Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - More sources have been found; this doesn't appear to be WP:SPAM or vanity, but does need a clean up.. Shell ^babelfish 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Schlund

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

Flying a jet pack is unusual, but that alone isn't enough to create notability and I can't find signficant coverage about Dan Schlund to show any real notability. This article is mainly an excuse to promote Dan Schlund and his jet pack entertainment business. Basil Richards 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE Vanity page. Violates WP:SPAM. OfficeGirl 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep A quick search got me three news stories involving Dan Schlund, including one piece exclusively on him (which I added in the External Links section pending a rewrite). I think there is some notability here, and though I could wish for more, I think it's enough to keep the article around. The article has NPOV/COI issues, but those can be edited out over time, and aren't generally cause for deletion. - Fordan (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Fordan. - Dean Wormer 03:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Rehevkor 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it appears that he is the only person in the world who does this for entertainment, and if this kind of show becomes more popular (as I think it would) this page would simply be recreated.--Mr Beale 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Basil Richards--Truest blue 17:57, 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, withdrawn nomination with no votes for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Hits

The Ultimate Hits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, nothing known about album so far, article even admits that no tracklisting has been confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC) I'm closing this as a withdrawn nomination; the added source is just good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep article has been expanded and sourced. --Caldorwards4 04:42, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things That Never Cross a Man's Mind

Things That Never Cross a Man's Mind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Song isn't notable yet; has yet to chart. Country Aircheck confirms that this is her third single, but this could still be a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Spam. MarkBul 23:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't qualify as spam or any other speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete wait until it charts. --Caldorwards4 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's fancruft more than it's spam. Kellie Pickler is a notable entertainer, but every song she publishes isn't necessarily notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe it will grow to be a notable song in the future, but it doesn't qualify now and might never qualify. See WP:CRYSTAL. OfficeGirl 00:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haven (porn star)

Haven (porn star) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I really cant find anything because of the generic name Corpx 04:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Tabercil 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. - Dean Wormer 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundonym

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

Portmanteau of redundant and acronym. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or for things made up one day. Since the creator says he made up the term, and this forum also contains an enlightening comment, I think we're looking at someone trying to make their own term catch on via Wikipedia. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dicdef which isn't really a dicdef. Original editor has already explained that only he and one other person have ever used this attempt at a neologism. OfficeGirl 22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, NN non-notable neologism which is not notable. Wikipedia is NFT for things that are made up in school one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn dicdef. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Violates WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NEO and WP:V. Bearian 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotadundodicdef. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buttered cat paradox

Buttered cat paradox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is uncyclopedic [sic]. The only thing missing is this animated GIF. The page should be deleted or moved to WP:BJAODN. It's funny, but it's an old joke. We don't need an article on "percatual motion" or "practical cat-toast motors."[1] Pixelface 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Send to WP:BJAODN but cannot be considered as a regular article. Cute, though. OfficeGirl 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • BJAODN got axed. Apparently the memo didn't get circulated yet (I was surprised). --UsaSatsui 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if an hoax-y idea receives enough mainstream coverage (which I think this has), it can become notable. And as the nom shows, it's also verifiable (the google book seems to quote the New Scientist for ex.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I should also mention that the cat is not buttered, it is the toast that is buttered, so the article title is incorrect. --Pixelface 02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very notable paradox. Lugnuts 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but I have a better diagram. --Candy-Panda 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Cat toast swirl.gif
• Keep Don't the references in the article alone prove that it's a notable concept in popular culture. I think people are confusing notability with seriousness of a topic. Key to the city 09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The way the 'loophole theories' section is written, doesn't make it clear enough that the subject is not scientific though. That needs to be removed or changed. Key to the city 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a notable concept. JIP | Talk 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The 1996 article in New Scientist shows that this is a somewhat popular joke. Still, I'd rather see it mentioned in a half sentence in perpetual motion or something like Science humour. The current section "Thought experiments" also is somewhat confusing (is there some actual thought experiment going on like with Schroedinger's cat, or is this just elaborating the joke?) but I don't think that could be much improved, so nothing remains to write an encyclopedic article. --Allefant 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable idea with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This joke has definitely become a well-known part of our culture. I think it could use some editing, however, particularly to merge the "Thought experiment" section with the rest of the article. Ariah 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are enough sources to establish its reliability. Quidam65 19:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But it doesn't work all that well. The cat gets sick after a minute or two, creating an awful mess. Banno 08:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bfigura, Key to the city etc. -- Roleplayer 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This one has been around, as evidenced by the sources. Just because it's a joke doesn't mean it's not "worthy". I think it deserves mention that the premise is flawed, though. MythBusters proved toast doesn't always land butter side down, and I've proven cats don't always land on their feet (though that last part is WP:OR and not acceptable for the article). --UsaSatsui 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Actually it was on QI once that cats that fall from between the 5th and 7th storey of a building are more likely to die from the fall than cats that fall from above or below that height. That would suggest that it's not OR, though where one would start to look for that research I haven't the foggiest. I tried attaching some buttered bread to the back of my own cat, until he tried attaching his claws to my face. -- Roleplayer 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, but the question is not whether or not a cat could survive such a fall. It's whether or not they land on their feet. --UsaSatsui 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No reason to delete. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What actually happens is that the cat eats the toast. Sam Blacketer 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. No comment. --Kizor 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep AND Post in BJAODN. It's actually referenced. Countless articles with no references. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Science shall trump all, as they say. And it's clearly notable if nothing else. • Lawrence Cohen 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for a non-frivolous reason: it's a very simple example of a paradox that people can understand, and the other paradox articles go into mathematics and formal logic to the point where a lot of them are confusing and marked as too technical. Kuronue | Talk 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. I also heard the term as "buttered cats" circa 1996. - Dean Wormer 03:25, 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. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Star Trek crews

Comparison of Star Trek crews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fancruft, indiscriminate collection.... Recommend delete Dchall1 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - OR that implies the "science officer" job in one series is comparable to that in all the others. Not particularly useful, either - those interested in clumping people together by job can use an infobox (e.g. Template:Enterprise captains) between character articles. --EEMeltonIV 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Beam it away. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, extremely useful information. Oh what the heck, go ahead and delete it. JIP | Talk 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Useful? I guess it depends on your point of view, but this is a concise table for separating the many characters from the many progeny of Gene Roddenberry, and it is preferable to having multiple articles about the casting. Like they say in baseball, you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Mandsford 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - "It is useful" is not a compelling reason to retain content. --EEMeltonIV 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response And neither is "It is not useful"... whether it is or is not useful, it's a concise table for sep... well, whatever I said up there. Mandsford 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research. Even the title implies it. - Dean Wormer 03:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the various reasons above. Rehevkor 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen's influences

Queen's influences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Content fork about musical influences on the rock band Queen. Original research, no references. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The main problem here is that the article says absolutely nothing. This isn't even a POV or original research list/essay, it's simply a sketchy restatement of subject matter already discussed in the Queen article. I see no need for a separate article. Calgary 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article in its current form is entirely WP:OR Corpx 04:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Ashe

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

Failed congressional candidate from 2004. No other claim of notability and subject does not meet WP:BIO. The subject dropped out of 2006 race and is now a mid-level bureaucrat. It appears unlikely that this individual will become more notable than he is now. Previous AfD, in 2005, resulted in a "no consensus keep". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As written, there's nothing notable about him. MarkBul 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - As a failed candidate, I really see no historic notability Corpx 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - May have been notable, but no longer is. No encyclopedic longevity. - Dean Wormer 03:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shonen Joufu

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

Prod, prod removed, bringing it here. Verifiability issues, it seems. Procedural nom Nom votes to Delete. UsaSatsui 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as lack of independent sources suggests notability to come. --Gavin Collins 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search of "Shonen Joufu" -wikipedia turns up one hit to an unrelated page, which itself is an unaccredited copy of a different Wikipedia article. --Farix (Talk) 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Self-published or entirely fictional; not notable either way. Doceirias 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article states that "Shonen Joufu was launched April 1, 2007 as a means of circulating several American manga" and "all of them are written by high school students in the North Penn School District." This is someone's school project. Or after school project. Or something that some North Penn School District kids made up in school one day. OfficeGirl 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooo, good point. At the very least, it implies non-notability. I'm opining here, then. --UsaSatsui 00:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete them all. -- Vary | Talk 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as a hoax. Fails WP:BK and WP:V. To the above user, also note that CSD A7 does not apply to hoaxes. Read non-criteria for speedy deletion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above (except for the speedy). - Dean Wormer 03:38, 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 -- Y not? 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai lime

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

Website with no real assertion of notability. Delete, unless sources are provided. J Milburn 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Violates WP:ADVERT. OfficeGirl 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I am now working with the author of the article in an attempt to improve it. J Milburn 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sources have been provided but article body needs more content. Allow me to work on it for a few days in order to improve the article--Sabature 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: I've looked at the sources that you have added to the article and they consist only of (1) the subject of the article and (2) press releases from the PR firm hired by the subject of the article. If you can't find any truly independent sources that have published stories about this subject, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for the article. I hate to tell you that after your hard work to find those links, but the article is still only an advertisement, and that's a no-no on Wikipedia. But you could publish it on another internet website if you like. OfficeGirl 09:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: OfficeGirl I checked out the article links as well and it seems majority of them are independent sources for example:-

http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=52452 on 7DAYS one of the leading papers in Dubai http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=57219 on 7DAYS one of the leading papers in Dubai http://www.timeoutdubai.com/dubai/nightlife/review.php?id=6207 on Time Out Dubai leading entertainment news in Dubai http://www.xpress4me.com/life/reviews/music/20001297.html on Xpress on of the leading papers in Dubai. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/496214-sing-when-youre-winning on Arabian Business News one of the leading Business papers in Dubai. Please check again --Karenarttodd 11:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

HAVING CHECKED AGAIN PER YOUR REQUEST:

http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=52452 on 7DAYS one of the leading papers in Dubai

This page is a community calendar for the week of June 15, 2007. It contains only a brief mention of Dubai Lime, and that is in the way of printing an event announcement which was no doubt provided by the subject's publicist. This is not the same as when a publication independently deems a subject to be newsworthy and investigates the facts and writes a story about it.

http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=57219 on 7DAYS one of the leading papers in Dubai

This is a small blurb in a section of the website called Coffee and Culture (things to do in Dubai). The blurb itself is four sentences long, and it isn't even a blurb about Dubai lime-- it's about a coffee shop called Central Perk. At the end of the sentence it mentions that Dubai Lime is scheduled to have an "Open Mic" night there. That's all. There's no real information about the subject of this Wikipedia article, except that the subject really exists. I don't think anyone has doubted that the subject really exists.

http://www.timeoutdubai.com/dubai/nightlife/review.php?id=6207 on Time Out Dubai leading entertainment news in Dubai

This is a one-sentence calendar announcement that the subject of the article is promoting a performance of a trio of artists.

http://www.xpress4me.com/life/reviews/music/20001297.html on Xpress on of the leading papers in Dubai.

This is the only article which is actually written by an independent reporter of the facts. It is very brief and it reads like a press release (reporters often rely heavily on press packets from the promoter to get the content of their articles, it saves them from actually doing the work of writing), but it still counts as a third-party source. Thing is-- what we learn about this subject is that it is a new corporation of music promoters trying to drum up some business. They are trying to get themselves established and working hard, but we all know they got this article through their paid publicist more so than on the merits of serious newsworthiness.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/496214-sing-when-youre-winning on Arabian Business News one of the leading Business papers in Dubai.

This one is an interview of the subject. It's a lot like a primary source, since the publication is only printing word-for-word what the subject says without analysis, but it's a whole lot better than a press release. Again, the article seems to tell us that these folks are just getting started. It takes a lot for a music promoter to be considered notable, and it may be premature to label them as such.

Karenarttodd, you have reacted to my post as if you believe I am rushing to judgment on deletion. If you check my contrib history you will see that numerous times I have changed my delete vote to keep whenever an editor overhauls a problem article. I am really glad when they do that and I have endeavored to do that on several Irish-based articles myself. I am not against the City of Dubai and I am more aware than most that it is a rich cultural and international trade center, as one of my dearest friends lives in the UAE.

I still have my doubts about this very commercial entry qualifying as an appropriate entry on Wikipedia. And I hate having these doubts when I see how much work these editors are doing to try as they can to find something that makes the article work. Kudos to the hard work, but we aren't going to be able to change the facts about this brand new commercial enterprise which has had only minimal coverage on a local level in their own city. OfficeGirl 19:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Internal links have now been added to the article and J Milburn is helping me with the website. Thanks --Sabature 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. All sources added thus far are links to subject of article. Still probably fails as spam, definitely fails on notability and verifiability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article is not an advert. It reads like an advert therefore request help from wikipedians to edit the wiki article.The articles provided within the Wiki Article are valid sources in the city the website is based in please check and confirm.--Karenarttodd 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Then I guess there is no changing your mind OfficeGirl...I am an Art writer in a U.K. art publication and have heard about the great things they are doing for the Art Community for Free so I thought I would look them up on wikipedia. Do what ever fancies you I just know from being a part of the Art world that Dubai Lime gets no money what so ever from their Art Project.--Karenarttodd 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There seems to be enough news items to establish notability. - Dean Wormer 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Despite all the blurbs from the media, does not meet WP:WEB. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:22, 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. KrakatoaKatie 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schrute bucks

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

Contested prod. Unlike my other "procedure" AfDs today, I'm throwing a Delete up with this one. It's completely unnotable and makes no sense out of context. UsaSatsui 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE. Though The Office is notable, a gag or bit that they do in that show is not notable just for being in the show. "Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." OfficeGirl 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Everything Dwight does on the show is not automatically notable and this lacks coverage from independent real world sources Corpx 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a single nonrecurring joke from a TV show is not notable. - Chardish 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - with Dwight Schrute, since it's used in the article. JQF • Talk • Contribs 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable or interesting. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.83.30 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - with Dwight Schrute. - Dean Wormer 03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atco Ghost

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

Unsourced and non-notable urban legend. Prod tag removed, so article is listed here. Recommend delete Dchall1 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Will change to Keep if reliable sources are provided. Plenty of Google hits, but no reliable, independent sources. Not documented on snopes.com, normally my first stop for verification of "popular urban legends". Perhaps another editor knows of better secondary/tertiary sources that might have discussed this ghost story? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In addition to the telltale words of "legend", "rumor" and "tale", there is not even a fig leaf of a source to support any of the supposed spooky happenings in Atco, not even a reference to the questionable sources at Weird NJ. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; This article provides no evidence, let alone the extraordinary kind. I will be willing to reconsider if some semblance of sources are added supporting the claims of supposed mysterious happenings. Alansohn 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V spectacularly. - Dean Wormer 03:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mario's Crime Life

