popularity is not notability. And I would say that this is as notable as the lists of songs from The Office (UK), The Office (US), Scrubs, Skins, Freaks and Geeks and the other dozen or so that were deleted at AFD. Otto4711 16:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Live Lounge is well regarded as a show where artists take on songs from different genres and in different styles from their normal work. This is a useful reference to those unique performances (usually never heard anywhere else except the radio show) and should not be disregarded in the same way as the nominations above. Tx17777 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Live Lounge. Live Lounge isn't even a radio show, it's a segment of a radio show. Live Lounge is a small article, so there's no reason to have a separate list anyway. Crazysuit 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful article - its easy to read and informative. I wouldn't like to see it jammed up on the same page as Live Lounge, just well linked. Goldbringer 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I was looking for this exact list and was very glad to find it, to delete it would be petty to say the least. I don't really understand the motivation to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.17 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabana

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

Reason: article has been marked for cleanup since May with no changes. Even the initial article had severe POV problems and the current version is in my opinion much worse. will381796 15:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I can find no salvagable, sourced, notable content. /Blaxthos 15:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have removed the indents that rendered the text difficult to read due to the "non-format" boxes (I hate to scroll horizontally) just so I could at least evaluate the article in proper format. The article's first sentence claims that "Gabana" is an emotion, and yet the article is about some kind of musical group/artist. Granted, the article is very badly written, and disjointed, but I have a hard time finding anything that justifies keeping it and attempting to re-write it. While Google does come up with some hits for a band named Gabana, it would not appear that this band meets the notability requirements for musicians/ensembles, and seems to be evident when the article itself states: Official discography consists of 2 singles. Additionally, no references at all are given, and the external links are either associated with the band, or fan site of some kind. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Quite aside from having some serious POV and style issues, there is nothing in here to suggest notability. Tx17777 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN and can not be salvaged in any way. 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aidinism

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

Was previously deleted by WP:PROD. Has been recreated, so brought to AfD. No mention of this philosophical movement on Google news archive or Google books. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day. /Blaxthos 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If a philosophy or religion is notable, it's unlikely that Wikipedia will be the very first place on the entire Internet for it to show up. Eleland 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, WP:V, and probably WP:OR and WP:MADEUP while we're at it. Iain99 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I find it somewhat unlikely that Wikipedia is the only source for information on a legitimate religion, unless Jimbo promotes himself to God. Created by an SPA of the same name; nothing to suggest this exists (not even a link to their own website) — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have to second Iain99's feelings, this has a rack of guidelines and policies it would appear to fail: WP:OR, Sect notability, WP:V, and as Iain mentioned, most possibly WP:MADEUP. Additionally, no references, and perhaps more telling, no external links given. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR at the very least. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete Article is clearly made up. You can't just slap a name on your own personal beliefs and make a wikipedia article on it. Tx17777 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's very obvious that this is made up. Oysterguitarist 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt because I'm certain this guy's just going to create the article again in the future otherwise; check out the Talk page. Propaniac 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and salt. I haven't redirected it, as there was no real consensus to (some people specifically argued not to redirect, whilst others did, and some said nothing). If you really, desperately want to redirect it, I suggest initiating a discussion on the target's talk page, and take it from there. If consensus does emerge, ask at WP:RFPP for an edit to a protected page. Cheers, Daniel 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic link exchange

Automatic link exchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created for spam purposes, this article has been subject to multiple attempts at redirect and merge to Link exchange, resisted steadfastly by the spammer. AfD'ing as a last resort. Eleland 15:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and do not redirect - the concept only exists as a spamtool for one proprietary service. Unreferenced spammylicious. /Blaxthos 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete and do not redirect, i think article is useful and contains no spam Savweb 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)— Savweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete and do not redirect - The article really does not bring anything that cannot easily be implemented in the article on search engine optimization. In any case there is an article about link exchange in which this could be placed as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem-fanat (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Actually I would agree that I don't see any spam issues here. The article clearly describes what automatic link exchange is in a clear and easy way for people that don't know anything about it. So I would suggest to KEEP the article. Newstas 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)— Newstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - Two suspicious SPA's on the same obscure topic (which seems like a marketing concept from one company)... Closing admin might consider WP:SSP and salt. /Blaxthos 18:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, then Scrunch up, Throw away, Burn, Dispose of in landfill then Salt. Then vasectomise the creator, refuse any Social Security benefits and then neglect to send a Christmas card. Any questions? --WebHamster 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're letting the creator keep his keyboard? That's generous. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP the article, and close this thread 87.248.190.22 06:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) — 87.248.190.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KEEP THE ARTICLE and interlink it with Link Exchange - this one is the continuation on link exchange article as one of its forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.26.161.59 (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) — 217.26.161.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Less Spam, more salt. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Let the spam (er, "search engine optimization") community develop their own documentation of methods that they use to disrupt search results. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the well-justified dislike for the technique may be influencing the feelings expressed about the article. Needs sourcing, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 September 2007
• Redirect to Link exchange as this is really a specific type of link exchange. As for the redirect being reverted, that can be dealt with through page protection I would assume. -- Whpq 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Gore

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

Player fails requirements for notability by articles own admission, having made no professional appearances for any club Chappy ^T_C 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Chappy ^T_C 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No professional appearances. --Dweller 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability per WP:BIO to warrant an encyclopedic article in Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional delete although - although he never made a first team start, can a Leeds fan (we must have some) confirm if he ever made a sub appearance that might push him over the bar? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a big Leeds fan. If he had made even a substitute appearance for Leeds in any competition then he would be on this page. It is the most comprehensive source of players whom have played for Leeds United. As you can see he doesn't appear meaning he didn't make any professional appearances for the club. Other players on wikipedia whose League stats are 0 (0) for Leeds United still appear on this site with appearances in the cup competitions. Chappy ^T_C 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Current club is unknown and has been for some time, which suggests he has left football altogether - if he was playing at any sort of semi-professional level even for a minor league team, someone would know about it. Non-notable unless proven otherwise. Tx17777 18:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the notability guidelines. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - heavy conflict of interest edit issue also. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No passing WP:N here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 57 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per all the above really. He has not played in a professional league and, as such, does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. If a source surfaces that says he is currently playing then it should go to deletion review. The only link i have found is this. I am not sure that (a) it is the same person (b) what tier A.F.C. Dunstable are in. There also seems to be one playing for Buckingham Town F.C. according to a blog. Not the most reliable of source though!!! Woodym555 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dunstable play in Division 2 of the Spartan South Mids League, which is seven levels below League Two..... ChrisTheDude 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that both teams are well bellow the threshold for notability. I maintain it should be deleted. Woodym555 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't appear notable and offers no references to counter that impression. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Non-admin closure Tomj 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ja Rule

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

There are no references or sources to back up any of the information in the article. Shadyaftrmathgunit 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article and Transwiki the AfD to uncycolpedia. Articles are not deleted because they lack references; the subject is clearly notable and not having an article on him would be a serious omission. Eleland 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep When I saw there was an AfD on this topic I was afraid of she I would see when I clicked the link for the article-- maybe a few poorly written scribblings from a pre-teen fan of Ja Rule. But instead I found that this AfD nomination was simply overzealous. In fact we are dealing with a very good start to an article. The appropriate thing to do would be to tag the article for lack of sources, not an AfD. I believe very strongly in citing references, and this article falls extremely below the mark in giving citations. I have some concerns that there might be some copyvio issues-- but that concern is arising out of the lack of citations. I haven't checked on anything yet. We just need to light a fire under some of the Wikipedians who are involved in editing hip hop articles and pop artist articles. This can be whipped up into shape quickly. AfD was the wrong way to go here. OfficeGirl 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball keep Add sources. AfD is not the place for this.--Sethacus 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Wow I was surprised to see this listed here. Ja Rule has achieved multi-platinum albums, top ten Billboard songs, and several Grammy nominations. Add this to WP:BJAODN :D Spellcast 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. Article does need serious copyediting (formal tone/diction). /Blaxthos 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - Is this a joke? He's notable, per Spellcast. This makes no sense. --- Realest4Life 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Why is this on AfD? Ja Rule is clearly notable. Smashville 17:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Is this some kind of joke? He's one of the biggest stars on the planet — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is a complete non-issue. You can't seriously suggest the deletion of an entire article on one of the world's best known rappers just because it isn't cited properly. It certainly needs improvement , but deletion is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (as my old granny used to say) Tx17777 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, why isn't this AFD closed yet? Clearly a notable musician, has had lots of hits. 96T 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Born to Lose, Built to Win (The Reagan Era)

Born to Lose, Built to Win (The Reagan Era) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL) with no references (fails WP:V). Article has been deleted via prod twice already (link); this time the prod was removed without comment. Request either a protected redirect to Juelz Santana, or salting. Precious Roy 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - eo 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He has said on numerous interviews and TV shows that this is the name of his next album--Yankees10 22:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to recreation once a release date becomes available.--Sethacus 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The artist saying "this is what my next album is called" in an interview is not grounds for an article on its own. Get a confirmed release date, a track listing or a press release from the record label as a reference and its an article. As it is, it's nothing more than a rumor. Tx17777 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete by now per WP:CRYSTAL, and recreate after release. There is not way to keep this article without reliable source. Carlosguitar 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice against a sourced recreation.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinnaminson Mall

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

Tagged for cleanup and context for months with no improvement. Non-notable mall that was torn down a few years ago, fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - unreferenced and nonnotable. It probably wasn't notable even when it existed. Shalom ^Hello 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to proove this mall was notable when it existed, and now it doesn't exist anymore, it is even less so. Tx17777 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless sources can be found that demonstrate notability. Jakew 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Jakew.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}
• Delete delete per nom, given the lack of notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DCAU Extended Timeline Guide

DCAU Extended Timeline Guide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list Rhindle The Red 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is just a collection of episode lists. A gx7 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT - Pure plot summary Corpx 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment Thats actually a very cool and useful article to a DCAU nerd like me. Should the vote be delete some kind of substantial effort should be amde to find a new home for it. Artw 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• That said, it would be a lot more fitting in wikipedia if it were in a format closer to that of Timeline of the Marvel Universe or Timeline of the DC Universe. keep and rewrite. Artw 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Timeline of the DC Animated Universe might be better if it were in point form. A gx7 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - much better title. Artw 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Rewrite, definitely. A very useful resource with precedent on the site. --Mister Six 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICTION and WP:V. Jakew 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, trivial information, unencyclopedic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrik Strage

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

Fails the criteria for creative professionals as defined by WP:BIO New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are found to get him past WP:N Corpx 04:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, could have been a speedy as notability is not asserted. Unless anyone can source it...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledgement window size

Acknowledgement window size (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)– (View AfD) Totally unreferenced and orphaned .The article is not clear and not notable.Harlowraman 14:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Comment appears to be aprt of a series of imported definitions for the 802.11 standard. --Dhartung | Talk 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if verified, it seems like this is something you'd find in a networking text book Corpx 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a single field in a TCP header. It's essentially an entry in a tech dictionary. See the TCP header section of Transmission Control Protocol and you'll find this field buried in the diagram/table of the TCP header. -- Whpq 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect anything not already in Transmission Control Protocol and redirect. (Hey, we already did it to SYN (TCP), and everybody knows that syn/ack kind of belong together) --spazure (contribs) (review) 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete dictionary definition. Jakew 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sliding window (not to Transmission Control Protocol, as the concept is found outside TCP as well), or just delete. I'm not sure there's really anything to merge — what there is is barely understandable due to lack of context — and the redirect isn't absolutely necessary seeing as there don't seem to be any links. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Maxim_(talk) 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Skee

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

Not notable enough to have his own article, should be deleted and redirected to The Black Wall Street article just like what happened to the Nu Jerzey Devil article. Shadyaftrmathgunit 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 11:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A quick search does show him to have his own radio show on Sirius Satellite. [20]. Unsure if that constitutes notability. Would like to see reliable 3rd party sources added to the article rather than the subjects own websites. ♫ Cricket02 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He is not "Nu Jerzey Devil". You failed to provide an explanation for your nomination, "not notable enough" and "just like what happened to the Nu Jerzey Devil article" is vague. How about telling us why he is not notable enough? How about linking to the Nu Jerzey Devil AfD so that people know what you are talking about? He is notable because he has his own radio show on both Power 106 and Sirius Satellite Radio. A Google search will give you about 213,000 results for "DJ Skee". He frequently works with famous artists such as Kanye West, Paul Wall, Snoop Dogg, The Game, and others on mixtapes. According to his website, his radio shows have an audience of over 1 million every week. --- Realest4Life 02:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

His own website would of course be self-promotional and not considered a reliable 3rd party source, other than for personal facts. As above, I would like to see more sources added to the article because I'm sure they're out there. I'll go ahead and add the one I found. While I don't believe mixtapes constitute notability within the WP:Music criteria, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe Keep is in order here because he is a well-known DJ. ♫ Cricket02 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not too familiar with U.S. radio stations, but is Sirius Satellite Radio broadcast nationally? If it is, he probably passes WP:MUSIC #11. Spellcast 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes Against Humanity Records

Crimes Against Humanity Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recording company. Only two artists with articles - both currently at AfD. Giggy\^Talk 07:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. AR Argon 09:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability here. MarkBul 15:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as appearing to lack notability, not that many ghits.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't assert notability. Melsaran (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Jaclyn Victor. JoshuaZ 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wajah

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

No references given. Its been tagged as potentially non-notable for 3 months. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of sources giving coverage Corpx 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't even a good start to a stub of an article. There is no assertion of notability. There are no sources given. One or two people contributed to this article in October and November 2005. There is no one around who knows enough about this topic or cares enough to do the work to demonstrate that it might be notable or even to explain the topic to readers who have never heard of this topic. If it is truly notable someone will re-create the article someday in the future with appropriate sources and clear information. But we can't keep this article on Wikipedia now. And I'll bet a shiny, shiny nickel that no one will notice when this article is deleted. OfficeGirl 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Jaclyn Victor. Reaching #1 in Malaysia is a claim of notability. However, I can't find any WP:RSfor that, and there doesn't seem to be a lot on the song that's differentiable in English (Wajah means "The Look"). As a result it is likely the article will never expand beyond permanent stub. Per the Music guidelines, that means it doesn't qualify for it's own article. Horrorshowj 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable song. Keb25 12:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Gottfried Swenson

Fred Gottfried Swenson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No references found to show this person is more notable than any other immigrant who came to the US via Ellis Island New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 06:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced,. Weak claim to notability appears to be unsourceable (as does the rest of the article). Jakew 10:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Four Google hits: RIP Fred.MarkBul 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure Fred was a good guy and a good farmer, but there's no evidence that he meets the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, if you look on the talk page of the article's creator (TRBUFF), you will see that he was notified of this AfD and responded thusly at 13:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC): "As the creator of the article, I give permission for the article to be deleted." He may not have understood that his permission was not at issue in an AfD, but it shows us that there's not a big push to find any information that would save this article. 'Nuff said. OfficeGirl 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, could almost have been a speedy.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backbone cabal

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

I'm surprised this article has even existed for five years, given the poverty of sourcing. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable group in history of Usenet, itself notable in history of Internet. Article may need cleanup, but it is not some kind of hoax or NN-cruft; see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/cabal-conspiracy-FAQ/ from 7 Sep 1995 (!). Eleland 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wow, the whippersnappers today know nothing of the internet if they think this isn't important enough to warrant an article. And poor sourcing is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Tarc 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, defnitely a notable group.--JForget 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability well-established, hoax or triviality not possible, extremely important for the history of Usenet and the Internet. Take it to cleanup, would you? --Kizor 09:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given above. Definitely notable in Usenet history. --Cybercobra 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In this case WP:SELFPUB applies. Encyclopedic value about the USENET. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly notable, may need some sourcing though (there are plenty of them out there). Melsaran (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK). --Haemo 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charley Kazim Uchea