Mario's Crime Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not Notable - no pages link here, no Google hits Ttwaring 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, no assertion of notability. Non notable fan-made creation. Could even be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7. --Pixelface 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also note that the original page Marios Crime Life is now a redirect to this page and should be deleted too Ttwaring 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified. - Dean Wormer 03:49, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dagekimaru

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

Contested prod on this article about a manga series. Notability not established. Also nominating the "list of" page. Procedural nom, no opinion (yet). UsaSatsui 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Dagekimaru chapters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• An "up-and-coming" tag should probably be added to this article, but with the pricing, reads as an advert, for which it should be deleted. 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both Google search of Dagekimaru -wikipedia turns up only 8 hits to unrelated pages, several of which are unaccredited copies of other Wikipedia articles. --Farix (Talk) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - not notable, self-published or non-existent. Doceirias 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete' A7. -- Vary | Talk 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - Hoaxes. Both fail WP:BK, WP:V and WP:MADEUP. As noted before, CSD A7 does not apply to hoaxes. Read non-criteria for speedy deletion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of pubs in Balmain

List of pubs in Balmain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than a list of one type of business in a specific area. This is Wikipedia, not wiki Yellow Pages. The majority of links are to non notable pubs, or former pubs. Nuttah68 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as currently written as it is a directory. There might be case for an article on the history of pubs in Balmain especially given that we appear to have an article on most of them. Certainly, Dawn Fraser's pub might be worth an article. Capitalistroadster 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not directory. To be honest, most of the pubs listed here wont pass WP:N either Corpx 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per CorpX. Twenty Years 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This list is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki is not a directory - and categories won't be necessary as most pub are just ordinary pubs like zillion others.--JForget 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To clarify my delete !vote; if this article can be rewritten to be similar in style to Pubs of Surry Hills, New South Wales, then I would support keeping the article. At present it is merely a list without context and serves very little purpose. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect Articlfy and move to Pubs of Balmain, New South Wales. Thirteen Balmain hotels are listed on the online database at NSW Heritage. Many of these have architectural and historic interest and are not your average suburban beer barns. There should be enough material available from various sources to create a good article on this subject, and many of the linked stubs could then be merged into the article. --Melburnian 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If all those pubs have an article, there is no reason not to have a list, tho it's purpose may be better served by a category. :: maelgwn - talk 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Redirect to Balmain article per directory guidelines. An article (not a list) could be created on Pubs in Balmain. :: maelgwn - talk 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Keb25 05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Directory. - Dean Wormer 03:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Why just pubs and not fabric shops or ladies boutiques in the area? Because Wikipedia is written by bored male college students. The Wikipedia is not the yellow pages - sorry guys. --Eqdoktor 06:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cire

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

Contested prod. Appears to be notability issues. Procedural nom, no opinion. UsaSatsui 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Only 3 known showings of the art, and no sources other than official sites. Tx17777 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unattributed and seems to be non-notable. Carlosguitar 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not widely represented in exhibitions according to article. Fails WP:BIO. --Alksub 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Johnbod 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Biblbroks's talk 06:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscurity is asserted, but not notability. - Dean Wormer 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Park Jung Suk

Park Jung Suk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article fails to assert the notability of this profession computer game player who peaked in 2002. The non-notability tag has been removed on grounds that he satisfies WP:BIO, as allegedly he is equivalent to a competitor who has played in a fully professional league. I would suggest that professional sportspeople inhabit the real world where they can receive independent coverage in newspapers & magazines, whereas Park Jung Suk occupied a virtual world, which is relative annonymous, ephemeral, but ultimately non-notable. --Gavin Collins 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Ample google hits, clearly meets WP:BIO criteria, and stating that he is a professional gamer is an assertation of notability. Neither the shortcomings of the article nor the appararent bias of the nominator against electronic sports are any reason for deletion. PC78 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This AfD is based on the nominator's dismissal of the entire field. I disagree. --Kizor 23:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong DELETE. Just stating that the subject of this article earns his living by playing games is NOT an assertion of notability. For example, there are a great many professional golfers and professional tennis players who are only known by the people that they work with and compete with. They earn a living, but are not notable figures for encyclopedia purposes. Unless Park Jung Suk has received real recognition in the press which is verifiable from reliable sources there is no reason to have an article about him on Wikipedia. This fellow belongs on MySpace.com, not Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 00:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:BIO, Athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." This sufficient criterion for notability is satisfied. Debivort 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think OfficeGirl has made a fair comment. Although computer games are very popular, they are a relatively solitary pastime, with little coverage outside gaming magazines and fansites. Notability is not inherited, and playing a notable computer game does not confer notability. The point is if there was more independent information about him, then notability could be established regardless of his sport or nationality. --Gavin Collins 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't think either of you understand this phenomenon. Go watch this video which has some commentary on the culture of pro computer gaming in Korea. Debivort 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've put this on Gavin's talk page and I'll put it here for others to read. Starcraft in Korea is not a "solitary past time" (and how many times do we have to repeat this) but a spectator sport, it has become significant that even across the world the BBC should write:-

"In some nations gamers are looked down upon, but in South Korea professional gaming, or e-sports, is worth billions of dollars and players are seen as heroes...as if to prove that computer gaming is like sports, in a stadium used in the 1988 Olympic Games...Around 30,000 fans have turned up to see the biggest stars battle it out...they are playing Starcraft...It is the most popular game in South Korea and the only one with its own professional league." follow this link to read the article in full.

It is systemic bias and an unwillingness to accept any World view that is not your own narrow and parochial one as having any truth and validity to paraphrase Swift "...only a fool believes that the customs, and mores of his native land, has the weight of natural laws." that computer games are "solitary and "annonymous, ephemeral"(sic) where you live, does not mean that the same is true everywhere.KTo288 09:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Non-trivial coverage in major Korean newspapers such as JoongAng Ilbo [2], Chosun Ilbo [3], etc. Strongly disagree with presumption of automatic notability for video game players (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (third nomination), but this one seems fine. cab 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep these nominations are systemic bias of the worst order see this BBC page to see how big e-sports are in Korea, and as to champions vs journeymen, read the article, he has won one of the leagues and has regularly come in second.KTo288 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems that sources do exist to verify notability. The fact that they're not in the article would be a cleanup issue, not grounds for deletion. I'm adding sourcing templates to the page to this end. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:BIO, and WP:BIAS. Debivort 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source. The nominator asserts that "professional sportspeople inhabit the real world where they can receive independent coverage in newspapers & magazines". This is in fact true in Korea, where video gaming is very much akin to a national sport, and winning major events would make one notable in the same way as for a physical athlete. Although all articles should in principle be referenced, I have no reason to doubt notability in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what part of WP:BIO he fails, especially given that I already demonstrated he has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? cab 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response The link to game fan articles provide no evidence of notability; I assume they would have been translated and quoted if they did. --Gavin Collins 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? Being "translated and quoted" hasn't got anything to do with WP:N. cab 01:34, 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 None. There is an ongoing Arbitration case here about the whole Allegations of apartheid mess. There was a consensus to undelete and blank those articles that had been deleted for the purposes of gathering evidence for the case. The discussion can be found here. Because of the case, I am suspending/closing the AfD, without prejudice for keeping or deleting the article in question. If you wish to renominate it, please do so again after the ArbCom case closes. --Hemlock Martinis 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about an inflammatory issue that exists solely to denigrate and delegitimize the State of Israel. By its very nature, it is not possible to say anything about it in a politically, ideologically, or epistemologically "neutral" fashion, and therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Skaraoke 08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This nomination hasn't been processed properly. It therefore does not appear on the list of active nominations. You should check the process again. There is something you haven't done that the process requires. When you do process it, please note that this is the seventh nomination, not the second as you say. Look at the article talk page and expand the AfD list and you'll see the lot. I would also suggest looking at the arguments that have allowed this article to allow for over a year and these six nominations before putting forward yet another nomination.--Peter cohen 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think its OK now. --Gavin Collins 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Thanks to you and Cerejota, it is much better now.--Peter cohen 08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the "(second nomination)" part was added automatically by the afdx template, and it was beyond my control. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the reason that this inflammatory article has survived so many nominations for deletion is that it's heavily patrolled by members of the antisemitic, Israel-hating fringe and an (unfortunately smaller) group of people who know what these antisemites (and discredited self-loathing Jews, e.g. Norman Finkelstein) are up to and are dedicated to countering their propaganda. This situation creates the illusion there is a "bimodal consensus" about whether this issue is valid, when in fact if everyone in the English-speaking were to voice their opinions about this, there would be a clear consensus that the credibility of this issue should go the way of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which many anti-Israel groups sell at their rallies, BTW). The Israel-haters take advantage of the obscurity of this fringe issue. If the only people who had ever heard of Nazism were members of the Aryan Nations and the ADL, the same thing would happen with that article too. Luckily everyone in the country knows about Nazism, but they're not familiar with this lesser-known brand of antisemitism, so they're not there to reign in this problem. - Skaraoke 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the other explanation as to why the article has survived numerous nominations is that the subject matter is notable and verifiable. In fact, WP:V's main tenet is "verifiability, not truth". The article does not exist to push the claim or assert its truthiness (thanks Stephen Colbert!); rather, it exists to cover the issue. BTW, it would do you a world of good to strike some of your inflammatory comments above. Labeling those that are in favor of keeping the article as antisemetic is going to cause you more problems than its worth, such as a trip to WP:WQA. Tarc 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the etymology of the word "verifiability," this standard is a logical contradiction, and therefore it makes no sense. Anyway, if this "rule" really is part of Wikipedia's fundamental philosophy, it explain why Wikipedia has become such an epistemological cesspool, and why the lunatic fringe has found such a secure home here. - Skaraoke 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously trying to skip an editing dispute by way of AfD. If you have problems with it, join the debate in the talk page. An inflammatory, ill-advised, POV-pushing, disruptive AfD is the last thing we need. As to epistemology, I suggest you check Nigger. If you tolerate such an word being a title, you are being an hypocrite. And don't give me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS lip, if you are claiming systemic challenges, please act like it or don't claim it. All your nom and comments show is that you are just concerned about your own POV. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have gone through the differences between this article and Nigger. But again, this article is written from the perspective of the users as to why they believe the term is appropiate. Nigger is written from the persepective of a black person as to why the term is an insult. It is not written from the prespective of a white supremacist, describing why they believe the term is appropiate; if it was, I would nominate that article for deletion, as it would be a racist anti-black POV fork. But it is not, so you are not comparing apples to apples with that analogy. Unless the article begins with something along the lines of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid are made by antisemites who despise israel..." and make that the thesis of the article, there is no comparision between the two. If you have another example that is an apples to apples comparision, please mention it, so it can be nominated for an afd as well.--Sefringle^Talk 03:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That was very much a non-response. The material is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced. No original research, no synthesis of disparate opinions. Just an article about a notable event. Controversial and somewhat incendiary? Of course, but that is not a reason to delete, any more than your insult-laden WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale is. Tarc 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own bias is pretty clear from looking at your edit history. - Skaraoke 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As is yours, as is most everyone else's here. When you can address actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines as to why this article should be deleted, I will gladly respond. If all you're going to do is engage in ad hominem asides, then that really isn't a productive use of our time. Tarc 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it's time to put an end to this whole Allegations of apartheid mess. However, I think the nominator does his cause more harm than good with his inflammatory rationale. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Falls under the category of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. There is not possible non-POV answer. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MarkBul 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons given in my above comments and in several of the past AfDs. Subject matter is notable and verifiable. Nominators rationale misrepresents the article's point and rather disgustingly drags out the "antisemite" slur for his opponents. Tarc 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep but rename as Israel apartheid analogy, a more accurate and far less POV title first proposed by Ashley Y back in April, 2007 during the fifth time this was discussed (dead horse, anyone?). The biggest POV problems are in the article title and the section titles, but the text is pretty good and very well referenced. This topic is very much notable enough. OfficeGirl 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually kind of like this, except that I would prefer it to say "Proposed Analogy with Apartheid." And, the article needs to be more honest about the character, credibility, likely motives, and conflicts-of-interest of the specific people who are promoting this analogy. As it stands now, people with an obvious anti-Israel agenda are using strong-arm tactics to whitewash these folks in the article. - Skaraoke 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI for OfficeGirl -- In recent renaming efforts, a proposed title using "analogy" and a proposed title "Israeli apartheid debate" have failed. For a view of why titles structured like "Israeli apartheid analogy" is unlikely to pass muster, you may want to look at the typology of titles within a draft sythesis of arguments on AoIA renaming. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

reply Oh, what a quagmire. "Israeli Apartheid" would be a perfectly good title, since that is the name used by the accusers and the most likely search term for those seeking information on the topic. The name that is being used now is more POV than anything in the article, though the "Opposing Views" section sounds more like the response in a debate rather than a dispassionate reporting of the published record as found in reliable sources. I see you've dedicated quite a bit of energy to the problems inherent in renaming this article. But I still think it needs to be renamed. OfficeGirl 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Questions for nominator (or others). First, most importantly, please clarify how you distinguish the grounds for this AfD from the previous ones. Second, please clarify what "it" refers to in your statement "By its very nature, it is not possible to say anything about it in a politically, ideologically, or epistemologically "neutral" fashion, and therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia." If "it" is an "inflammatory issue", then how would you explain the existence of encyclopedia articles (Wikipedia or otherwise) on such topics as abortion. If "it" refers to the current Article Name, would you deny that it is possible to formulate a neutral title about the similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa? Thanks for elucidating the grounds for yet another AfD. HG | Talk 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"It" in this case refers to the accusation that Israel practices "Apartheid." Abortion is a clinically recognized medical procedure. It's a fact that it has been performed. The contentious issue of its legality and/or morality is notable because, for example, it has been the subject of several cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, which body is established by the United States Constitution to be the highest-precedence Federal court in the land. Every person living in the United States is affected by its decisions. Therefore, issues brought before it are per se notable within American society. On the other hand, in this case we're talking about an idea being debated by people whose own notability (to say nothing of "objectivity") is in question. (i.e. Not every tenured English professor is considered "notable" just because she says what she thinks about Shakespeare, so why do we assume that every Middle East Studies professor is "notable"?) Also, as I've said elsewhere on this page, certain issues such as abortion are much more widely known than this "Israeli Apartheid" thing, so the articles on Wikipedia have a larger and more representative "gene pool" from which to draw contributors. I hope that these explanations help to answer your question. - Skaraoke 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this one speaks for itself:

Please do not feed the trolls.