Charley Kazim Uchea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redirect. Uchea is not notable. Apppearing on Big Brother, doing interviews in papers and magazines, and an appearance on The Weakest Link do not make someone notable. If it did nearly all housemates would get their own pages. The person who created this page User:Zingostar is unwilling to accept a redirect, insisting she is notable (although he's not keen to discuss the issue with me), so a deletion discussion should settle the matter once and for all. If she goes onto becoming a TV presenter (like Nikki or Jade), then fair enough. But at the moment the page is either a repeat of what is on List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK) or rumour getting her own show or appearing on Strictly Come Dancing.--UpDown 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "And will probably be a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing" - according to a rumour on Digital Spy. Again, this is rumour. Having articles on other Wikipedias does not mean notable, they may well be deleted or redirected later. And to say its in "bad faith" is very bizarre. I do hope you are not taking this personally. --UpDown 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone redirects a page without any discussion and does it on loose grounds what do you expect, that i should be happy against you? and yes redirecting a page without discussion is vandalism but i dont want to discuss it lets see what the people think.and you should always write "Comment" before answering on a afd.byebye--Zingostar 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And yes over 98,000 articles says something about her notability my friend their are articles here on wikipeida about persons with less.--Zingostar 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do wish you would stop lecturing me on how to use Wikipedia. If responding to comment you do what I did. This makes it clear what I'm responding to. And it is not bad faith. She clearly fails WP:BIO and I did discuss with you anyway. Not everything has to be discussed first anyway. If an editor believes are an article is unneeded then they should redirect it. The fact she has "98,000" google hits (I doubt all these are about her) is frankly immaterial. I'm sure other former housemates have similar numbers (Chanelle perhaps?). Doesn't mean they are notable for Wikipedia. --UpDown 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you changed my edits again. my god.please dont change correct edits like Comment just to mess things around.--Zingostar 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on how deletion discussion works before you incorrectly change the format of my edit. "Comment" is not necessary where you put it. --UpDown 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Childish,but just proving my point that you are a vandaliser.will not be answering any more of your immature messages and childish fightd about insignificent things here. will be back when the afd voting is over.--Zingostar 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

An edit war on my own - that would be challening!! Again, I apologise if you have taken this personally. You should not take things personally on Wikipedia, otherwise this happens. Lecturing other users on how to use Wikipedia is not a good way to endear yourself to people either. Anyway, lets hope more people get involved in this. --UpDown 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep First of all Uchea has a article on both swedish and simple english wikipedia. I think this afd is just in bad faith. Uchea has numours articles on the web if you search on google you find 98,400 pages about her and she has appeared on The Weakest Link and will probably be a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing. And that 2 other editors didnt find her to be not notable says something to me. I say keep since she is notable--Zingostar 14:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

*Keep She seems notable to me--217.209.116.113 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Sock !vote. See below.--Chaser - T 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above IP address has made edits that a very, very similar to User:Zingostar. I would suspect they are the same person, as this user has had sockpuppets before. --UpDown 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats irrelevent. You can't prove that its the same person so their opinion has to be taken into account.--Hiltonhampton 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think there are ways to prove it. Regardless, its useful for editors to know so they think about it themselves and make their own judegment.--UpDown 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this voting is about my character but about rather Charley is notable or not.and most people here seems to think so. so cool down a bit.--Zingostar 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Zingostar 24 hours for sockpuppetry based upon this diff. A friendly reminder that AFD is not just a headcount, and single-purpose accounts are routinely disregarded in assessing consensus at AFDs. IPs are a similar case.--Chaser - T 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep She has made several appearances on the Friday Night project (I know all housemates do but she has appeared the most.) She has had many publicised brawls with well known people, so thats worth writing about. She has had two MTV shows recently. And she appeared on 8 out of 10 cats.--Hiltonhampton 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Several appearances on the Friday Night project" - that is not notablity, either is appearing on a Big Brother edition of 8 Out of 10 Cats. Most housemates appear on TV a lot and in papers/magazines while the show is running and briefly after, but in a couple of months fade out of the limelight. --UpDown 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not all BB contestants are notable, but she's up there with Jade Goody and Nick Bateman as one of the ones who'll build a career out of it. Already enough coverage of her unrelated to BB that WP:BLP1E no longer applies — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for judging whether she'll have a career out of it. Big Brother finished a few days ago. I say redirect, and if she is still on your screens etc in a couple of months fine. But at the moment, this is not sufficient notablity outside Big Brother. --UpDown 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Why not? The more information on Wikipedia the better! Also you couldn't fit all the info on the main page with out it being ten times longer than all the other housemates.--88.151.83.34 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The more information the better is not true, not if the information is trivial. And a lot of the information is rumour & what if's and should be deleted. --UpDown 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You see what i man UpDown the most people think its a notable article. Just as i told you.--Zingostar 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Charley is more notable at the moment then Nikki Grahame for example.--Zingostar 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP 88.151.83.34 has never been used outside this discussion, and is most likely a sock puppet. - LeonWhite 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - not notable outside Big Brother. - LeonWhite 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Its always a sockpuppet when it is a vote against what the person self believes is right. come up with something better will you.--Zingostar 19:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can vouch that LeonWhite is not a sockpuppet, but a valuable contributor, who I have seen make may good edits. John Hayes^talk 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misundestood that, you never accused Leon of being a sockpuppet (though I still think he is a valuable contributor) John Hayes^talk 07:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Not notable outside Big Brother, and we have the information in the list of housemates article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Cant agree with hisspace the article provides additional information far more then the small thing on the big brother site. and for that mather charley is notable on her own as most of the votes shows.--Zingostar 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It was all unsourced material, which is something that Wikipedia is not for.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing but her time about her time on Why Bother (aka Big Brother) and tabloid crap that would be deemed unsuitable as encyclopaedia material. Also is full of waffle that I could hack it into a stub article, but the problem is, it is unsourced and I would rather kill this article off. So what if she is signed as the same agent as McCall, O'Leary, Goody and Brand, does that make her notable. As for SCD, so has Grace from last year who won another unrelated acrobat "reality" (that I don't know the name of) show but an article hasn't exist to this date and what about other ex-reality TV contestants who appear on other shows and nothing else, does that make them notable. Willirennen 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are their if you bathered to look and not judge just because it is a reality show star.with over 98000 pages on google i would like to add.i also condemn this users language. and that the person seem to look at reality show stars like less then other personalities jus proves my point.--Zingostar 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And we have pages on Nikki Grahame ,Jade Goody and many other big brother stars so why not this one?--Zingostar 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what is unsourced & I will try my best to fix that problem. Also if we have a page for Alison Hammond & Michelle Bass, I think its fair to say that Charley is almost as sucessful as them already!--Hiltonhampton 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well don't tell me to go look up these pages, you go do that yourself, I'm too busy as I am working on a new article plus working on other articles . Going back to this article, for citing articles, refer to Wikipedia:Footnotes as you can see that tag underneath that edit summary box. Also what language. Also, don't attempt to use Hammond, Bass, Goody, Grahame name to highlight Charlie whatsaname's notability as isn't that mere speculation or crystalballing, also that lot have either long term showbiz career or their own TV show. Also don't ever think of using their names as an excuse for claiming Charley's so-called notability. Willirennen 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone removes the trivia/un-referenced stuff to create two or three pars of encyclopedic info. Otherwise, redirect. Have reformatted this page, because it was just as big a dog's breakfast as the article in question. Moriori 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section gone! Again could someone please tell me whats unsourced!--Hiltonhampton 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all unsourced. Having a list of references at the bottom is not proper referencing, in-line citation is needed. Alison Hammond is a TV presenter, while Michelle Bass is a model, coloumnist and has appeared in a film. All of these are recent things, which means her fame has lasted longer than the 15 second Big Brother provides. Jade Goody has a page for obvious reasons, she a household name for starters (which Charley is not). Nikki Grahame got her own TV show. It is interesting that Zingostar and Hiltonhampton both accuse other users of POV, when they are the ones with POV. Zingostar has created articles before with dubious notablity, and one many AfD this evening has voted to keep every article. For a relevant policu on why she's not notable see WP:NOT#INFO. Wikipedia is not a biography site. S/he has also tried to have the page protected (a request declinced), tried to have the afd closed (rejected) and tried to get me banned (also rejected). This user has taken the proposed deletion of a page he created far too personally. Anyway, back to the topic: Reality show contestants are not notable unless their fame remains, and it is to early to tell this for Charley. The page should be redirected. If she's still around this time next year, then re-create. At present this page is awful, full of rumour and reads like a fansite. At the end of day, Charley is not notable long term. This is an enyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper site. --UpDown 21:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. If it weren't for Big Brother there'd be next to nothing in the article. She's simply not notable enough by herself. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound stupid but what does in-line citation mean? I f I knew then perhaps fix the problem! Please don't talk to me about Jade or Nikki, as I didn't mention them because I know that they have both sucessful careers.Lets not start an edit war!--Hiltonhampto:n 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at WP:CITE John Hayes^talk 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per UpDown, LeonWhite, Seaserpent. She is not notable enough yet for her own article. Most of the article also fails WP:BLP and as such that content must be deleted ASAP. John Hayes^talk 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect until alternative notability is established. -- Roleplayer 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Appearing on reality shows solely does not make one notable Corpx 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete she is not notable yet, and given the public dislike of her I doubt she will be anything more than a footnote in the BB history. Darrenhusted 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep according to this, WP:REALITY, she passes two of the criterias. She may also pass three if in fact she does appear on Strictly come dancing.--88.151.83.34 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that User:88.151.83.34 have double voted as keep, there would it be a good to declare this vote null and void, just press ctrl-F, copy the ip number and press next and you will see the evidence. Willirennen 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No need to cancel all the other votes, I am sure that when the reviewing admin sees this, they will notice the double vote. John Hayes^talk 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  According to the big red cross at the top of WP:REALITY that is not a valid Wikipedia guideline. Also I fail to see where she meets two of the criteria anyway. If she appears on Strictly Come Dancing, create an article then. -- Roleplayer 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a hard time seeing how she can fail to be notable. and certainly since the article now is with new information and without the BB article info. but people here on wikipedia has a tendency to look down on reality show stars as less of persons then let say a politician. this is obvious here that people are voting on her personality more then on actuall facts and thats ashame for wikipedia.especially since a vandal account put on the Afd tag.--217.209.116.113 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A "Vandal account" - Interesting. Because I don't think someone is notable that makes me a vandal. Again, I suspect the above IP address is a sockpuppet of User:Zingostar, a user who I am tempted to report, because frankly I'm fed up with being called a vandal and being told I'm acting in bad faith. It's very, very bad practise to insult people like that. And there is no looking down on people here, we are simply not assuming someone who has minor celebrity for a few months is notable. Over 100 people have appeared on the UK Big Brother, are they all notable? No of course not, and to suggest otherwise is to live in dreamworld. If you want articles on people like Charley while not create your own website? --UpDown 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as bad as you redirecting pages without any dialogue,talk about bad practise.--Zingostar 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting a page, when it is not controversial is not bad practice Zingostar. The consensus is clearly heading for delete, which backs the original redirect. John Hayes^talk 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly? hahaha and yes redirecting a page without any dialogue with the writer is bad practise... but i dont care. he has had his fun, i have saved this article and can put it up when ever i want.. for example when she is on stricly come dancing. cheers.--Zingostar 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The writer? You might want to read WP:OWN. and from WP:MERGE, if the merge is not controversial: Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. If you would like to dicuss this further I suggest we do so on our talk pages, so as not to clog this page. John Hayes^talk 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - just another wannabe from Big Brother who will be forgotten about in six months. Non-notable. - fchd 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - if anon users are seen as vandals, then I would like to suggest make all votes from them invalid at all nominations and ban them all from voting. I want to point out if they are not allowed to create page, then why should they be allowed to AfD vote. Also to point out, an anon can be a user in disgiuse, they can just go to a library and any educational facility, friend/families' house and carry out votes without being detected, if this comes out as keep we all should try that for every AfD votes. The bottom line like it has been brought up, I am suspecting that these anon users are sockpuppets. Willirennen 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the suspected sockpuppets, we will see what happens with that. Apologies to Zingostar if it is not the case. John Hayes^talk 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can I point out the Simple English article [21] is far more coherent and informative than this version. If only it had references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest it even more reinforces why the page should be deleted. It's a very short article which only talks about her on Big Brother. There are no claims to notablity other than Big Brother. --UpDown 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"ostentatious" needs altering on that simple English wiki site as that is not what I call simple English. Willirennen 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the subject is noteable and WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Dalejenkins | 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Would you like to explain how she is notable? I note you redirect Chanelle's page to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK), so why do then believe Charley is notable but Chanelle is not. To be honest Chanelle has appeared in more magazines than Charley, so I can't understand your logic, Neither are notable enough for own page. --UpDown 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete the boring cow-she wasnt anywhere near the final. People just want to forget about the bint. 82.27.238.166 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How so? John Hayes^talk 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, popular "culture" fancruft. --Servant Saber 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just plain nn apart from being on a reality show, a redirect would be fine. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Not yet notable outside of Big Brother. A Sheep 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete much of this article is not notable and also needs citation Mikyt90 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Canney, keep Pate and Halloran. The relevant part of WP:BIO accords notability to "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.". There is no evidence that Canney has met this requirement, the article contains no independent notability, and there was a clear consensus that his page should be deleted. Pate (Secretary of State) and Halloran (member of state legislature) both meet the standard, there was a majority for keeping them, and there was a failure of the deleters to effectively address the question as to why WP:BIO should be overridden. TerriersFan 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Canney

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that he was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OfficeGirl is also nominating the following related pages because of lack of notability. These are all articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles.OfficeGirl 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep to notability or no notability has been asserted.--Zingostar 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What does this mean? Nyttend 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nom says no real notability asserted. Eluchil404 04:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability, and DELETE all the other articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles. OfficeGirl 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Don seems to have served as mayor without doing anything notable. Unless he's the same guy who invented the Leech Lake Knife. :) MarkBul 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Since we're also debating Pate and Halloran: Strong keep on both of them. Note that Pate is a former Iowa Secretary of State, that Halloran is a former state legislator, and that WP:BIO says, "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Of course, the position of mayor isn't enough, but the position of Secretary of State is definitely a significant statewide office, and a former state legislator is a former member of a state legislature. I was aware of these two articles when I nominated the other three, but purposely didn't nominate them. Nyttend 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Canney, keep Pate and Halloran. Canney's article does not indicate a wider notability outside Cedar Rapids. As Pate and Halloran have had a wider impact on Iowa politics and they meet WP:BIO, their articles should be kept. As a general principle, bulk nominations should be minimised so that we can have a look at each article on its merits. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per narrow scope of notability. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list small town mayors. Corpx 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pate and Halloran for the reasons above. Delete Canney with no prejudice against recreation of significant coverage can be demonstrated (Cedar Rapids is hardly a "small town", and I'd be very surprised if somebody could become its mayor without receiving significant coverage; however there's not evidence of this in the current Canney article). Sarcasticidealist 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep all Cedar Rapids (population 120,000) is a small city by population, but still the 2nd largest in Iowa. Mayors of large cities are certainly notable, and I think this probably counts. DGG (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Yannismarou 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Serbousek

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

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that he was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability, and DELETE all the other articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles. OfficeGirl 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete with no prejudice against re-creation with proper sourcing. Eleland 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per narrow scope of notability. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list small town mayors. Corpx 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The relevant part of WP:BIO accords notability to "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.". There is no evidence that Clancey has met this requirement, the article contains no independent notability (being the first female mayor is insufficient), and there was a clear consensus that her page should be deleted. TerriersFan 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Clancey

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that she was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability, and DELETE all the other articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles. OfficeGirl 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete with no prejudice against re-creation with proper sourcing. Eleland 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per narrow scope of notability. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list small town mayors. Corpx 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cop on the Edge IX: Prelude to Justice

Cop on the Edge IX: Prelude to Justice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Despite the imdb entry, this films sounds awfully like a non-notable student joke that transformed into a low-budget movie. Article is completely unreferenced. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom, unless secondary sources about it can be provided.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• It has sources from IMDB? 5 September 2007
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to failure to establish notability through significant coverage by secondary, published sources. The distributor, Coten Films, does not have any notability, either. Same goes for the cast of this "film". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable film. Keb25 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needler Hall

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

No assertion of notability beyond "moderately well-known people lived here briefly". Totally unsourced including for weird claims ("rumoured to have served as a mental asylum in the 19th century, although this has never been proved"). Borderline speedy. Eleland 13:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What an odd article. I was unable to find any sources that demonstrate notability. Jakew 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Generally, student halls are not notable. I mean, we have Andrew Melville Hall, but that seems to be more notable than this.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with above comments - these residential halls are generally not notable unless significant coverage is received Corpx 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, a few books may be handy if someone wants to try sourcing this. John Vandenberg 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Bduke 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial information economy