We've had two move requests in the last week, with no consensus for a move. We don't need to have this discussion again in yet another location. It's time for the people who want to rename the article to just stop for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

greg park avenue 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close as no consensus, as I can promise with absolute certainty that such will be the end result, one way or another. CJCurrie 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as no consensus. Why go through this again? We all have better things to do. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• oppose, possible speedy close - Nominators comment is not supported by the wealth of notable, reliable, and verifiable sources that provide complete encyclopedic value to the topic in itself. Deletionism around this article seems to always be based around POV WP:BATTLE ideological reasons: since the topic includes politics contrary to the existence of Israel, or against policies put in practice, historically or currently. The nominator obviously has not read the article (which needs work) and is obviously having a knee-jerk reaction to the existence of the topic, because the article as it stands doesn't support his nomination comments: In fact, the bulk of the sourced material that uses the analogy is from self-described Zionist sources or sources that are sympathetic or support the existence of Israel, but think certain policies are harmful to a peace process and in fact contribute to increased insecurity in Israel itself.

Furthermore, it being a controversial topic, which has been over many AfDs in the past (some of which have been bad faith, but most of them have been solid and well discussed.), is currently under ArbCom, and has been the subject of several RfMs and very active discussion in its talk page, the nominator should at least have had the common decency of asking for the opinion of editors before jumping the gun.

This nomination is a best a mistake by an unexperienced wikipedia, and at worse one of the most egregious example of WP:BATTLE disruption. Either way it is disruptive and should be speedy closed.

Lastly, this is not the "Second nomination" and this needs URGENT admin attention, so that people are no confused as to this issue being a long-standing controversy. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't going to be a speedy close as long as there are delete votes.--Sefringle^Talk 02:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling: this is not a vote, and just because you and your meatpuppets continue to be disruptive and unproductive doesn't mean it cannot be speedily closed. Edit, don't delete. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"We" do not appreciate being called trolls. Remenber to mantain WP:CIVIL and don't make personal attacks.--Sefringle^Talk 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete and enough no-consensus closes. It is unlikely this issue will ever be resolved. as long as the closing admin closes this debate as "no consensus." The last few nominations closed that way and that has created major conflicts which lead this issue to go to arbcom. My opinion is this article is an insult to Israel and zionism, and should not be kept. Sure, it may be notable, but sourced insults (even from scholars) are still insults. Notability alone does not mean a topic is encyclopediac. But even th notability is questionable, as most of the material is original primary sources claiming to prove some form of notability. The criticism section is the largest section, but most of the critics do not use the term "apartheid" in their rebuddle; instead they explain how the anti-israel, anti-zionists are wrong in their statements. If the primary sources were removed, there would probably be only 3 paragraphs remaining, which could easily be merged into Human rights in Israel, where the topic would at least be given all the weight it diserves, and would at least be presented in a neutral manner. Garbage like this should not be kept, as it is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to afd debates. As for Malik Shabazz's comment, why go through this again? The answer is because we haven't resolved the previous issues. The article is still an anti-Israel, anti-zionist POV fork, and attempts to move this article to a more neutral title have all failed so far. --Sefringle^Talk 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that is a gross exaggeration of reality. "This issue" went to Arbcom not because of the article's controversial content (which you well know Arbcom does not rule on) because a group of editors (including you) have been accused of disruptive editing in relation to this and the subsequent POV forking articles, most of which have been since deleted or moved. Tarc 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what should happen to this article.--Sefringle^Talk 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tarc: please, please, please, do not feed the troll. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Technical Note I have moved nomination to the correct title (it is the seventh nomination), and nominated the redirect for deletion and recreate protection here. This is to fix the technical clusterfucks around this nomination. I am operating under WP:SNOW, and hope this is not controversial in anyway. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to move afd's 3,4,5,6,7 back one number, so the afd's are in the correct order.--Sefringle^Talk 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are miscounting. Whichever their quality, there have been seven nominations for deletion. There are two who allude to "2nd" and "second" nominations, and there is no "third/3rd" nomination. What needs to happpen is one of those gets renamed "third/3rd". No complex and error prone "rollback" of numbers needed. Although in all honesty, I would leave the past alone, less issues. Thanks! --Cerejota 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. It's thrid.--Sefringle^Talk 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As I've said in the previous AFDs of this kind, this is synthesis Corpx 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, unfortunately 02:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC) -- Y not? 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Amitabh Bachchan's awards, honours and recognitions

List of Amitabh Bachchan's awards, honours and recognitions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minutiae, much too detailed information unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry, listcruft which borders on fancruft Chris 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also listcruft not found in encyclopedic articles for any other country:

List of Bipasha Basu's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Ajay Devgan's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Sanjay Dutt's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Kajol's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Anil Kapoor's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Kareena Kapoor's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Karisma Kapoor's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Awards and Achievements of Raj Kapoor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Aamir Khan's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Saif Ali Khan's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Shah Rukh Khan's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Akshay Kumar's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Rani Mukerji's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Aishwarya Rai's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Tabu's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge all into respective main articles and trim down to feature only the most notable awards, then delete as listcruft. Tx17777 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - Amitab Bachan winning those awards are really significant, just as winning at the Oscars would be, but most of the other ones can be merged back into the main article, but I think it is really better to relist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)

• Keep I really would like to know why the nominator did not include or even mention the existence of List of Johnny Depp's awards and nominations, Laurence Olivier list of awards & nominations and Meryl Streep list of awards & nominations (see Category:Lists of awards by actor). I would like to remind the nominator that this is English Wikipedia, not UK or USA Wikipedia. In order words, the language is English, not the topics. These actors appear to be famous Bollywood actors. Most of them have a decent, referenced, article written on them, their names give Google hits in the millions and they all have played in numerous movies. I see no objection from having lists like this seperate from the main actors' articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

reply-if you're accusing me of systemic bias, that is bad faith and you should stuff it. No other country has boilerplate lists for their film industry. I'd be happy to include the ones you mentioned and any other-those didn't jump out as there isn't a concerted effort to push that particular listcruft. Chris 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything, I just noted that you left out the only three non-bollywood articles, for reasons I did not (and still do not) understand. But do I interpret you correctly now that you are saying that lists like this are only bad if there is a "concerted effort" to generate them? Whether or not they are listcruft is actually the topic of this AfD I assume. And shouldn't we judge articles based on their content instead of who makes them? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly merge the smaller ones into the biographies. The big ones will clutter the main articles. Award lists should be comprehensive, especially is the award itself has an article. It would be a serious omission to not have a comprehensive list of awards that have articles. The lists are well sourced, and their omission would show cultural bias for Wikipedia. The articles are also much better formatted and referenced than their American actor counterparts. See the examples above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He doesn't accuse you of systemic bias, but I do! How dare you nominating articles for deletion? Just because you don't know these actors and you don't care for this, you're removing it. I have mostly worked on these pages, and I don't really understand why List of Johnny Depp's awards and nominations, Laurence Olivier list of awards & nominations and Meryl Streep list of awards & nominations are not nominated for deletion by you. Why? That's what I consider as bias! If you see, there are too much awards and nominations and too much award ceremonies, and it's too much for the actors' pages, as they load the whole article. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I just noted none of the additional articles included in this AfD have been tagged with the proper AfD tag. As (looking at the votes until now), these articles will probably not be deleted, I am not sure someone even need to add them. Just to let you know. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment' I think all of them should be deleted, including the three others mentioned. None of these are too long to go within articles. I suppose though to be fair we will have to go about it slowly. Personally I would suggest starting with Oliver and going from there. The significance of the artist has nothing to do with it--this is fragmentary content. Even for Amitabh Bachchan, the list is a small portion of the article. DGG (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A merge would be fine with me, but merging articles does not involve deleting any of the parent articles, as the author history has to be preserved to fulfill the GFDL. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think some of the articles are well sourced and since Bollywood tends to have many award ceremonies, it would make sense to create a seperate page for them, instead of putting them on the actors pages. -- Pa7 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - No delete and no merge. There is nothing to merge here. The award articles of Bollywood actors are too long and it's a non-sense to return it back to the article and load it. They load more than half the page. So that's all. They should be left as they always were, before you're unnecessary intervention (BTW, I still remember that you didn't put for deletion the Hollywood pages and it will play only against you if necessary). --Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Bollywood has come a long way from where it used to be: It has become international now!! Nowadays, not just Indians, but many people watch Indian movies. Many actors are being approached for Hollywood projects. If there is so much attention on Hollywood pages then why can't we do the same for Bollywood too. Hollywood awards are given so much importance then why can't we do the same for Bollywood awards too?? Why aren't the Hollywood award pages nominated for deletion?? Many of the award pages are too long, thus having a separate page for the awards will help show most of the awards, the actor/actress has won. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all with main articles. - Dean Wormer 04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ALL: Looking through the pages, I find it amusing that almost all the articles nominated here are better sourced and referenced than the pages of the Western stars (most of which have ZERO refs and yet are not nominated for deletion or mergers). Merging these pages back to the original articles would be impractical as the merged articles would then face article size issues. The Wikipedia is not paper and these articles have a place in it. They are researched and documented, not 'cruft' (as the nomination crassly dismisses them), "I don't like it" cannot stand as a reason for deletion. --Eqdoktor 07:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not to make a disruptive point, but I believe any attempts to delete or merge the articles of Western stars would likely be shouted down under the Wikipedia:Snowball clause.--Eqdoktor 07:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Geminis

Useless list, 1/12 of the population is in there, consensus exists for similar lists to delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Adding List of Pisceans as well Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE Oh, for crying out loud. There's no more justification for this article than there is for the List of People Who Breath Oxygen (gotcha). OfficeGirl 19:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cruftiest of the Crufty. MarkBul 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Tx17777 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not a defining characteristic of a person. Punkmorten 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per all of the above. --mordicai. 20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete there are so many 'lists of...' up on AfD today, I'm in pain!Merkinsmum 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As is it could include about 550,000,000 living people plus all the departed Geminis. Even if it were List of notable Geminis it would be 1/12 of the persons eligible for biographies on Wikipedia. If anything, it could be a category, for those who think that Geminis or those born under other signs have special characteristics as a consequence. Edison 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per indiscriminate list. And break out the snow shovel. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What possible notability could a person's star sign give to him/her? Please don't tell me there are such lists for the other 11 signs too. JIP | Talk 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft and completely unencyclopediec. --Onceonthisisland 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What about categories for that?--JForget 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate info. Even categorizing would almost seem to be original research, unless a subject self-identified as a Gemini. - Dean Wormer 04:04, 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 -- Y not? 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Middle School(Aurora, Colorado)

Columbia Middle School(Aurora, Colorado) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notability of middle school Chris 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Columbine maybe. Columbia, not a chance. Non-notable.MarkBul 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established through reliable, third-party sources. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I don't think middle schools are inherently notable. This one is bigger than many high schools (970 students in just 3 grades), however, and it has some claims to local fame for its history of athletic prowess and its new program to boost academic achievement. Needs some more sources in addition to its website, though. The "references" cited when I visited the article seem to have been bogus -- not only were they pseudo-URLs, but they were about a Columbia Middle School with an International Baccalaureate curriculum, which this school does not have. If this is not kept, please merge into Aurora Public Schools (Colorado).--orlady 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as of now, it is just directory information and no notability is established Corpx 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the related school board or with the town - as it doesn't look significant enough for it's individual article - nothing extremely special either.--JForget 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksandr Dyagilev

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

Fails WP:BIO, only a youth player playing for youth teams, no reliable sources to demonstrate any notability, prod contested by article creator. Davewild 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable soccer player. No sources that assert his notability above that of many, many young athletes. Even if he is on the verge of becoming notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not playing in a pro league Corpx 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete First of all the sport is called football. Second of all, I dont see what you guys have against this player. He seems to be really good, and this article isnt hurting anyone!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosskyline (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. gidonb 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. - Dean Wormer 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind

List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete vaguely named listcruft. I can manipulate wind just by standing in it. Wryspy 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• You could probably manipulate it by eating some baked beans too. Mandsford 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I must be superhuman. Oh, and Delete There's no end to these possible topics. MarkBul 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I am a strong Inclusionist but there is a limit. This is total WP:LISTCRUFT. Canjth 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like an indiscriminate list. Edison 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability for this genre of characters Corpx 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article clearly states it is about superhuman powers. I wonder if the nominator has those as well... Anyway, lists like this provide a perfect way of navigating articles with similar topics. Apart from lack of sourcing, there is not much wrong with lists like this, as they are way superior to the use of categories (extra information, different sorting, sourcing). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There was a very elaborate multi-part discussion of these in March 2007, decided finally on March 14 as [4] closed with great skill by Radiant; this was one of those to be listified. I don't want to go into the incredibly confusing details again, but I think the closure at CfD should be followed as a matter of practicality. I do not say that I necessarily agree with everything decided, but it reached a compromise and I think should be maintained. Please go read it carefully before trying to upset it. I can see us going back and forth on every one of these as there is no absolutely secure decision basis. Let's settle it for this & others by simply following an expert decision already reached. Any minor improvements will not be worth the time & effort. DGG (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because of excellent organization in table format that is exactly the well-organized kind of reference stuff people expect out of a non-paper encyclopedia. Adding references, which should be easily found, would only make this otherwise well put together article all the better! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently OR as to whom to include on the list. Realize given the name of the article every fictional character would be included. See Butterfly effect for further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if it is accepted on good faith that the article needs to exist, it has weird contradictory conditions for inclusion on the list - hardly encyclopedic. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day--Eqdoktor 08:17, 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Carlbom

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

Non-notable local politician -- mayor of a small Minnesota town, campaign worker. Sources include a single MPR story and a blog entry; Googling "Richard Carlbom" yields little else of significance. android79 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article doesn't have enough sources and it's subject doesn't appear notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While WP:BIO states that local elected officials may not be notable, I would believe that this is mostly intended to prevent articles about school board members and city councilpersons, who really aren't that notable and the articles would be nothing but resumes of otherwise private people. Mayors are at the top of the local governmental structure and I would think would be considered to be fairly notable as they would have been written about extensively. Further, Carlbom in particular was the second of two consecutive mayors of St. Joseph who were elected at age 23. This in itself is fairly unusual and makes him stand out among other mayors of St. Joseph for whom the notability argument might be harder to make. I have added a couple of more links to the article to be used as sources. I will come back and inline reference them if I have the time, but anyone else is welcome to. In fact, I encourage it. In my search for sources, I also came across this document which may imply a small scandal, perhaps relating to Carlbom's involvement in Tim Walz's campaign while he was mayor and may have been an impetus for his resignation. I have not added this to the article particularly because it does involve some speculation on my part and borders on OR (that I did in under 10 minutes using Google!) but I mention this because it may point to the existence of some sources providing coverage of this. Speaking of Google, while a search of "Richard Carlbom" (in quotes) returns only 654 results, most of them are in fact about the subject of the article. This is in contrast to many other notable person AFDs in which a search for the subject will return thousands of results, but only a handful are actually about the person in question. I point this out because it's important to keep in mind that the Google test is not the best standard for supporting a case of non-notability. LaMenta3 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete honestly, would anyone outside the town/county care about this person? From reading the article, I'd say no. Delete per narrow scope of notability Corpx 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per LaMenta3. This person is actively involved in the political process and has accordingly received significant press coverage (in contrast to the variety of small town mayor who's the town's doctor most of the week but presides over votes on fixing potholes one evening every two weeks. Sarcasticidealist 09:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, believe there is enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a very small town indeed, under 5,000 population. The minor things he did there do not make for notability, even if the local paper reported them.DGG (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepNotable person. Elmao 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Narrow, local notability. - Dean Wormer 04:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Narrow, local notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:36, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The History of the WWE Championship