Industrial information economy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Definition of neologism from non-notable book, does not assert notability beyond being coined by notable author, no outside sources/independent usage apparent. Wnjr 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The term having been coined by a Harvard Professor (and co-director of the Berkman Center) is finding popularity of use. The use within academic circles is on the increase and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future due to the high impact nature of his latest book. What needs to happen rather than deletion is expansion including referencing other sources now citing the term. See others commenting on sister term that was also marked for deletion Networked information economy. Fair amount of attention from academic sources; also seems to have already become somewhat genericized, suggesting independent notability as a TOA leedryburgh 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of country nicknames

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

This article is a complete mess on many levels. For a start the inclusion criteria are impossibly vague - "the aliases and slogans that countries are sometimes known by, officially and unofficially, to locals, outsiders or their tourism boards", or in other words, anything any country has ever been called, by anyone. It includes many things which are clearly not nicknames - such as translations of the country's name, and names by which the countries have historically been known. Much POV pushing and what look suspiciously like WP:MADEUP names. Unreferenced since creation two years ago, and tagged as such since February - the one external link is to someone's homepage, which lists translations of countries' names, not nicknames. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:N, WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Notable nicknames for countries should be included in individual articles on those countries, not compiled into this sort of indiscriminate list. Iain99 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT#INFO, WP:V, and especially WP:OR. /Blaxthos 13:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You're right, this is a complete mess. I'd venture that there's room for improvement, but the last time I did that some asshole wrote, "You're supposed to vote 'evolve'" Evolve? What the hell is that? Although someone may have worked hard on this article, Iain is correct that the nicknames include the country's official names (like Bharat and Nippon), plus things that you probably can't even find in a cheesy travel brochure. The only source is an interesting website that doesn't appear to have supplied much info here (such as Meiguo and Beikoku being names used elsewhere to refer to America). I'm not sure we need a list of nicknames that even the residents aren't familiar with. Can't imagine any of these on a T-shirt. Mandsford 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:N, WP:V. Carlosguitar 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per excellent arguments above. Jakew 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, with such a vague topic, this list can never be complete or NPOV. JIP | Talk 10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trondheim Hammer Dance

Trondheim Hammer Dance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed with the absloutely stellar reason of "I like it." However much some random editor may like the sketch, it fails WP:PLOT and WP:N. The notability of Monty Python doesn't mean that every fragment of every TV show or record they've ever touched is independently notable. The claim that the phrase has taken on a life outside of Python would make it notable, except there do not appear to be reliable sources that support it. Otto4711 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources can prove notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the even-more-stellar-at-AfD reason of "I like it". -- But|seriously|folks  02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Tragically, your personal likes and dislikes carry very little weight in a discussion involving policy and guidelines. Otto4711 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. It was the best I could come up with. Now run along, or I'll fetch my knurtel. I swear, the kids these days have no appreciation for tradition or fine dance . . . -- But|seriously|folks  14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of significant coverage Corpx 04:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless in-depth secondary sources are provided. Spellcast 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyman Theatre Cardiff

Everyman Theatre Cardiff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This organization is local in scope, and it is unclear how it meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "This page should stay as it is an important part of Cardiff as is any theatre company" FisherQueen (Talk) 12:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sign of notability, repeated attempts to use for promotion. Deiz talk 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm unable to find third-party sources giving substantial coverage. Jakew 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zelune

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

Subject does not seem to meet the notability guideline for web content; with a seeming lack of established, reputable sources available. In particular, recent upheaval in the article content has made it clear that the subject is not something that can be reasonably covered while still adhering to content policies. Dancter 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per good arguments above. Jakew 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be well known in the proxy world, here are some usage stats I found with a simple GIS. Fosnez 11:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is not whether the subject should be covered, but whether it can be. Straight from the notability guideline page: the concept of notability "is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'". Verifiability is a firm policy, regardless, and I cannot find suitable sources for the bulk of claims in the article. Dancter 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 August 2007
• Note: Both of the primary content contributors have an apparent conflict of interest with respect to the subject, editing the article so that their own websites feature prominently. Despite the large number of web search results, depth of coverage by reliable sources seems to be severely lacking, and thus not fulfilling the general notability guideline, and more importantly, verifiability policy. Dancter 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to my conflict of interest, I encourage someone to research the script themselves, and you can verify all of the claims. Raithesoft 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, no assertion of notability, not referenced --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no references, no real claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, non-notable. /Blaxthos 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prabhakar Manikonda

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

Non-notable software developer. Article pretty much a resume/ad, no independent reliable sources supporting the claim for notability. WP:COI issue also. Delete Rockpocket 09:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete some random tech guy's (rather sparse) resume. The thing he claims to have invented, the "Multilingui Engine" (whatever that is) gets no Google hits at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  Why speedy delete? A.Z. 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. /Blaxthos 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (pending confirmation) Mr. Manikonda's name does get 308 Google hits, but they appear to be for "self-published" (if that is the correct word) articles on Windows Applications on the Net. Perhaps someone with some knowledge in the field could just confirm that view, so that we are sure about this. Thanks Bielle 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Rockpocket has confirmed on his discussion page that the articles listed by Google are blog (or blog-like), and "self-published" sites. I confirm my "Delete" conclusion. Bielle 19:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been a speedy.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• On what basis? The article says he is a "famous software developer",a well-known researcher in Algorithms and Cryptography" and a "President & CEO" in addition to claims he is an inventor. WP:SPEEDY explicitly states: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.' Rockpocket 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing to substantiate the claimed fame, which one might have expected to generate media coverage. Not, as pointed out, suitable for speedy, however. Tyrenius 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, - Seems notability is exaggerated. Modernist 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some good arguments raised on both sides, and if this was 'balance of arguments' I'd struggle to say which side 'won'. However, this is a pretty clear no consensus result, and no consensus defaults to keep. Daniel 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Eggan

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

WP:PRODded, PROD removed. Non-notable researcher (WP:N). Despite the evidence of the article creator, Kevin Eggan is still, when checked out, a run of the mill non-notable researcher.

He is an assistant (not full) professor of biology [22]. His 2005 Nature bio speaks of his hopes and activities but does not when examined give strong grounds for notability either. [23]. A 2006 profile and bio article in Harvard magazine starts "Last year Kevin Eggan was a Junior Fellow at Harvard," again not exactly indicating he had a very notable reputation as a scientist then (for Wikipedia purposes), and this profile also speaks only of his hopes in his line of research, but adds no further evidence of notability at all. [24]

The article's writer puts as a headline quote a comment by a non-science journal that Eggan makes a "significant contribution" that "could one day" lead to disease cures. That statement is true for so many potential researchers and avenues of research, as to be meaningless for notability. Again this is still all hopes and wishes. He may make some astounding discovery (WP:CRYSTAL). On the other hand, right now all he is is a bright but still fairly run of the mill active researcher in his field, with no major recognition to his name either in his university, or in science in general.

His awards equally do not establish notability, when examined closely. They include a student prize, two awards by bodies that have little or no scientific standing or judgement ("popular science" and "technology review"), and a research grant (that many people with promising ideas may be awarded).

I don't feel that the slight evidence presented of possible academic notability reaches the level needed to call an assistant professor such as Eggan, "notable". The criteria of WP:PROF includes being a "significant expert" (#1) - maybe one day he will be, but for now he is one of many "aspiring significants". If he died tomorrow he would not have left any notable research, his works to date do not appear significantly more able to advance notability than the works of many biology researchers, there is no evidence that other academics regard him as an especially "significant expert" (a strong term) or an "important figure" in biological research (#2), or that he has published a "significant and well-known academic work" (#3) or that any of the other criteria are well met.

There are thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of scientists studying stem cells and other forms of biological process and research worldwise. Many have their own theories and hopes, and some mention in the press or science journals.

There is a specific level of notability agreed as the norm for academics to become notable, beyond mere coverage in reliable sources, and this one doesn't seem to have an especial claim of notability. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominator can't think of a reason to delete this referenced article which clearly includes media attributions of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - reason took a few minutes to type :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - At first glance, the article sounds like the subject is notable... however after a little scrutiny, I actually find the notability argument (or lack of notability, to be more clear) convincing. The subject will probably become notable one day, but I don't see it now. Hopefully AFD participants will do more than a cursory glance. /Blaxthos 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep "6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Can you say MacArthur "Genius" Grant? Based on that one award, this AfD is embarrassing. MarkBul 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. As MarkBul mentioned, he received the MacArthur Grant. That equals instant and automatic notability. Please close this AfD ASAP. Smashville 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. MacArthur grant, multiple mentions in popular press. Assistant professors may rarely be notable but this looks like a clear exception. —David Eppstein 17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment re grant -- Does the MacArthur Foundation grant endow automatic notability on all recipients then? I haven't seen that argument made for it, nor evidence that this is the case. This is a research grant given to a fair number of people a year, for people who show exceptional promise where the MacArthur foundation board decides to "invest in their future". It seems there are many many such grant schemes (or similar/comparable) in many many countries, and many academic researchers of all kinds of notability (and non-notability) are awarded such grants. So having 'exceptional promise' by the opinion of one grant scheme, is not, by itself, an obviously automatic claim to notability.

Could we substantiate this a bit more, before relying on a simple claim of unsubstantiated inherited notability? This is AFD, and claims of notability whether intrinsic or inherited should expect to be evidenced, not merely stated. That is a policy basis. Is there actual evidence that this grant scheme has such standing compared to other grant schemes that anyone awarded a grant by it is automatically notable regardless? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an extremely well-known 3.5 million dollar grant given to between 20-40 people per year. Yes, it does give inherited notability in the same way a Pulitzer Prize gives inherent notability. Smashville 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But there are many such, and inherited notability is not lightly given in general on Wikipedia. (Support for view: see well respected AFD precedent WP:NOTINHERITED - notability is not in general considered to inherit from a parent entity to a subordinate entity, such as in this case, from grant foundation to its grant recipients.)

The grant being well known means the grant is notable, not necessarily that its recipients are (or automatically should inherit that).

Hence the above comment/request. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're engaging in contorted arguments to minimize the importance of the MacArthur fellowship (aka grant/prize/award). You're arguing that he fails various criteria of WP:PROF, but #6 is has received a notable award or honor. We have established that the MacArthur prizes are indeed notable. The notability is specifically inherited not by virtue of the simple notability of the prize, but because that is the notability guideline -- that receiving a significant prize makes one notable. (Yes, that applies to other "grant schemes" as well, but let's not play subjective games of "standing" That's precisely what the guideline was created to avoid.) Thus, yes, the guideline guides us to consider the notability of significant awards to be inherited. Of course, in the event that the MacArthur was the only claim to notability that someone ever had, we might have a more borderline case. But this is someone who has been the topic of media profiles and accolades (again, without regard to subjective determinations of "standing" -- admit it, you were sneering as you typed "popular science"). Notability is not subjective. Notability comes from being "noted". Yes, people you may not respect may be more notable than people you do respect, and I'm sure you and I could agree that there are many important scientific advances made that don't make the papers. That's not Wikipedia's fault, nor a fault with the world that Wikipedia has a remit to correct. So, perhaps he does fail criteria 1 through 5, but if he passes 6, he passes the guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions. There is a case that the subject is likely non-notable, or evidence of notability is insufficient. It's nothing to do with like or dislike, respect or disrespect. You'll not find a single "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT" listed in the nomination. It's utterly based upon policy based criteria. The article doesn't seem to evidence clearly if he is indeed notable. There is a lot of "puff" (appearance is impressive, actually says little) as noted also by Blaxthos. The response to a request to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia standards has been simply "he has X award", with no further relevant discussion (see above). Notability of award does not always imply notability of all recipients, as notability does not usually inherit. That is AFD criteria and precedent.

Problematically, in this case, there is actually little to no other evidence of any kind of real notability. The question of whether this is a borderline case where he just fails the criteria is a valid one. A technology review magazine or the like is probably not nearly as significant for demonstrating notability as (say) recognition by his peers in biology research or a scientific journal would be; he has few signs of any special recognition or "claim to fame". Essentially the one sole grant is the only solid measure. Of the 23 people to be awarded the same grant, 14 (60%) have Wikipedia articles, 9 (40%) do not. But of the 14 who do, most (11, or around 80%) already had met notability criteria through other means and would have merited articles regardless of the award anyhow - multiple significant recognitions, lifetime achievement awards, wide range of professional accolades for achievements and work to date, etc. So it is far from clear that this grant makes any recipient notable unless they have at least some other claim to notability or renown. To date, and despite searching and despite 3 different bio's, Kevin Eggan still seems to have almost none. That is all. So it seems a well founded question. Is he really notable by encyclopedic standards? It seems perhaps not. Hence raised at AFD. It's that simple. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Some propositions:

1. The standards we use at Wikipedia to determine notability are encyclopedic standards.
2. Receiving a notable award or honor, and being noted in the popular press, are both sufficient to cause someone to be notable by the standards in place at Wikipedia.
3. Eggan has received a notable award or honor and has been noted in the popular press.

Therefore, he is notable by encyclopedic standards.

If you feel those are the wrong standards to be using, feel free to argue about it at WP:PROF. If you feel you have a stronger argument than IDONTLIKEIT for setting aside our usual standards in this case, feel free to argue that, too, here. I haven't yet seen a case for either position here, though. —David Eppstein 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - I agree with the questionable notability, and the initial and main author is writing this article for profit, creating a conflict of interest. I did edit the page to remove some POV, but overall, I find that just another genetics researcher who won a prize that hundreds of people have won isn't inherently notable, despite the policy, unless someone plans to profile all of the grant winners. Further, it's a grant, not an award, nor honor. A grant's given to fund research because the grantor HOPES it will result in successes, not because of successes achieved, so a distinction there should be made. Not everyone who TRIES is notable, but SOME who succeed are notable. ThuranX 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  I think you might be mistaken or possibly looking in the wrong place. Genius grants are most definitely an award and an honor. Please consider from MacArthur Fellows Program: "The MacArthur Fellows Program or MacArthur Fellowship (sometimes nicknamed the "genius grant") is an award given by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation each year" (emphasis added.) --JayHenry 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  Having reread the GUIDELINE, not policy, sections, I cite Caveats 1 and 2. As this grant is the singular notable event, and as the cited reason for keeping him, aka heritable notability, is only a guideline, NOT a policy, I say again,

• Keep regardless of who wrote the article, the content is well referenced, the subject has a clear assertion of notability (not every scientist gets mentioned by Forbes Magazine and USA Today). Not to mention the MacArthur "Genius" Grant... give me a break... this is a clear keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A lot of smoke and mirrors, but in the end this is just a researcher with the usual number of publications one would expect of such. I note that a possible COI is mentioned above; this is plausible as a lot of effort seems to have been made to talk the guy up (a large paragraph on Forbes, for example, when a search of that article shows as far as I can see that we've extracted all the article sas on him, which would only actually qualify as a passing mention). I can't see that this fellow passes the professor test, the sources are not substantial or primarily biographical. It seems to be a distillation of minor tidbits from news stories, basically. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He published scientific papers and was recognized by multiple organizations for his work, including mainstream press (Forbes for example). The article reads a bit like as if somebody with WP:COI was writing it, which warrants a clean-up, but notability is IMO established. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep clearly passes WP:PROF, poorly written article deserves clean-up. Pete.Hurd 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly notable no matter who wrote it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it's not entirely clear to me what part of WP:PROF those arguing for delete believe is being violated. He's definitely won a notable award, he and his research have both been the primary subject of articles from independent reliable sources (the associated press article is primarily about Eggan, Forbes is primarily about his research published in Science). --JayHenry 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  Changed to strong keep. He was profiled in the journal Nature here. I'm sorry, but that's hardly trivial for a scientist to be profiled by Nature. I strongly urge the delete votes to reconsider in light of this evidence. --JayHenry 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep meets WP requreiements for notability - won a prestegious award, and has been profiled in independent 3rd party releiable sources. Who wrote it and why is entirely irrelvant. Isarig 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Relatively few Assistant Professors are notable, but we don't go by the position but the accomplishments. In this case he's done very clearly important highly topical work, and the sources are fully sufficient to show that. As for scientists and their own standards--his top five publications have been cited 288, 250, 191, 157, 143 times. (all in the last 6 years). Even had the work not been as scientifically important per se, the popular press coverage is enough, as is clearly recognized in the guidelines. I am a little puzzled at the nomination, because anyone with the much newspaper coverage would be thought notable anywhere outside the academic world. Certainly I do think that anyone who wins one of the MacArthur genius grants in ANY field should certainly and unquestionably be considered notable for WP. They are much more qualified at judging these things than we are; their standards are much higher; and finally the awards get so much publicity that there are always numerous press references to the people. WP does not decide on notability in any fundamental sense--we recognize what the world decides on is notable. DGG (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly someone with potential, so he may warrant an article further on in his career. The Genius grants are prestigious, but given to fairly large numbers of people. Perhaps it would be better to compile a list of these in a separate article and only make individual articles on those individuals that establish notability beyond this. --Crusio 08:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you please consider taking another look at this? The references to this article include the following independent reliable sources which featured Kevin Eggan as the primary subject of an article (per WP:NOTE and WP:PROF): Forbes magazine profile, Boston Globe profile, Associated Press profile and most importantly Nature (one of the three most important scientific journals in the world!) profile. If you read these sources, you'll see that he has made some of the most important scientific breakthroughs in modern history -- most notably, the method of creating stem cells from skin cells, which, as reliable sources attest, reshaped the United States governments approach to embryonic stem cell research! I find it unlikely that anyone arguing for delete has read the article or done any research on the topic. Eggan easily passes all six criteria in WP:PROF and he only needs to pass one. He's incredibly notable, even beyond his MacArthur grant. What level of sourcing would be required to establish notability? (And I ask because a Nexis search reveals that in addition to the (at least) four profiles of which he was the primary subject his research has been covered in over 400 news articles, and has been cited in thousands of journal articles.) -JayHenry 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep JayHenry, your arguments and evidence are persuasive. I change my vote to keep. --Crusio 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per JayHenry. Clearly meets the primary standard given in WP:BIO, along with various standards in WP:PROF. JavaTenor 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If the above claims are accurate as stated, then these are clear evidence of notability and the article should probably be kept. However, as noted in the nom, in each case they make clear he has expectations, or hopes, or is working on such goals. But so are many people, and many have written papers, had profiles in journals, and so on. They read like publicity, or hopes, the kind of thing any up-and-coming future notable researcher working on their line of research might expect to have said of them, and reminiscent of WP:CRYSTAL.