The History of the WWE Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn DVD release, basically a match listing from amazon.com with a bunch of OR attached to it. Most WWE DVDs are not notable for their own articles, and other similar DVDs have been deleted (many in this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Flair and The Four Horsemen. Dannycali 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Very few wrestling DVDs are notable. This one isn't because it doesn't provide any new information. It is just a bunch of matches, that like it says, are also included on other DVDs. Nikki311 03:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I really do not think an encyclopedia should be the place to list the chapters/summary of a DVD Corpx 04:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. And apologies for missing it in the other AfD, you may want to check the cats at the bottom of the article and take a nother look at all the other DVD articles. Darrenhusted 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete like the rest of the DVDs MPJ-DK 14:04, 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. The article as it stands differs substantially from the article as nominated, but it's unclear that latecomers to the debate realized this. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrayal of women in video games

Portrayal of women in video games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Consists solely of unreferenced original research; cannot be kept in this form. Melsaran (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, I don't think this is so much research as unfounded speculation. Roadmr (t|c) 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There could be a good article in this... where else but in video games do you see teenage boys playing the role of a woman? But in this one we read about an "increasing trend", two games being "criticised" and that "many Japanese games" reward rape. If it doesn't get deleted, please tell us what else you've heard lately Mandsford 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Yes, this could become a very good article. But the person who created it has an obvious agenda and lacks the skill. Maybe it could be brought up to minimum standards, so that editors of more ability can make something of it. It's true that many Japanese games portray rape, look at the Wiki articles (or do other research) on dating sim, bishoujo games, and especially eroge. -- AvatarMN 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is the germ of a good article here, but in it's current state, it fails woefully on WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Needs major work to bring it from its current state of a barely started persuasive essay up to an encyclopaedic level. If anyone wants to work on it, then I'd say keep and expand, but in its current state it's a simple delete. Tx17777 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious; how's an article expected to be able to expand after its been deleted? Isn't it bad form, and an uphill battle, to undelete an article? -- AvatarMN 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm never one to dismiss an article with potential because of a current poor state. I'm saying that, if someone with the knowledge and time to turn this article into something useful is willing to expand it, then it would be worth keeping, but if that isn't the case and it shows no signs of being improved, then it should be deleted. Tx17777 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone with the knowledge and time to turn this article into something useful is willing to expand it, won't they be unable to because it's been deleted? The article's talk page shows that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies has expressed an interest, maybe they'll do something if it's not deleted. I'll alert them to this AFD. -- AvatarMN 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Video games - I saw this notice at Project Gender stdies. This is an interesting topic, it'd make a great book or article or thesis. However, this is not what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not here to publish any piece of research. WP is here to record notable phenomena, their histories and the reliably sourced, notable views on/about them. "The portrayal of women in video games" might make an interesting section in Video games but it is not notable enough for its own article. Also everything in this piece is original research e.g the piece about rape in Japanese games - its horrifying, and from what I can see about 177 (video game) its true - but we have zero reliable sources and zero verification of it. Wikipedia articles are not judged on their merit as interesting areas of research or on their truth value - they're judged on how well verified they are and how notable they are. This article has no verification and very very limited notability.
  In short if anyone can find the book, do the research and write a NPOV piece put it into Video games, but this article has to go--Cailil ^talk 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —User:Cailil23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, without prejudice to recreation of a sourced article, unless anyone wants to work on it imminently in which case rewrite. It looks like there has been enough written about the topic for an article [5] but the current version is a mess, full of unreferenced hearsay and probable original research, and not a good starting point, or the sort of thing we should keep around on the off-chance that someone might write a proper article one day. Find the sources, then write the article - not the other way round. Iain99 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Switching to keep - article is much improved since Kuronue's edits. Iain99 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone finds the time to delete the original research which fills the article, to find reliable sources which discuss the topic, and to basically write a new article. I believe some of the criticisms of the role of women in video games are reasonable. If it is deleted, a new and referenced article can certainly be created later. I recall the beginning of video games, and the graphics were a bit crude for them to be about raping womne or to be like Tomb Raiders. More like ping-pong, dungeon mazes. airplanes, miners, gorillas, & tanks. Edison 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article in its current form is entire WP:OR Corpx 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rework. The fact that its current incarnation is OR doesn't mean it lacks the potential to grow; I'm sure this has been the topic of many a published paper, and a worthy, sourced article can be created. Google Scholar lists plenty of papers for sources. [6] as most of the votes are delete due to lack of volunteers, I'll volunteer to work with it for a little while, get the ball rolling. Kuronue | Talk 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates WP:OR. Dean Wormer 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

how so? If you look at the work I've started to do, it's all sourced, all ideas from the papers I referenced Kuronue | Talk 04:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. Keb25 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Striking nomination, article has been significantly expanded and properly sourced by Kuronue (well done!). Obviously, the subject is notable, but the revision at the time of the nomination ([7]) was unsourced OR. It looks like a fine article now, certainly eligible for expansion. Melsaran (talk) 15:53, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

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

Dicdef, can't be anything more than OR. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I think this would be better suited there, than in an encyclopedia. Useight 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki as dicdef. Tx17777 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete According to the late Jackie Wilson, disappointment was a guy. But then, you came, and he soon departed. And, you know? He never showed his face again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Has only one site, and one example. Not likely to be much more. Bearian 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary material. Dean Wormer 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy's of Michigan

Wendy's of Michigan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish why Wendy's of Michigan is significantly more notable than any other fast food franchisee. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing notable about this regional franchisee. Realkyhick 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'd say that being the only Publicly traded Wendy's franchisee has some notability.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's enough of an assertion of notability to pass WP:CSD#A7, but is there anything to make it pass the main notability guideline and/or the one for companies? Mr.Z-man 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. They are formerly traded, and are on the pink sheets - but the pink sheets don't even imply notability. It's just another franchisee. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems like they could pass WP:CORP, but move to Meritage Hospitality Group, which is the parent company and the entity that is publicly traded as MHGU. Googlers take notice. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Move to parent company, Meritage Hospitality Group. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Even though they're a publicly traded Wendy's franchisee, they're listed on the Pink Sheets. They got delisted from another exchange (the American Stock Exchange?) because they didn't meet minimum reporting requirements. Also, according to this press release, the company is "exploring strategic options", which can be translated as, "We're circling the drain." I can't find any other real sources of news on this company other than press releases, and being listed on the Pink Sheets doesn't really amount to notability, so delete this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete local branches of anything are rarely notable--this is certainly no exception, based on the information available. DGG (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per DGG. Dean Wormer 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG, Dean Wormer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC) OOPS, still mean delete, sorry Accounting4Taste 22:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not sufficently notable for WP:CORP Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:30, 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 WP:SNOW delete. Sandwiches are not notable subjects in and of themselves. Content should be made an aside in the primary Wendy's article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spicy Chicken Sandwich

Spicy Chicken Sandwich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not prove that this sandwich is notable. Violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. Mr.Z-man 16:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Frag - until the day critical commentary on the spicy chicken sandwhich appears... David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per David Fuchs — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This product is not like a Frosty, which is closely identified with Wendy's. Lots of restaurants have spicy chicken sandwiches. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Desperate, valueless keep because I LIKE IT!. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds delicious, but with only primary sources there's no apparent notability. Delete. Jakew 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "I have tasted other spicy chicken sandwiches, but the Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich is by far the best. It is the acme of spicy chicken sandwiches, by which all other spicy chicken sandwiches are measured." (Dave Thomas, 1932-2002) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What? That would be like the president of McDonalds saying the BigMac is the best fast food hamburger ever, there is so much of a conflict of interest that the statement is almost meaningless. Mr.Z-man 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Very few items at any given fast food restaurant (McRib comes to mind here) garner their own article. This sandwich, while quite delicious in my opinion, is not one of those few. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete My grandma used to make a spicy chicken sandwich, too. My grandpa said her sandwich was the best one ever, and if he had known how to use the word "acme" in a sentence I'm sure he would have used it here. And, like Dave Thomas, my grandparents are dead. We would have to have a disambiguation page to distinguish this one from my grandma's and from every other chicken sandwich that anyone else makes, as long as their sandwiches are spicy as well. Or we could just delete this, since it's darn silly to have a Wikipedia article on this topic.OfficeGirl 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. This probably should have gone through the merge mechanism instead, as there's no real disagreement on keeping the material in itself. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Corinthians 14

1 Corinthians 14 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion over a year ago, and the result was keep, with most users supporting an expansion. However, the article has barely changed in that time, so I am putting this article before the community again since the article hasn't improved in over a year. I believe that all the information this article contains can easily be summarized at the article on the entire book, and having an article on this individual chapter isn't necessary. Also, the articles ordination of women and glossolalia both cover the minimal information contained in this article. Some biblical chapters are more important than others. I believe my original nomination text still stands: This article has very little content, and does not explain why out of the 16 chapters of the epistle, this one stands out enough to be significant in an encyclopedia. Surely we could create articles like this one for every single chapter of every single book in the bible, but previous consensus seems to suggest that that isn't a good idea. Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into 1 Corinthians — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the epistle's main article. This should also apply to the other articles on individual chapters of 1 Corinthians that currently exist; an exception should be made for chapter 13, often known as "The Love Chapter," as it is widely known and notable on its own. (That chapter article was subjected to AfD twice with a strong consensus to keep.) As much as I love the Bible (I'm involved in Bible Quiz), I don't think each individual chapter of the Bible deserves an article. A case can be made for certain chapters, especially Psalms such as Psalm 23 or Chapter 2 of Acts, which is central to much of Pentecostalism. I think the general principle should be that individual chapter articles are not necessary, except for certain chapters that are notable on their own. Realkyhick 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Chris 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to 1 Corinthians per Realkyhick. --Metropolitan90 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to 1 Corinthians, in strong agreement with Realkyhick. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. There are 1189 chapters in the Bible. Are we to have articles on them all? Lurker (said · done) 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to 1 Corinthians, since the current article doesn't say much unique about that particular chapter. A section of 1 Corinthians can be created for "Notable verses," and this can be done for other Biblical books, allowing a merge without the loss of any data. I'm in agreement that some chapters of certain books do have independent notabilty, and these would each need to be evaluated on individual basis. ◄Zahakiel► 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep There will be thousands of commentaries over the last two thousand years on this and every other bible chapter. The discussion of them has been the main preoccupation of Europe and much as Asia for centuries, and there is material to support an article for every one of them. this should simply be regarded as a stub. there's something much needed though, and thats the necessary expansion. I think they are all notable. In fact, i think probably most individual verses are--there's been much more written on each of them than on almost any video game character, and notability is permanent. . the answer to the noms question is that every one of them stands out enough to be notable. We havent written the others yet, but we have to start somewhere. There's a lot of notable things we havent written yet. Doesnt mean we delete the articles on the ones we do have. DGG (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

and yes, that an article hasnt been improved in a year is no reason for deletion either. there's no time deadline here--its not as if we had to go to print once and for all. DGG (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

and I added a few more references to start it off--including an entire book on this particular chapter--and articles on individual verses within it. DGG (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your references emphasize why this article shouldn't exist. One citation deals with speaking in tongues. Another 3 deal with the role of women in church, and one deals with multiple chapters. I believe these citations would be good additions to the articles dealing with the topic. I believe it is better to have a more holistic article that can discuss the topic from multiple sources, and not limit it based on semi-arbitrary biblical divisions. For example, in addition to what Paul says at 1 Cor 14 regarding tongues, he adds to the topic at 1 Cor 12, but of course mentioning that in the 1 Cor 14 article would be off topic, and we'd need to create the 1 Cor 12 article to discuss what Paul says about the exact same topic there. On the other hand, an article like Glossolalia, can go into detail about all the places tongues is mentioned in the NT. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge All chapters of the Bible are notable, but we plainly can't have an article on each one. So is this chapter a particular standout in its own context? Not on the scale of the preceding chapter, no. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

why can't we? WP NOT PAPER. Everything that's notable we can have an article on if there are sources. In fact, everything that's notable we should have an article on if there are sources and someone to write the article. that's the basic principle of an encyclopedia. Paper encyclopedias may have to compromise here, but we dont. What you're saying is advocating removing content that you admit to be notable and sourced, because it isnt particularly important to you. This one, by the way, is one of the proof texts for why women cant speak in churches, and has been cited with derision by feminist literature for centuries. That was already mentioned in the article. DGG (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

note -- I have listed this AfD at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible]] in the hope of further input--after all, I'm just an amateur in this and I may be wrong.DGG (talk)

Merge - retaining the option of recreation later. I'm no expert either, but my own feeling is that (1) this article is sooo minimal that there really isn't much to be lost by merging it at this point, and (2) my own personal belief is that the chapters of the Bible were created significantly after the texts themselves, and on that basis are in several cases not the best way of "breaking up" the texts. There has been discussion on the talk page of the Bible project regarding which "storylines" (for lack of a better word) or events are notable enough for a separate article. Unfortunately, that discussion dealt almost exclusively with the historical narratives, not with the epistles. The matter of the epistles hasn't really been addressed yet. I would welcome any party interested in helping us come to some sort of guidelines regarding the basis of creation of subarticles regarding the epistles to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Bible summary of every chapter. Thanks. John Carter 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep this chapter, along with almost every other chapter in the Bible, is more notable than any Pokemon character, TV series or songs we consider notable. Note that the nav template for this first epistle is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Chapters_in_1_Corinthians. John Vandenberg 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• 600 scholar results; 714 book results; two current news articles and 235 news archive results. Anyone wanting to write a FA about this chapter would not be limited for material to do so! And it will happen in time. John Vandenberg 04:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of machine translation software