Part of the problem has been that the profiles (and the article) focused on hopes for the future rather than actual notability today. At this point it seems there are specific bases today for notability, but that the article didn't present clearly the notable aspects as it might have. I have had a go at refactoring the Kevin Eggan article; hopefully this now brings his career and biography into slightly sharper focus. There are notable matters, documented in reliable sources, about Eggan as he is, not as he (WP:CRYSTAL) may one day become. But none of these were well represented in the article, which focussed more upon his role as starting the political debate. Hopefully this will help focus the article somewhat too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There are multiple mentions of him in the popular press (including Nature running a bio of him!) and his notability is still questioned? Yet, if he were on a reality show for five minutes, deletion would never be an issue. Keep this article.--Gloriamarie 21:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - multiple reliable sources have written about him. That meets the criteria for notability regardless of any details for academics in WP:PROF. -- Whpq 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep We're debating his notability? I can't believe what and who Wikipedia editors don't consider notable. This is absurd. It looks like he's all over the place on Scholar, in the citations index, news articles. The Boston Globe calls him "prominents," the New York Times grabs a sound bite from him rather than a more prominent professor at Columbia, Harvard, MIT or Boston, and it appears that he's the talk of the town among stem cell scientists, the MacArthur Foundation recognized him out of thousands of molecular cell biologists the world over, and here's Wikipedia debating his notability. Absurd. KP Botany 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of this was not evident in the article, which presented him as a person who had much "puff" but little actual notability. There's still fairly slight evidence of notability, but a little more than there was. The article, I'm pleased to day, is a bit better now. I've reworked it a lot. A few points above carry almost no weight: 1/ Soundbites are often not from the most senior guy; they are busy and often delegate that job, sometimes even to an administrative person. The assumption that he gave the soundbite -> he is equivalent to the head of the place or very important there is not justified logic, it's WP:OR. 2/ Many researchers seem "all over the place", that'd need quantifying to show notability; "all over the place" is pretty much a viewer perception, again WP:OR). As is 3/ "It appears that" and "talk of the town". All basically WP:OR. Lots of OR there. the only solid fact mentioned is still just that one thing, he has won a grant or award. Is that grant of a standard to inherit notability to its recipients, and does he have other non-OR notability? Those are what will count.

HOWEVER, on one issue, to be safe... The initial and main author is writing this article for profit, creating a conflict of interest (user:ThuranX). Would the main author of the article like to state for the record, is this article (or any part of it, editing of it, link mentioned in it) paid for, or "talked up" for any kind of professional or personal benefit, or inserted to benefit in any way any specific person or party, as suggested above? Just for the record, you understand, so we have a clear statement for future if it's ever called into issue. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article has been indef blocked (on rather spurious grounds), so is in no place to oblige you. Your request seems strange, though. If there is anything currently in the article which is not written in a NPOV way, or is non-factual, you may simply remove it. If everything is written in an encyclopedic NPOV way, what difference does it make how it got there, and what would the "statement for the record" achieve? (Sidebar: Since you seem to be so keen on this, are you going to place such a statement for the record on each article you author in the future?) Isarig 14:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but if a question of motive leading to COI is actually raised by an editor as a direct allegation, it's often best to ask than rely upon hearsay or let "smoke" build up. Anyone can write a neutral article, and anyone even with bias can contribute well, if they can set their bias aside, but it's a well established arbcom principle that activist agendas (which can lead to similar issues as this) are not always compatible with neutral encyclopedia editorship. In any event, it shortcuts a lot of needless chat to ask directly "is this the case" and then point them to WP:COI if so, so they understand how to edit without falling foul of communal views on COI. Paradoxically it helps assume good faith if someone says "yes, I do this for pay, and I am open about it". We have a few editors like that; it works very well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, I know that the question of motive leading to COI was raised by an editor, but that is a red herring. the article needs to be judged on its merits, not the alleged motivations of its author. if it is NPOV, it does not matter if the author was paid for it. If it falls short of some WP standard, we should fix it. In either case, the possible motivations of the author don't enter into it. Isarig 23:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as notability not sufficiently demonstrated. Bduke 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bad Old Days

The Bad Old Days (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, the term "Bad Old Days" looks to return all of one results, from an extremely shaky source (about.com). The phrase urban legend commonly circulated by email alone is really all that needs to be said about this lucid 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not primarily known by that name, but it's a hoary e-mail (and probably faxlore before that). It's commonly called The 1500s, Facts About the 1500s or Life in the 1500s, e.g. this debunking. There are quite a few results for 1500s+hoax, and it's been covered in detail in e.g. Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends, in which it is labeled "may be the most common linguistic e-mail hoax". --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is the case, it should be moved to "Life in the 1500s" or a similar title --lucid 10:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's one of thousands of "list of funny stuff" emails that moms pass around... why does that belong in an encyclopedia? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The many, many inaccurate lists of interesting "facts" circulated via e-mail do not merit articles here. (I find the ones listing supposed word origins particularly amusing, myself.) I don't think any of these qualify as notable hoaxes, no matter how many sources take the trouble to debunk them. Deor 12:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Poorly written article by someone who was apparently afraid that chain letters and spam are copyrighted, and thus did not mention much about the urban legend. The more informative link indicates that folks are still being taken in by this one and that they're sharing it with all their friends. It's possible that this is more popular in Britain, which, unlike the U.S.A., had a Dark Ages. Mandsford 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, doesn't really appear notable unless more sources are given.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I do not think an encyclopedia is the place for these hoaxes that are passed through email. Snopes is the place to debunk these, not an encyclopedia Corpx 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lab 5

Lab 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very small article (basically a paragraph) about a non-notable and incredibly generic fictional location. Shouldn't need more than a simple mention in the main Fullmetal Alchemist article. Kariteh 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Czac 13:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable in its own right.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, not suitable name for redirect, article title is misleading, as any number of different lab 5s exist in the world. I was thinking this title would be about BSL-5 labs. 132.205.44.5 02:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, minor aspect of the series that does not need an article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete nor change anything, really.. Maxim_(talk) 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Common songs

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

List of Talib Kweli songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jay-Z songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Rakim songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It is an unnecessary content fork to have articles listing every song of a musician. Such information is already mentioned in the categories such as Category:Common songs and in the album articles. Spellcast 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: So I misred it, still saying delete because the category works to full effect in this case. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IvoShandor 11:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I often vote to delete lists when categories fill the same purpose, but in this case I think lists make sense as well since many of these songs, being b-sides and such, will never have categorisable articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Things like b-sides make up a small part of the list. They can easily be merged in the discography pages. Take a look at featured lists such as Gwen Stefani discography and Hilary Duff discography. Spellcast 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

B-sides aren't notable enough to warrant mention outside the article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect all to the discography article for the respective artist. There is no reason why a "list of songs" has to be separate from a "discography." Otto4711 12:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Just like the List of Beatles songs, this article offers a comprehensive list of information important to its artist Common. I think there is too much information for it to be condensed into a discography article unless its format was completely changed. Noahdabomb3 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Otto. Where there is a discography, this should be merged. Where there is no discography, they should be rewritten as a discography. --JayHenry 22:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no need for this to be a list, they should be on the track listings for the album, or not at all. i ^said 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with User:I - These should be a part of a track listing for album, not all lumped together Corpx 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep good way to keep track of b-sides, official songs vs. bootlegs, plus remixes and featured versesCosprings 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A discography that is a featured list will already mention the b-sides, bootlegs etc. See the above discographies mentioned. Thing like b-sides make up a small amount of these pages. Spellcast 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, okay I change my vote to deleteCosprings 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and make a sortable table like List of songs by Pink Floyd. Failing that merge with discographies. Kappa 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — All lists of songs shhould be deleted, including the aforementioned List of songs by Pink Floyd and List of Beatles songs. For the people suggesting a discography, a discography is a listing of albums by or singles including an artist, not a list of every song they have collaborated on. Regardless, these lists are unnecessary, as every notable song would have its own article, and that article should be categorized appropriately, thus removing the need for this article (as viewing the category would produce the same list). ♠ SG →Talk 03:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A category would do fine. See also my response to Starblind above. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bring Your Pumps

Bring Your Pumps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources at all. I also couldn't find any on my own. Therefore, article failes WP:N and WP:MUSIC. One more thing - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am sick of doing this to every new article related to Girls Aloud — *Hippi ippi 08:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced and self-contradictory. Joestella 08:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per Nom--NAHID 08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Surfer-Boy94 ¤ Talk 1:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete - eo 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete--217.209.116.113 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Commentmust be registered to vote--Childzy ¤ Talk 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Fake info --SuperHotWiki 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability. Carlosguitar 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no prejudice against a sourced recreation, should become notable in time if true.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. 17Drew 08:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of GURPS books. Bduke 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS Uplift

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

This out of print book from 1992 of gaming instructions fails the notablity guidelines WP:NOTABILITY, whilst the article itself does not provide any discussion or context about its subect matter. This article should be on a fansite, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Something is amiss in the nomination, because the 2nd nomination for GURPS 4e Basic Set does not include GURPS Uplift. I prefer not to modify the original nomination and its box. --Goochelaar 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This must be a fault with the infobox. The first nomination for this article was originally bundled with Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic. Like this nomination, GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination) is a seperate listing. --Gavin Collins 08:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nomination is mistaken in saying that the book in question has been OOP since 1992, as a revised edition was released in 2003. --Master Forcide 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Is there such a thing as a "speedy redirect"? I for one would be glad to redirect this to List of GURPS books, and I'd do so myself, but it is deprcated to do so during a deletion debate. Gavin, we have closer opinions than you think about most GURPS books. If you just redirected to that list those you believe deserve to vanish, I am sure that most redirections would be approved by almost everybody. And for the few contested redirections we could debate about something possessed of just a tiny bit of interest. --Goochelaar 23:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of GURPS books per Goochelaar. GURPS is notable even if this particular volume isn't, and a list of GURPS books is useful. We should err on the side of inclusion while being reasonable. Rray 02:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the GURPS books, even though I have this book and find it very interesting, being a David Brin fan. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per usual reasons in this series of GURPS AfDs. -- JHunterJ 12:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Percy Snoodle 06:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, but please add a brief summary paragraph. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reynier Tyson

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

Non-notable Neutrality^talk 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - with no objection to recreating with relaible sources. Not enough source material to meet WP:N. The only reference I could find, Philadelphia Inquirer (December 5, 1985) Obituaries: Gearldine S. Tyson[25] Section: Local; Page B27 - mentions:

  "Miss Tyson was a member of the ninth generation of Tysons in the Philadelphia area. The family came from Germany and in 1683 settled on a land grant from William Penn. The Tysons were one of the original 13 families to settle Germantown in 1683. In 1700, Reynier Tyson purchased 1,000 acres in Abington Township. In the 18th and 19th centuries, his heirs owned and farmed much of what is now Abingtown. Lime used in the 1734 building of Independence Hall came from the Tyson limekiln and quarries in the Roslyn section of the township, and one of the ancestral homes, Tyson Green, still stands on Highland Avenue, just off Old York Road, in Abington."

  -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. And no, being a notable guy's relative doesn't count. Joestella 07:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete most definately fails notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Surprisingly long for someone who fails WP:NOT, isn't it? Cannot ascertain notability, even through it's substantial length.Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because notability is not inherited. Corpx 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Lloyd Banks. A mention there may be in order. JoshuaZ 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Withdraw

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

An unofficial, leaked compilation of Lloyd Banks songs. No coverage from reliable, third party sources, only forums and file sharing sites. These songs may be by him, but they were never officially released. Spellcast 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep-This album was supposed to be Lloyd Banks' second album. However it was stolen from him and then leaked. This is perfectly official. It was going to be his second studio album. There are many places which confirm this such as:

• "Best Of '06: Lloyd Banks Loses New Album During Threesome, Addresses Cassidy Beef"
• Lloyd Banks' "The Big Withdraw leaks
• Lloyd Banks– The Rotten Apple

So it is quite notable, just as notable as any other album. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The first source is just him admitting he had a CD stolen. And the other two sources (which seem to be blogs) are just non-trivial mentions because all it mentions is the title of this bootleg. Unlike notable album articles, this can never have charts, sales, production, themes, or critical reviews. There's no multiple, reliable sources on the album (it's not even listed in All Music Guide). WP:N says articles need "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Lloyd Banks admitting he had a CD stolen and a brief mention of the name of this bootleg are trivial mentions and is nowhere near "significant coverage". I'm prepared to withdraw the nomination if there's multiple, reputable sources that addresses the album in detail. But there isn't any. Spellcast 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Album wasn't even released. No charts, reviews, album sales, anything like that. --- Realest4Life 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - While the above is reliable source material, there is not enough of it to develop an article and it seems unlikely that WP:RSs are going to cover this topic in the future. The information belongs in Lloyd Banks. If this is closed as a delete, the closing admin may want to dump the text contents of this article into Lloyd Banks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Merge with artist's page. Joestella 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep similar article Cigarettes and Valentines by green day is notable, this was a real album it is sourced, it is both an interesting and notable thing to happen --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:N requires in-depth coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. This is not documented by reputable, third party sources. Lloyd Banks himself does not count as a secondary source and the other sources are just non-trivial mentions (a track list). Spellcast 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has the potential to have all other information added, at the momment it is a stub. There is nothing wrong with stubs. Unlike mixtapes, this was supposed to be a full studio album and we just need to find reviews etc., --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are no reviews, sales, certifications, production, themes or anything like that. Again, WP:N requires secondary sources that addresses the subject directly in detail. Lloyd Banks himself and those 2 blogs is not adequate enough. It also fails WP:V because there can never be reliable, third-party sources. There are only track listings in forums, file sharing sites, and blogs, so it's a trivial mention. This is by far from "significant coverage" that addresses the tape in detail. Spellcast 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Pretty useful to me. --Football97 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Keep because it was a significant event. 81.79.232.196 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In-depth reliable sources that is independent of the subject has yet to be addressed (again, Lloyd Banks himself and brief mentions in those blogs don't count). If no reliable, third-party sources can be found, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This bootleg is no more notable than the dozens of mixtapes I've had deleted in the past week. Some bootlegs are notable such as Prince's The Black Album, but this is not. Spellcast 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:-But this was a very notable event. His whole album was stolen and leaked. Agree the page could be expanded, but there is nothing wrong with stubs. -¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this can't expand into a good or featured article. In the unlikely event that more in-depth sources are found, this can be recreated. But at the moment, this can easily be mentioned in Lloyd Banks. There are even mixtapes more notable than this such as Dedication 2. Spellcast 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, but suggest that merge discussions take place on talk page. Bduke 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Supper

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