List of machine translation software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Consist almost entirely of external links accompanied by brief spam-ish descriptions. Mr.Z-man 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Look at the article's history, it's a spamfest and even contains unsourced claims. Could be replaced by a category of notable products, but I still think there aren't many. Roadmr (t|c) 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article has become a link farm pointing to many sites either promoting products or with exessive amounts of advertisements. Falls under WP:SPAM. Calltech 01:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is directory info - Replace the notable ones with a category, but I see no purpose for this list other than advertising Corpx 04:25, 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 Redirect to Chester Bennington. Not enough sourced content to be worth merging. Walton^One 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey Daze

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

In itself, this band fails WP:MUSIC. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not a hint of a suggestion of a glimmer of notablility. MarkBul 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete It's an important background story of the best selling music group this side of '00. It's important enough to stay. Jay 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or merge pertinent info into the Linkin Park and/or Chester Bennington article. Grey Daze is the band Chester Bennington was in before he joined LP. This doesn't particularly make the band notable, and the fact that the band is now more or less defunct and was barely a blip on the musical radar on their own makes me lean toward this article's information needing to be merged into the article(s) of it's more notable progeny. It also doesn't help that the Grey Daze article is a complete and utter mess and doesn't have ANY references. This is not to say that references don't exist, but a quick Google search turns up mostly lyrics repositories and one news story with a trivial mention in relation to Bennington. LaMenta3 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. I don't see any sourced content worth merging. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete. This article is important enough (although it would be great, if someone would provide more information about it to make it longer). I don't think merging is a good idea either, it's still a separate band, not some prequel to Linkin Park. I have also thought about making separate articles for the albums (which'll make it even shorter...). AnRod 07:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind...may I have a few weeks to contact...might be able to clean it up...even if I have to Generate a source...get someone to do an interview that can be placed on a POP press site...I see the popular press used so often on Wikipedia it makes me sick...still it should do for its standards...I have found it usefull...even if it is utimately wrong(i have no clue as yet)...just Mark the Hell out of it :-)Hoboscience 11:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Hoboscience 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All the info I saw in it checks out, but I don't have sources, as I know most of it from random interviews or chats with Chester, or in threads on LPAssociation.com where Derek might've mentioned something that Sean (Dowdell) said to him (they're in contact). I will mention the situation to Derek, and see what he thinks as well. I know most of it isn't sourced, but that's because most of it is common knowledge among Linkin Park fans, and therefore no one in the LP community would question it. But I do know that here on Wikipedia that's not really enough, and definite sources are needed. Jay 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources, and I wasn't able to find anything meeting WP:RS when I searched. --Darkwind (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:56, 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 Redirect to Transport in Gibraltar. Walton^One 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail transport in Gibraltar

Rail transport in Gibraltar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no rail transport in Gibraltar. Having an article to state that this is the case is unnecessary. This fact can be stated in Transport in Gibraltar, as can the fact that there was once a railway in the Gibraltar dockyard. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. An article about nothing — Jerry Seinfeld would be proud. No context. Realkyhick 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. State lack of rail transport in Transport in Gibraltar. Lacking context and content.--Billy 16:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Transport in Gibraltar. No reason to delete when it can be easily merged. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Chris.B — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Transport in Gibraltar and then delete for being a complete waste of space. Tx17777 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As merging seems to be so popular, can anyone explain why there needs to be a redirect from "Rail transport in Gibraltar" if there is no rail transport in Gibraltar? Must there be a redirect from "Elephants of Gibraltar" (and every other mammal that does not inhabit Gibraltar) to List of mammals in Gibraltar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Transport in Gibraltar. I'm usually kind to rail articles, but this railroad doesn't exist. Even if there was rail transit in Gibraltar, or even a credible proposal for such, I'd vote keep. But alas. --Oakshade 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to a section of Transport in Gibraltar, as has been done with the (similarly railway-free) Rail transport in the Faroe Islands (without prejudice should Gibraltar acquire a station - it would be an obvious endpoint for a railway to meet the African ferries) — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Real estate is so scarce in Gibraltar, it's doubtful they'd utilize precious square footage for a right-of-way, station and auxiliary infrastructure. However, it would make sense to run a line over (or even under) water from La Línea that terminates at the port. --Oakshade 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're close - see Gibraltar Tunnel. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 07:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I was considering changing my vote, but noticed this tunnel is planned to bypass Gibraltar proper and go directly to Spain. --Oakshade 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please realize that merging articles does not involve the deletion of the parent articles. When articles are merged, the now obsolete parent articles should be turned into redirects so that the author history is preserverd. Failing to keep track of author history of Wikipedia content is a violation of the GFDL, which is the reason why we keep the redirects rather then deleting them. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Bears with feathered plumage. Dean Wormer 04:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems someone followed one of the bazillion red links in the {{Rail transport in Europe}} template. --Darkwind (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:58, 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 - consensus was that this fails as being a directory or mere collection of travel information.. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pubs of Surry Hills, New South Wales

Pubs of Surry Hills, New South Wales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Little more than a list of pubs in an area, with a piece of advertising detailing what happens in each. No indication of why they are notable. Amounts to nothing more than directory listings and fails WP:NOT, WP:NOTE and WP:CORP Nuttah68 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. There are links to similar articles that may also deserve deletion. Realkyhick 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Surry Hills, New South Wales. This is a good article and the Bat and Ball Hotel near the Sydney Cricket Ground is a well-known hotel in Sydney. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article in its current form is directory info, as notability for pubs in Surry Hills is not established Corpx 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Corpx. Twenty Years 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. This is a good example of a spun-out article from a main article, with adequate sourcing and a summary in the main article at the appropriate section. The article as written is not a directory but discusses pubs in the area in the context of their architectural and historic significance. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mattinbgn. Many of the hotels are listed on the online database at NSW Heritage.--Melburnian 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The NSW heritage database may be a better source for this article than the hotel websites used as sources at present. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Surry Hills, New South Wales. It may be a spin - off but the article does not have enough real content to justify spin-offs and it would be better if it was a more general spin-off, like Gallery of Surry Hills, or Buildings in Surry Hills :: maelgwn - talk 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is nothing but original research, and I seem to recall a policy against that. Each of the references are about individual examples of pubs - there is not a single reference discussing any overall themes about the pubs of surry hills as distinct from any other pubs in Australia. Just because it's verifiable doesn't make it suitable for an article.Garrie 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the references need improving and it is at least partially OR. These problems are fixable and not necessarily a reason to delete. Why does the article need to establish any specific distinction between hotels in Surry Hills and elsewhere in Australia? If the material is verifiable and would be suitable for inclusion in the main article, surely it is still suitable for inclusion when it has been spun out of that article. For example Court houses in New South Wales are not specifically different from court houses elsewhere in Australia, but they are interesting and relevant enough for an article in their own right. Even using your criteria of establishing a distinction and theme in the article, the article does that, referring to a range of architectural styles and patronage (diversity is a theme) and discusses the long term trend towards closure and renovation as a result of the gentrification of the area. While this is common in many parts of the inner cities of Australia, this does not mean that it isn't interesting and relevant in the context of Surry Hills in particular, provided it can be sourced. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The distinction and theme though is not referenced. If the article is going to be based on the styles, patronage and commercial trends it has to be backed up with references discussing that. At the moment it is disparate references with OR linking them. The references also need to be as geographically specific as the article, otherwise if the trends are at city/state/nation wide the details should be covered at an appropriate level. That is why the article needs to make the distinction as to why these pubs are different to any other in Australia. Nuttah68 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Keb25 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, directory. Dean Wormer 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Why pubs and not fabric shops or ladies boutiques in the area? Because Wikipedia is written by bored male college students. The Wikipedia is not the yellow pages - sorry guys. --Eqdoktor 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article reads nothing like a directory and why not fabric shops? If it is demonstrated that a number of fabric shops in the area have architectural and historic significance and play an important role in the social and cultural life of the suburb, I'm all for inclusion. You fix systemic bias not by deleting content but by encouraging a wider range of contributors and a wider range of contributions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 07:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Your right, it doesn't read like a directory, it reads like a guide book article on pubs in that area - hence we have a problem - Wikipedia is NOT a guidebook. I'm not anti-pubs, but I rather think these articles (the 3 pub guides up for AFD) would be excellent additions to Wikitravel instead of an encyclopedia.--Eqdoktor 07:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Realkyhick Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. --Darkwind (talk) 17:06, 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. Walton^One 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuses of Indulgences

Abuses of Indulgences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is mostly copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia and gives the Catholic POV on the indulgence controversy of the 1500s. The orginal article should be used as a source in WP's other articles on the topic, however it itself could never be a neutral article on WP. Even the title is POV. Steve Dufour 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Purgatory. No, seriously, delete. Violates WP:NPOV. Realkyhick 16:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE, then say three "hail marys". If you take out the POV problems, there's nothing that couldn't go in the article on Indulgences. Oh, Wait... if you take out the POV problems, there's just nothing. There's no justification for a separate article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OfficeGirl 18:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Review of article history finds the creator's comment: "initial article -- taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia online" Nobody likes a thief. Mandsford 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, likely copyvio per commentary in history (thanks, Mandsford!). Bless the article's creator, for they have sinned. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Anything useful from this should go in Indulgences. JohnCD 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note The Catholic Encyclopedia in question dates from 1911 and is in the public domain. I didn't intend to imply any copyright problems by my nomination. Other WP articles are copied from it, lives of saints and so forth, and are not a problem. Steve Dufour 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, other than the Catholic Encyclopedia copy, it has no other sourcing and is seriously POV. Anything that is neutral should just go in the Indulgences article. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a history of an important controversy which led Martin Luther to initiate the Protestant Reformation, or Merge to Indulgences. No reason to remove from Wikipedia an important part of the history of the Christian religion. Edison 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is the complaint from the various editors that this public domain history of the abuse of indulgences, published by a Catholic source, is POV by being too critical or too exculpatory? For another source with many of the same views, see the 1911 Britannica articles Indulgence and Johann Tetzel, which is a reference for the related Wikipedia article Johann Tetzel. It was a money making tool, Luther criticized it, later the Church agreed there had been abuses. What exactly is the impermissible POV? Edison 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's part of it. Sentences like this one (besides being terribly LONG and convoluted by modern taste) are pretty full of POV words:

After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix).

nefarious; faithful; heavenly treasures and other words are, in this context, loaded with POV. The other issue is that Indulgences has a Controversy section which would do with some expanding, and the Indulgence article itself is no where long enough to need forking out yet. The NPOV parts of Abuses of Indulgences can easily be placed inside Indulgences, in the controversies section. I think it'd be best if the Catholic Encyclopedia article was used as a source on the Controversies section of Indulgences. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator, I mainly object to the title (and/or concept -- who is to say what are abuses?) of this article. I agree with you that the history of indulgences is an important topic. Steve Dufour 02:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Edison. Dean Wormer 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too pov. Perhaps the article can be recreated with NPOV. But as it is now, no. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. This is not intended to be a NPOV title, as it is a common-use name for topic of historical importance. e.g. 160 books hits. This no different to The Edge being the name of an article instead of "David Howell Evans". John Vandenberg 06:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Sleep Association

American Sleep Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:COI. Nothing found in google news. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to sleepassociation.org. Was speedied previously. Other related Sleep association

see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.sleepassociation.org Hu12 15:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Couldn't find in-depth coverage from secondary sources. And that could be because there isn't any. I also sense some self-promotion here because the user who created this immediately added an external link to the website in another article. Spellcast 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a cheap imitation of the real US professional associations in this field, which seem to be American Academy of Sleep Medicine and http://www.sleepresearchsociety.org/.--orlady 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per all of the above, orlady's comment. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Give it a rest per above Mandsford 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as there are no secondary sources to write an article with. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Red flags galore: No id of physicians/scientists founders, or indication of existence prior to 6/07 private domain reg, no mention/listings on similar resource listings at sleepfoundation.org, sleepnet, etc., generic articles written by MDs whose only search results bring up nada or free article sites, thin actual content with "abstracts" or "events" sections bringing up framed pages from other websites, or promised benefit from joining the association. If overkill, I apologize -- there is a growing number of legitimate associations dealing with sleep medicine, but this one isn't one of them and likely won't be. Flowanda | Talk 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom., and others.--JayJasper 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agreed with Hu12, no reliable sources to assert notability. Carlosguitar 20:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffet Festival

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

Non notable neologism. prodded, de-prodded w/o explanation. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

189 UNIQUE Google hits, not all related to subject. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unless in-depth secondary sources are provided to prove it's a notable neologism. Spellcast 15:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable neologism — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Something someone made up after eating too much one day. OfficeGirl 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Maybe you can have a purge festival afterward. I'll reconsider if that guy who sang Margaritaville shows up. Mandsford 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NNN. Dean Wormer 05:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be'er Sheva North Railway Station

Be'er Sheva North Railway Station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable and uninteresting. Please see WP:NOTE and WP:POINT before saying "It's as notable as other bus stations". Rambutan (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is one of a series describing stations on a main inter-city railway line. BTW it isn't a bus station (please read my edit comment first before criticizing it). And there is no need to quote WP:POINT in an irrelevant fashion. I consider the examples of railway stations I quoted (as well as many others on WP) to be adequately notable, even though their content may appear to be little different from this one.--Redaktor 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - It has long been held the railway stations on intercity lines are notable. Isarig 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Should keep it!Elmao 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This station was the main station in beer sheva before beer sheva central. Just Keep It! Eden78 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Part of a series on all railway stations in Israel. Number 57 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Mainline rail stations like this one are notable. --Oakshade 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my long post here on the subject, with which I don't intend to bore everyone again — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A little advice for the nominator: Giving uninterestingness as a reason for deletion, even as a corollary to something that could be reasonably backed up, is probably one of the top ways to get your deletion attempt nerfed in the quickest possible fashion. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LaMenta3 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep article subject is notable, precedent is for retention of such station articles, and article meets notability standards. Excuse given by nominator for this AfD is inexcusable. We should delete an article because it's "uninteresting"?!?! Alansohn 02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. No, railway stations are not inherently notable - that would be in violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Corpx 04:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus on this issue seems rather clear, but let's hear why this would be a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • List of every bus stop, bus station, bus, railway station is directory info. If they're important, it is safe to assume that reliable sources would've paid coverage to it. Corpx 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is not other "crap", this is precedent. Other than a small, stubborn minority, we have clear consensus that this article is notable and that other, similar articles are notable as well. The specious slippery slope claim that keeping this article means an article will be created for every "bus stop, bus station, bus, railway station" carries no weight. As usual, WP:NOT#DIR has been completely misinterpreted to mean that anything one editor doesn't like is a "Directory" listing; this is not a listing of railway stations, it is an article about a particular, notable station, and even listings of stations are encyclopedic and notable. Alansohn 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Railway stations are major nodes of an area's transportation network, and some stations smaller than this make their way into printed paper encyclopedias (Hallingskeid has an entry in Aschehoug for instance). Some further points: WP:RS points to "reliable" sources which is NOT the same as "independent" sources. WP:POINT is being quoted in an utterly silly fashion in the nomination (who is trying to disrupt Wikipedia here?). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with the precedent that main line railway stations are notable. Davewild 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The only violation of WP:POINT was made by Elmao in making me scroll past that enormous list. Seriously, why? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I deleted for you, to don't get exhausted (It was a list of railway stations that already is on wikipedia, and those are not more interesting than this station. Elmao 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as notable as Jordanhill railway station. Satisfies WP:N in general. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donatella Flick

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

Under 1000 ghits. Notability seriously in question. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP I found a lot more ghits than that, and her conducting competition appears to be a really big deal. She's notable. There's no doubt about that. And this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be nice if those who claim "there's no doubt" about notability would add the undoubtable citations to the page so the rest of us could see them. MarkBul 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She is a founder of what appears to be a fairly prestigious conducting patronage and also has a noble title. The latter almost definitely makes her notable, while the former certainly helps. I've added some sources into the EL section of the article, to be integrated either by me if I get the chance or someone else if they want. LaMenta3 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable for Flick family and conducting competition. Also a friend of Prince Charles -check?? Sure article needs improvement, but is not deletion worthy. --mervyn 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notable enough, but needs improvement. Dean Wormer 05:02, 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 and rename/cleanup.. Shell ^babelfish 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] János Kemény (the writer)

János Kemény (the writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm completely unclear as to what it's about. Very poorly named, uncategorised, orphaned. Rambutan (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Definitely needs a re-name, and a re-write, at least. Apparently, he was a baron, but that's probably not very relvant. Google search complicated by a C17th person of the same name, perhaps why the creator has seen fit to make a János Kemény disambig page. Undecided on notability so far; are published works a sign of automatic notability? --kateshortforbob 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope. See WP:NOTE.--Rambutan (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment do we have someone who speaks Hungarian who can see if the references actually give notability? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What's that person going to say? "Trust me, the references are legit"? This is an English language project - if "we" can't read the refereces, then "we" can't judge them. MarkBul 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So, if i paste here a list of the articles which don't have english references, you are going to delete it? (there are a few hundreds for sure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmao (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • There are hundreds of thousands of foreign language references all over wikipedia, and they are still better than no references, but I agree it's not the best. Btw I can read the refs and based on them I think this Baron/writer is notable. I'd vote Keep. Article could be half-decent with some effort. János Kemény is the correct name in English, in Hungarian it would be Kemény János, so renaming is only needed at the (the writer) part. Hobartimus 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Should I leave just János Kemény? .. but then how will be separated from the count or the physician? Elmao 03:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
          • János Kemény (writer) (without the "the"). Or with a disambiguation page or whatever way wikipedia already deals with the situation I'm sure it's pretty common so other examples should be available. Or his title (Baron) could be used somehow etc. Hobartimus 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
            • ok Elmao 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• This is the person: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bors/bors36.htm (see 18 july 1926) Elmao 03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but re-name and re-write - Re-name to what? I don't know. This appears to be a notable Hungarian writer, but, like with a lot of non-English names, there can be confusion as to order of names and proper usage of titles. --Oakshade 06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename to János Kemény (author). --Darkwind (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:00, 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 speedily deleted as a copyvio of www.ispim.org. Neil ム 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The International Society for Professional Innovation Management

The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only information on an "ISPIM" I could find was a mention of the Finnish "International Society for Product Innovation Management" (ISPIM) whose president was Vilkko Virkkala (Finnish Trade Review, March 31, 1993, Page 25). This is not the ISPIM article now at this AfD. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of ISPIM to develop an attributable article and does not meet Wikipedia notability. A fork article, ISPIM First 25 Years, was just deleted at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete There are quite a few Google Hits (as well as Books, News, Scholar) for "International Society for Professional Innovation Management", but I can find little substantial coverage suitable for an article (one exception may be this, but I can't access it). Jakew 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Someday we might have a specific guideline on what would make a trade group notable. Some of them unquestionably are (e.g. IEEE), most of them are not. This one, as far as I can determine from the article, isn't... the primary claim of notability in the article itself, "succeeded in developing a strong international network, leading to professional cooperation across nations and cultures" is so vague and nebulous as to be completely meaningless. If they are notable, the article does an extremely poor job of expressing that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found. Article in its current form looks spammy Corpx 04:22, 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 GRBerry 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonus Batter

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

Non-notable, unencyclopedic, badly written, mainly just data/navigational templates. Rambutan (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not a single, all the information in the article is already in the article about the album (not counting the quotation), and the article has very little potential for growth. Melsaran (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if there's any useful information in there, it should go into the album article. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to album. Not notable enough to stand alone. Dean Wormer 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything notable. --Darkwind (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:01, 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 Redirect to vandalism. If anyone wishes to merge in sourced material, feel free. I have adjusted the Keying dab page. ELIMINATORJR 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keying (vandalism)

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

Substub, dictionary definition, no sources, and I don't see it as being anything more. Possibly a non-notable neologism. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I have actually found some sources for this, see [8] [9]. But still I'm not sure it merits its own article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge keying is quite a prevolent term in england, certaintly where i live anyway and it does occur frequently. Probally not notable enough in its own right but should be merged with vandalism --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Extremely common expression in the UK (extremely common activity too unfortunately).--WebHamster 15:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Either merge with vandalism or delete - it's a common term, but it can never be anything more than a dictionary definition. -- Roleplayer 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I hadn't heard of it until I found this article, but I live in the north of Scotland, and it's probably not so common here as in London, Birmingham or wherever. I'd support a merge and redirect, actually, given that it can be sourced.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weird, who hasn't heard of keying? Possibly it;s a cul;tural thing, as it seems to be the majority of times when ENglish slasng terms pop up here. Expand, add sources and (weak) keep. Artw 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "So THAT'S where the scratches on me car came from!!" Nigel Bollocksbolton 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing to merge here. MarkBul 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with vandalism. It's an extremely common form of vandalism in the US. (Hasn't anybody heard that Carrie Underwood song about keying her ex's SUV?) Wl219 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with vandalism. Common both in the US and the UK. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment where is keying an unknown term? Keying is very definitely not a neologism. apart from that, merge into vandalism. 132.205.44.5 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary material. - Dean Wormer 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a dictionary definition, and there's no reason to merge it with vandalism as that article doesn't discuss any other type of vandalism in any detail. --Darkwind (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just because it doesn't, doesn't mean that it can't or won't. All articles can be expanded. --WebHamster 17:35, 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. Doesn't meet WP:BAND - yet. No prejudice to re-creation should they meet this in future. ELIMINATORJR 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home video (band)

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

Article about band, one of several deprodded by anon w/o comment except to assert the right to do so. I see no indication of meeting WP:BAND. Google hits not helpful due to name draws many irrelevant. No charts or awards on Allmusic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Warp Records is a notable label, but they don't seem to have released enough on the label to qualify for notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Quite simply doesn't come close to meeting WP:BAND. --WebHamster 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Their own web site doesn't offer much in the way of notability. Minor press release stuff and claims of a European tour - if not headlining, then they're non-notable. MarkBul 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Warp Records is a notable label and as the band have released 2 recordings on Warp, I think that's enough for a keep. Brian Fenton 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hmm, I don't think the connection conveys notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, the Warp Records page lists them on Wikipedia - that's how I came to this Afd discussion. For completeness, their entry should be removed from that page too, but seems like a waste of good work to me. Much better to keep both. :-) Brian Fenton 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Warp Records is notable, and they have 2 albums with them. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BAND does indeed list "two or more albums on [a notable label]" as a criteria for notability, but according to its own article, the band has only released one full-size album. It may become notable eventually, but WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. --Darkwind (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mannathoor

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

Contested prod (believe it or not). I don't know what this Mannathoor is because the text is nonsense to me, but there were only 78 G-hits so I don't think it's a place or a notable person. The bottom half looks like a class quiz or exam. I'm not sure what's going on here but it doesn't belong here. KrakatoaKatie 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. - KrakatoaKatie 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1, see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever", which this certainly is. I'm going to tag this for speedy deletion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Perfect example of WP:BOLLOCKS and/or what can be achieved by the use of LSD --WebHamster 15:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I removed the speedy tag since I don't believe it's patent nonsense. You can read the text and see that it's supposedly a village in the Kerala district of India, and previously a part of Travancore. However, since I can't verify any of it (through casual googling of Mannathoor, Mannathur, or Mannathore), and don't see the relevance of the latter part of it, it's probably better off gone unless someone who knows better can rewrite and source it. - Bobet 16:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE It takes a lot of work to wade through the confusion of this article just to figure out what the editor was TRYING to say, and then we can't independently verify any of it. it could even be a hoax-- we just don't know. But in any case there's no excuse for such unintelligible blathering to be anywhere other than the sandbox. I love this quotation about going out of the house without a bathrobe: [10] 'Nuff said. OfficeGirl 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. CSD G1. Dean Wormer 05:09, 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. Carioca 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Pageau

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

Amateur hockey player with the Marian College Sabres who won 2 silver medals at Ontario Minor Hockey Association championship. I doubted this was sufficiently notable, so I prodded. Deprodded by anon without comment accept to assert the right to do so on several PRODS. 34 UNIQUE Google hits. I still doubt noatability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Dean Wormer 05:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable player. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:HOCKEY notability standards. --Djsasso 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. Skudrafan1 11:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO on athletes -- the article states he's an amateur player, not a professional. --Darkwind (talk) 17:46, 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 Article already has been speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. Metropolitan90 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry O' Reilly

Barry O' Reilly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed. As the article is right now I don't see notability. As a matter of fact I'm not sure what it is about at all. 1redrun ^Talk 13:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. It doesn't tell you what "Crokes" is, and therefore gives you no context, and would probably qualify for WP:CSD#G1 as well.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what my prod read... :) I didn't want to put it up for speedy as I might possibly miss something. But you're probably right.1redrun ^Talk 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per HisSpaceResearch. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:00, 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] @mosphere restaurant

@mosphere restaurant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an article about an unremarquable rotating restaurant, and not a member of the exceptional notable ones. I did not post this as CSD since it might be controversial, but it is in my opinon a bit of spam created my a member of staff. ChrisDHDR 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are provided to prove notability. Could be about a non-notable company or advertising as A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything that impressing about this one.--JForget 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete were it the tallest in Sabah, I might reconsider. This doesn't make the grade; what is there to say about such a structure? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not asserted. - Dean Wormer 05:15, 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. There appear to be a variety of distinct issues here. First, it isn't clear that WP:FICTION is the most or only relevant guideline since it is an optional side for a game. Second, the presence of Korean sources make it likely that a large number of reliable sources do in fact exist. However, I strongly recommend that those wishing to save this article from future AfDs find people who can read Korean and gain their assistance in sourcing the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea would be a good place to start. If after a few months it becomes apparent that the claimed sources do not exist or that no one is going to bother adding them in, then it should be reAfDed. JoshuaZ 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protoss

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

This appears to be WP:FANCRUFT about a fictional race. The article is comprised of original research and the absence of independent sources means it fails notability guidelines WP:FICTION. --Gavin Collins 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Appears"? You seriously have never heard of Starcraft? Fine, fine, Redirect it back to the game if you really want to. --Agamemnon2 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I have heard about it, but alas notability is not inhertited. --Gavin Collins 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with rewrite; Protoss are 1 of 3 factions in one of the most notable computer/video games there is. Only "Protoss philosophy" is marked WP:OR; the rest just needs trimming and proper attribution. Eleland 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: this article is highly notable within video gaming, and although it badly needs a rewrite due to the overflow of plot details, deletion is a bit extreme. A rewrite is on my to-do list, along with it's companion races that will heavily condense the plot details and include development, design, reception and other real-world information that is required under WP:Fiction. Myself and another editor are slowly cleaning up StarCraft related articles, and we will get the rewrite done eventually, but don't expect it to happen overnight. You can still go ahead and delete it if you really want to: when the rewrite is complete we will make sure they fully complies with notability guidelines before it is introduced to the mainspace. -- Sabre 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with major rewrite to address the very substantial concerns presented — and notice that a discussion on major rewrites was recently begun at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Imbalanced_article.2C_and_proposal_to_fix — the voting here already has overlapping participation with the discussion there. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. Any rewrite isn't going to change the fact that it fails notability. Miremare 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - is it bad right now? Most definitely. But confident enough real-world info can be found to save it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability not an issue. I admit a little personal bias, but I think the game (and its races) are well known enough. I would suggest a rewrite adding a section on Progamers who play Protoss, possibly including play style(s). Alex Heinz 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, fails WP:N. Jay32183 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I cast my vote above, but to respond to the factual issues of breadth of source coverage and WP:NOTINHERITED - Starcraft has been reported on in such an extensive breadth of different journalistic sources, far outside the typical gaming magazines and books, and the three races make such a distinctive impact on game play, with well-reported-on professional players typically having one of the three races that they characteristically play, that notability and source potential have easily extended to cover the individual races as well as the game itself. Just to take the first example I tried googling, see specific mention of the Protoss in this article in the New York Times. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That NY times article gives a one line mention of protoss, which is far from the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. I dont see anyone giving significant coverage other than game guides Corpx 04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete still lacks that significant WP:N coverage, despite the cries of Keep from the Starcraft fans. --Oscarthecat 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED, as above. Percy Snoodle 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - WP:NOTINHERITED also tells us that the creation of sub-articles, while not implying an "inherited notability" per se, can be acceptable for practical reasons. As the whole game is constructed around three different races and also game reviews seem to look at them in turn, this would IMO be such a case and in any case we shouldn't delete just one of the three. --Tikiwont 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, highly important. As Sabre and others have mentioned, it badly needs a rewrite but is notable and important. The Clawed One 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Importance should be determined by coverage from reliable sources Corpx 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I can tell you right now that a simple Google will show that several gaming sites have reported on the Protoss and their presence in StarCraft. The Clawed One 14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• If two or more of them give "significant coverage", then I'll gladly change my position Corpx 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft.org Battle.net Gamespot GotFrag GameReplays Here you go, although I admit the first one is a fansite and the second the official site. But they do give in-depth coverage that in tandem with third-party sources would be helpful. The Clawed One 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see significant coverage there. The first two, as you say, don't really count, and the other three articles seem to be mentioning Protoss simply because they happen to be the playable faction in the demo they're previewing. Miremare 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By that same logic, Harry Potter isn't notable because he only appears in books. The Clawed One 18:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is a natural lifecycle that WP articles on seem to go through. If ther subject is popular enough, then the article may grow to the extent that it subdivides into separate pieces. At some point in the past, this clearly happened to Starcraft with the creation of Zerg, Protoss and Terran (StarCraft), etc. So far, so good. But, as is often quoted on AfD pages, notability is not inherited, so the daughter articles get AfD'd and presumably merged back into their parent articles, which become unwieldy and huge. I don't see how this process improves the articles or wikipedia as a whole. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The trick is to remove content from the parent article rather than just splitting it. Don't split if it won't meet the inclusion criteria on its own, just delete stuff from the article. Jay32183 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Are we entirely disregarding all Korean-language coverage now? taion 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Where? Corpx 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• What's Korea got to do with this? --Oscarthecat 06:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply What Korea has to do with this is it has a professional Starcraft league with players making six-figure (in U.S. dollar) salaries for playing Starcraft full time, in a government-funded Starcraft stadium attended by tens of thousands of Starcraft spectators and on two all-video-game TV stations with prime-time live broadcasts of Starcraft games; and it is rather parochial of us non-Korean-speaking Wikipedians to ignore the wealth of published Korean-language references for this AfD. Incidentally the pro players are also each indelibly associated with which of the three SC races they normally or always play as, so WP:NOTINHERITED is likely not to be an issue. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm noticing that a number of people are going on about sources with "coverage" required by WP:Fiction. However, following the rewrite, this is no longer the case - as long as real-world information is available, whether by significant coverage or by lots of little bits from reliable sources building up a comprehensive section, notability is acquired. Take a look at this quote from Deckiller on the WP:fiction talk page (first comment after the green box)

I prefer notability established by substantial real-world content. Heck, this requirement is actually more of a compromise than requiring multiple independent sources, because a lot of interviews and other material might not be independent. This version of the guideline would actually result in an even greater cutdown of fiction, because a lot of material published about fictional universes is somehow tied to the publisher and/or author, or is only mentioned in passing in various independent articles. That is why we wrote WP:FICT to say "real-world content" instead of "coverage in independent sources"; afterall, there would be no reason to have this page if it was just the same as WP:N. — Deckiller 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the article still fails notability on that basis, I just want to make sure you are all clear that lack of significant coverage in independant sources is not in conflict with WP:Fiction, although a lack of any real-world content from a reliable source is. In any case of this AfD, a complete rewrite following WP:Fiction or a deletion will both result in the removal of this current horrible in-universe version, so I won't lose any sleep if this does go. -- Sabre 10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs a complete overhaul, but the starcraft universe is so massively popular that an article on one of it's key components is not cruft. That said, there is a lot of unnecessary detail in there and the article could do with some major trimming. JMalky 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerg. Artw 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the establishment of notability by the showing of multiple independent sources above.... And seriously, there are probably hundreds of others. Deleting Protoss is like deleting Klingons. Kyaa the Catlord 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources above provide no real world context, which WP:FICT requires to establish notability. Jay32183 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment SC has aspects of both a work of fiction and a game, the latter being the more important - it should not properly stand or fall on criteria for either alone. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StarCraft has a highly developed lore and universe, primarily told through video games but also novels. The Clawed One 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We aren't discussing StarCraft, we're discussing "Protoss". Protoss is a fictional race, which means it must meet WP:FICT to get its own article. It does not meet WP:FICT. Jay32183 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just as distinctive an aspect of the game as well though - aspects of the game itself unique to the protoss also belong in this article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. Protoss does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. Protoss does not have the sources necessary to make an article on Wikipedia. Jay32183 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Protoss is significant primarily not as a fictional race, but as a real element of StarCraft gameplay. The significance of Protoss as a work of fiction has no bearing on its significance as a significant, nonfictional element of a major competitive activity. taion 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Reasons below:

From WP:NOTINHERITED Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes [and] often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. Combining all the "non notable" articles relating to starcraft (including Zerg that is also up for deletion by the same nominator) into one article would make it an extreamly long and cumbersome article.

From WP:Fiction#Non-notable_topics The below processes have not been followed, I cannot find a merge request in the article's edit history.

The article can be kept if an obvious potential for notability is shown...

Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context...

The article is transwikied to a suitable Wiki (such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex) if the above options are unavailable.

The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable.

Sources can be found:

Google Search - 526,000 results

Google News - 24 results

Google Scholar - 23 results

Other reasons:

Over 1000 article edits.

About 50 links to the article from other pages.

I have been personally attacked had "issues" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerg when stating my position, hopefully this is clear enough and will not cause me to attract more abuse? Fosnez 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • You are both misquoting and quoting out of context; none of those are reasons to keep this article:

"The article should be kept if an obvious potential for notability is shown." OK, so where is this potential for notability then?

"Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context..." that's not a criteria for keeping a non-notable article, it's a suggestion of what should be done with a non-notable article.

"The article is transwikied to a suitable Wiki (such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex) if the above options are unavailable." likewise, this is what should be done with a non-notable article, not a reason to keep it. If anything, these are reasons to delete.

"The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable". Which apparently they are, as there is resistence to merging for "space" reasons. And the article can easily be transwiki'd by anyone, there doesn't need to be AfD for that to happen. Also, Google hits don't equal notability, neither do number of article edits. Miremare 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

General comment I'm sure you could come up with a regulation that debunks any reason for keeping this article. And vice versa for the opposing argument. What wikipedia really needs is an regulation which states don't try to win AfD arguments by quoting regulations! Can we please stick to discussing this article, it's merits and it's problems, and use common sense to decide on it's notability rather than quoting whatever vague, conflicting (and numerous) rules we can find. JMalky 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

you called? :-) --Kizor 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jmalky, the rules aren't conflicting, they're clear if not taken out of context or misinterpreted. And the reason these particular rules exist is so that they can be used to decide what deserves a place on Wikipedia and what doesn't. Your suggestion that we ignore them is puzzling. Your other suggestion that we could probably come up with a regulation to debunk any reason for keeping is entirely correct in this case! Miremare 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It may also need to be stated that notability does not equal importance. We do not subjectively debate the notability of an article topic. That is why WP:N exists, so we can discuss article topics objectively. "Protoss" does not have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Therefore, "Protoss" = not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Jay32183 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - His suggestion to ignore them is not puzzling, it is policy -> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (I always seem to get in trouble when I quote that piece of policy). Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -> Protus obviously needs its own page, if for no other reason that combining all the starcraft pages into one would make a huge article as I have said above, and deleting content because we can't "fit it in the article" is just silly (thats why we make subpages). We should not be getting bogged down in the letter of the rules like we seem to be here, but rather, we should be listening to the spirit of them. (I am not saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with my next statement, but rather I am trying to set a precedent with similar articles) Here are a couple of articles that, according to the letter of the law, are not notable and therefore should be deleted. Ace ActiveX Advocate Alpha Tau Omega Americium-242 Analog signal Anagram (I have followed the absolute letter of the law here, with all articles requiring more than once reference from secondary sources, external links not counted as references). Anyway, perhaps I should clarify my position, I am not suggesting we keep the article in its current form, it desperately needs a rewrite.- Fosnez 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a free pass. Those other articles you mentioned all have evidence of sources and are just poorly written. Protoss has no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentYou still aren't quite seeing my point. Have another look at Ace, there is no mention of sources and no assertion of notability. Sure we have all seen Aces and think they are important, but according the policies that you have quoted, this article is not notable as per of wikipedia's policies. Now regarding sources, did you even check the one I linked above? Here are just a couple direct links for you [11][12][13][14] - Fosnez 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say those articles had sources, I said there is evidence that sources exist. With Protoss, it is incredibly unlikely that sources exist to establish notability. Even if there were no evidence that sources exist for the other articles, it would not mean that this article should be kept, it would mean those articles should be deleted. Jay32183 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please refer to my above comment. While you can very much debate the notability of Protoss as a fictional race, its coverage as a faction in StarCraft as a playable faction, is more than enough to establish its notability independently. I'll repeat from my comment above, which was apparently disregarded. Using only the fiction notability standards here are insufficient, because Protoss is notable primarily not as the fictional race, but as the gameplay element. taion 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) Comment instead of just insisting Protoss is notable at this AfD, why don't the people who are saying this find reliable sources that prove it, and add them to the article? There will be no argument to be had, if this is done. Miremare 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It depends whether we can come to a consensus on WP:FICTION being the appropriate criteria here. Certainly references to (from the WP article alone!) , say, Grrrr, Garimto, Reach, Nal_rA, Kingdom, Bisu, or ToSsGirL (granted she plays Terran now \= ) are totally irrelevant if we want to look at the notability of the Protoss as a fictional race alone. Almost all of the discussion here so far has been with respect to notability as an element of fiction, which is, in my view, entirely the wrong way to approach this. However, if consensus holds that this article should be judged entirely from the perspective of the notability of Protoss as a fictional race, then I have no business referencing competitive StarCraft gameplay, regardless of my opinions on why the Protoss (or the Zerg) have notability individually! taion 05:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It also fails the general notability requirement, WP:N. It does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent from the topic. WP:FICT just happens to be the only one of the specific notability categories this could fall into. Jay32183 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:N notes "independent of the subject" as referring to "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". Note that coverage in the gaming media as a whole separate from Blizzard meets this criterion of being "independent of the subject". Would you argue that the Sicilian Defence fails notability criteria simply because it is only covered in the context of Chess? Yes, the article as written has rather anemic coverage of actual relevant material, and it needs significant work. That is neither here nor there with regard to the notability of the underlying topic, though. I'll simply note OSL and KeSPA and how game results always note which race the players use. taion 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference with Sicilian Defence if that it references multiple reliable sources, all of which are independent, because they're not affiliated with the creator of chess, whoever that might have been. I would also say that a mere mention of Protoss (or anyone else) as the faction used by someone to win a game is trivial, and contributes nothing as a source. Miremare 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:HOPELESS These sources exist. They're just not linked to in the article. I'm not sure if you're familiar with MYM or ToT (MYM specifically is one of the very highest level progaming outfits worldwide), but they'll on occasion provide detailed articles on aspects of strategy, such as the ZvP matchup (Mondragon plays ZvP at a level comparable to some Korean players). BoxeR's autobiography, for example, also contains detailed discussion on the subject (he initiallyed played toss, not terran). WGTour archives a number of articles relating to the various races and matchups specifically. If you want even more extensive, here's an hour-long interview with BoxeR where he does in fact discuss all the races. Here's another one with Nal_rA where there is discussion of the Protoss in particular. Furthermore, with regard to mentions, this is not just a case of single, isolated mentions. StarCraft progamers are identified specifically with the race they play, and this is a crucial part of what defines them (and competitive StarCraft in general). BoxeR's nickname is "Emperor Terran" rather than some generic StarCraft reference for a very good reason. The factions that are chosen are always referenced, because they are perhaps the most important attribute. taion 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the independent sources provide significant coverage . You need to meet all five parts of WP:N, you don't get to pick and choose. Reliability is definitely going to be a huge factor here, most of the sources will be self-published. Jay32183 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is an article focusing entirely on the ZvP matchup not qualifying as "significant coverage" of the Protoss again? Mondragon's article satisfies all the relevant criteria anyway – it's published on behalf of ToT rather than Mondragon himself, and he's certainly an expert in the field, as he is in fact world-class at ZvP. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of argument you have establishing that KBS is somehow not a "reliable" third-party source as well. taion 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

KBS would be a reliable source, but have they aired a show about the Protoss? I'm guessing not, so how significant was their coverage? Miremare 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

KBS regularly interviews StarCraft progamers. These interviews include significant discussion and thus coverage of the relevant races. "Significant coverage" is not the same as "exclusive coverage". Additionally, SC games aired on TV are commentated, including significant discussion of relevant faction-related issues. taion 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note for example the hour-long KBS BoxeR interview I referenced a few posts up. taion 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand how that might prove the notability of the person being interviewed, but I still fail to see how an a detail such as what faction the person prefers can provide notability sufficient for giving Protoss its own encyclopedia article. It's just a part of the game. There were probably other things mentioned during the interviews too. Miremare 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The interviews include discussion of faction choices, at times significant. Additionally, relevant commentary regarding the races certainly meets the required criteria for being "significant coverage". A number of things are discussed, yes, but the requirement for coverage to be "significant" is not that it must be "exclusive". And things like Mondragon's ZvP guide (and others, but mostly in Korean) also qualify quite easily. taion 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I may be getting a bit confused with these sources here: why does Mondragon's ZvP guide count as a reliable source? Is it something to do with KBS? Miremare 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's similar. It's the equivalent of, say, the Giants publishing an article by Barry Bonds on how to bat in baseball. taion 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So (just to clarify) this article it is actually published by KBS, and contains significant coverage of the Protoss? Miremare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miremare (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) I think I might have been unclear. I'm looking at 3 primary groups of references here.

1. There are a number of strategy articles published by various outfits dealing very specifically with matches involving the Protoss. Mondragon's ZvP guide published by ToT (a progaming group) falls into this category. There is more literature on this in Korean than in English, obviously. These are unrelated to KBS and are instead published by organizations directly related to the game itself, such as gaming teams like ToT or ladder organizations like WGTour.
2. StarCraft progamers are often interviewed on Korean media, such as the KBS interview with BoxeR I referenced earlier. Some of these interviews contain significant coverage of the actual StarCraft factions, for example in discussions of the individual's playstyle or favored strategies.
3. Televised StarCraft matches contain substantial amounts of commentary that substantially cover the factions involved.

The third is, I think, the most significant. There's no question of the reliability of the source here, and much of the commentary directly addresses the races and subtopics thereof. taion 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I don't see the first as being reliable sources, as they appear to be published by fans of the game, so are no more reliable than a fansite. The second is difficult - while KBS is reliable, the source is in Korean so it's impossible for me (or anyone else) to tell whether there's significant coverage of Protoss, and what that coverage is. The third is even more difficult... I don't know of any instances where TV commentary has been used as a source (especially one to prove notability), and of course the language difficulty remains. Miremare 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

<-- Comment Take a look at this fictional protagonist from a six-year old series. Now take a look at the same article, less than one month ago. Change in any article is entirely possible. I bet if someone had held an AfD for that article in early August, people would have proposed the same reasons for deletion as being brought up here. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unless reliable sources can be found, Delete and Redirect 69.253.238.27 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge This article has all the usual problems of fancruft - unreferenced, overly detailed summary of a work's plot, in-universe, etc. Delete this cruft and watch the Starcraft article to make sure it isn't recreated there. --Phirazo 21:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Tides In

New Tides In (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Gregory McMadden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Adding character redirect to this AfD

Edward Atkinson (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Adding character redirect to this AfD

Helena Eldridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Adding character redirect to this AfD

Kirribilli attack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Adding yet another redirect to this AfD

Contested PROD. The top article seems to be either a non-notable book or a hoax. While it's not a definitive test, a google search intersecting author & title gets nothing. A Google search of author alone get 3 hits for an Australian Catholic school student & one hit for the speedily deleted non-notable bio created in July by this article's author. The page's sole source gets a "The website address you entered could not be found." Obviously, the fate of the redirects ties in to the top. Moonriddengirl 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Cannot establish notability. I think I would have seconded the prod. A new book from an unknown author, with no verifiable sources in the article. Nothing at Amazon about a book with that title and nothing from that author at Amazon. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course, all the characters and the attack. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And the new addition. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per lack of any "significant coverage"/reviews from reliable sources Corpx 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ADD New Tides In: The Annexes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Anther contested prod.

• Delete all Non-notable sequel to non-notable book. No google hits for the title, raising the question of hoax. Appears to be part of an effort by User:Nede to create articles about anything having to do with the purported author, Marcus Khoudair (who's WP article was speedy deleted) and Daniel Montana, the film maker who may be adapting the film. Pairadox 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per Pairadox. --NeilN 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all of them, non-notable. Mushroom (Talk) 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not notable nor verifiable. - Dean Wormer 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bluebird's Illusion

Bluebird's Illusion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD in Sept 2006; subsequently re-created and nominated for deletion via PROD in Aug 2007 (see this version) by User:Kariteh with the following reasoning: "Unofficial fangame which does not establish its notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as repost, tagged as such.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Was the article subject to an actual deletion vote/discussion? If not, then previous deletion via proposed or speedy deletion are not sufficient to make the article a speedy candidate - it must meet the criteria on its own. That said, the article lists no references, and the only external link is not working (a parked domain), and has an Alexa rank of almost 1 million (highest ever about 30.000), so delete as not notable (and possibly speedy delete as {{db-group}}). - Mike Rosoft 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN computer game. Article states: "it is rumored that there are only 100 copies in the world." Also, text is replete with weasel words, which is a sign that the editors creating the article cannot back up what they are typing. OfficeGirl 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per original prod reasoning, and probable lack of reliable sources. Google gives mostly Wikipedia mirrors, forums, and other unreliable sources. Since this is non-web-based software (i.e., a PC game that would apparently run standalone), I don't think that qualifies for speedy deletion criterion A7; in any event, it's probably best to establish a true AfD outcome so that future reposts, if any, can be speedily deleted per G4. — TKD::Talk 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest merging it into a section about FMA media. Jack Cain 07:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is already mentioned in the Fullmetal Alchemist article, and I suppose it should be removed from there as well. - Mike Rosoft 06:36, 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 terminate, with extreme prejudice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight (unofficial James Bond story)

Midnight (unofficial James Bond story) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability or proof of existence is provided by a source. Related is Ian McKee 0014. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian McKee 0014 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Adding the character article to this AfD. I'm thinking their fates are definitely linked. --Onorem♠Dil 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh Good Lord, this is fanfic, with not the slightest sign of notability. Terminate, with extreme prejudice. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, completely non-notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• EX-TER-MI-NATE! I mean really, this is perhaps the weakest claim to notability I've heard all year. --Agamemnon2 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Agamemnon2/Calton Q ^{T C} 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above! — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete on db-web (i.e., A7). So tagged. Per the article, it is a web based publication - and as fanfic, it is inherently not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 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. Not required, given Bradford Bulls 2007. ELIMINATORJR 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bradford Bulls 2007 Match day Team and Scorers

Bradford Bulls 2007 Match day Team and Scorers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Match by match record of lineup and scorers for the Bradford Bulls in the current English rugby league season. Creator Kesboy79 (talk · contribs) is just back from a block for repeatedly contravening WP:V for other Bradford Bulls related edits. Wikipedia is not a news service or record of every sports game ever played. Parent article Bradford Bulls 2007 and similar are already rife with minute details and speculation. Deiz talk 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• CommentI took the idea from Liverpool_F.C._season_2007-08#Regular_season why havent you picked up on that site? and why hasnt that been put up for deletion? -User talk:kesboy79 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as blanked out article and before that I would guess that it should have been merge/redirect to the main article.--JForget 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the content is in now way similar to Liverpool_F.C._season_2007-08#Regular_season which is a nice read. This on the other hand is merely a data dump. John Vandenberg 07:15, 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, without prejudice to recreation if more information emerges or notability increases.--Kubigula (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinque northern

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

procedural nomination Considered at AFD in Aug 2006 (see this version), a sparse turnout led to a 'keep' decision. Article nominated for deletion via WP:PROD by User:The JPS in Aug 2007 (see this version) with the following reasoning: "Orphaned article. Only real sign of notability is an award that is not notable for someone to have created an article about it. Would need complete rewrite." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Two awards, really, and an alleged mention in a magazine. This is kind of a tough one, in my opinion. Wikipedia: Notability (people) offers as a criterion, "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." I have combed through every google hit I got on "Cinque Northern" (not so hard, it being an unusual name) and came up with nothing more substantial than what I just added to the article, a reference for the other award. Notability rests on the unsourced magazine mention (I can't find independent verification) and the notability of the awards. The Aperture Award does not seem to have wide notability, based on my search for it. The Angelus Award, by contrast, is a category of awards notable enough that the awarding of it is worthy a mention in Variety. If the Film Magazine honor were confirmed, I'd call this a keep. Since it isn't, I'm momentarily undecided. It hinges on the Angelus Award, I think. And if it's a keep, it needs to be trimmed of quite a lot of unsourced material. --Moonriddengirl 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete with no prejudice toward recreation in the future, if notability increases. Just not quite there currently. Dean Wormer 05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Dean Wormer. Nothing has been added to further support the article in the last five days, so I think it's fair to assume that nothing is going to be. One of the awards seems significant, but it is only an "honorable mention" and the magazine claim is unsourced. I hope Cinque Northern gains notability at some point, because he surely does have a cool name. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unable to find any sources in EBSCOhost or ProQuest, and we'd need more information to determine which year this person was mentioned in Filmmaker Magazine in order to even consider it as a source. --Darkwind (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:20, 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 deleted as an elaborate hoax/COI campaign.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nood Music Entertainment

Nood Music Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

See below argument - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What I've Been Looking For (Album). Nood Music Entertainment is merely a hoax company, or at the very least, a real company with absolutely no independent coverage at all. WriterFromAfar755 11:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not attributable to secondary sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Appears to be either a hoax or a total non-entity. --WebHamster 15:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per rationales above. I think the other edits of Rsymone merit some scrutiny as well. Deor 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge Obviously, consensus wants to see these merged into one article. But complex merges cannot be expected of closing admins, so someone will need to actually do the work. Mangojuice^talk 16:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s (LDS)

1990s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A series of decade timelines of events that happened in the Mormon world (yes that's LDS not LSD incase you read wrong). Looks like major list/timeline cruft to me. Candy-Panda 11:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

2000s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

20th century (Mormonism) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1980s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1970s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1960s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1940s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1920s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1900s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

19th century (Mormonism) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1890s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1880s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1870s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1860s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1850s (LDS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1840s (Mormonism) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1830s in Mormonism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1820s (Mormonism) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep and Improve I'm sorry, but this is not "Timeline of the LDS Universe". These articles could probably be merged into a larger article, but this, essentially, is a chronological arrangement of historical events in a real-life organization. Mandsford 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - these things exist for other subject areas, I don't see what makes this any different. They could do with improving, and renaming (1990s in the Church of the Latter Day Saints for example) or amalgamting into one larger article, but definitely something worth keeping. -- Roleplayer 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all into one article, don't merit individual pages.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like leadership personnel changes - the title is confusing. Does every Cardinal get a mention on a Roman Catholic page? Two thousand years of Cardinals would be painful. I understand a list of every Mormon top poobah, but not every "elder" or coat-holder. Without an explicit definition of what belongs on the page it's an OR mess. MarkBul 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into one. These articles don't warrant standing alone, but together they are a decent history of many main events in the religion. The people mentioned within appear to be all from the Quorum of the Twelve (the highest group within the church), however, if every single one was listed, the article would get really big. I believe there have been about 195 different individuals in the Quorum of the Twelve since 1830. Of course, some are more notable than others. Timeline could get really big, but I think as long as it was well-managed instead of getting full of cruft it would be fine. Useight 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into one per Useight  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the decade articles into one timeline. Delete the century articles since they contain no content at all. DCEdwards1966 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The decade articles contain valuable information which should be retained. Selective merges, perhaps into relevant historical periods (i.e. LDS colonization of the west) would be my second choice. However, the century articles could be deleted. WBardwin 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge articles. Content which for whatever reason doesn't easily fit into a timeline can be placed in a list in some other article, like some of the lists of bishops. John Carter 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge while keeping the data. I can see ONE timeline, but this is the LDS church, which formed in the 1820's. We're not looking at something like the history of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox or even Judiasm or Islam here, there just isn't that much history to fill that many timelines without getting down into details which would fail notability. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge w/several articles — Some of the decades have almost nothing while others are very full. I suggest the following structure:

• 1820 - 1844 (death of Joseph Smith Jr.)
• 1844 - 1899
• 1900 - 1999
• 2000 - present

This looks like it would make logical groupings while keeping the articles reasonably-sized. — Val42 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all into one page - We do not need such expanded timeline for every topic Corpx 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per all of the above.--JForget 23:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge into a single article per others above Ubi Terrarum 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per prior comments.--JayJasper 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into one.--Aldux 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Val42. Dean Wormer 05:26, 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 deleted as a blatant hoax.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What I've Been Looking For (Album)

What I've Been Looking For (Album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I have searched Google many times over for any news about this album, its' supposed group, and its' supposed proudcer, Nood Music Entertainment. No sites, American, Brazilian, or otherwise, list this album or record label as real. Therefore, I am led to conclude that it is merely an elaborate hoax made by some person with too much time on their hands. WriterFromAfar755 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - A non-notable album by a non-notable band (which I've just put up for {{db-band}}). --WebHamster 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Revival (UK magazine)

The Revival (UK magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Magazine with no assertion of notability. Prod was removed by author without explanation. Delete, unless sources are provided. J Milburn 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless third-party sources with substantial coverage can be found. Jakew 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not seem that third-party sources exist.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete Third party verfication as to the existence and standing of the magazine has been provided. Allow further time for the stub to be expanded upon. 17:07, 3 September 2007
• Do not delete J Milburn, prior to removing the prod I did provide my reason on the discussion page. Apologies if that was the wrong place to put it, although I believed I was following the instructions given in the prod notice. I suggested at the magazine's forum that others with more knowledge should expand the article and it looks like they have begun to do so. When it is a little more complete I will be happy to revise the article to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. I am not connected to the publication save that I comment on its web forum, and personally I judge that it is not an amateurish freesheet and that this is not a worthless exercise in self-promotion. Incidentally it has long ranked as the top Google response for the search term "revival" and you can of course browse the website to form an impression. Probably the question of its inclusion will be resolved when someone comes up with a circulation figure.100man 3 September 2007
  • Comment: Yes, you did provide a reason, I apologise. J Milburn 16:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No probs, thanks. 100man 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep News coverage demonstrates notability. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability now asserted. Dean Wormer 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep . I have added numerous new sources. Can the deletion notice now be removed? (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.34.230 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB 03:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idris Tawfiq

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

procedural nomination Article was considered at AFD in Jan 2007 where the outcome was a clear consensus for 'keep' (see this version). Article was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD in Aug 2007 by User:Wmquinlan with the following reasoning (see this version): "This biography should be deleted. None of the information in this biography is verified or verifiable--It does not have the hallmarks of an accurate biography. All the information on Mr Tawfiq is self-referential--there is no documentation of it beyond his own claims repeated in articles traceable to his own site. For example, He claims to have received multiple degrees from several different faculties, to have been ordained to the priesthood of the R.C. Church, to have worked for many years in a variety of positions as a Religious Education teacher, yet he provides no dates, no degrees. The University of Manchester, from which he claims to have received a degree, came into existence in 2004--it would seem that Mr Tawfiq was not in Great Britain at that time as he lives in Egypt. I suggest that a source other than Mr Tawfiq's own website be used for information, that degrees and dates be named--that a verifiable chronological biography be submitted and that this one be deleted." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Only working ref is his own site, which is not independent Corpx 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct except in a purely technical sense to say that "The Univ of Manchester came into existence in 2004 "The present University was formed in 2004 by the dissolution of the Victoria University of Manchester (which was commonly known as the University of Manchester)" from the WP article, a clear explanation. This shows the care taken in calling this a hoax or inaccurate. this is no reason to upset the previous keep. DGG (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VERIFY.--AmerHisBuff 09:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Crusio 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per talk to me--Truest blue 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There was an article on Idris Tawfiq in the Irish Times, 8/11/06, which may serve to verify some of the claims in the article. I can't link it directly since I located it through a library database, but if you have acecss to EBSCOhost, it's accession number 9FY1222189507. --Darkwind (talk) 18:29, 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--Kubigula (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nik & Kit

Nik & Kit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This video game fails WP:N since it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources given are the manufacturer's website (not independent), YouTube (not reliable per WP:SPS), and a single review on Family Friendly Gaming, a (say) smaller special-interest website. To my understanding, this cannot be deemed significant coverage, compared with what other video games typically receive. The article itself does not go beyond a plot summary. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I meant to nominate this a month or two ago, and added it to my watchlist, but I forgot about it. I agree that this game fails notability guidelines. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's reasoning. Jakew 12:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per non-notable. Unable to locate any verifiable coverage. --Darkwind (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackrod Town F.C.

Blackrod Town F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable football club, playing below step 7 (possibly folded?) and never having played at Step 6 or higher, with no cup runs etc. to give notability. Prodded, but prod removed by anon. Number 57 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Number 57 11:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Google hit doesn't show any further references for its notability (except [15], [16], [17] and [18] ) --NAHID 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - any assertion of notability is neutralised by their admitted withdrawal from the 11th level of the system. Possible claims for retention of the article for historical reasons are also not valid, as they are not recorded as having won the League they were members of for so long. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 (club), though it's on the fringe. So tagged. If not, I stand with a delete !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - even when they were at their peak, the West Lancashire League top division is below level 10 of the system. No other substantial grounds for notability either. - fchd 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely non notable, however I don't think that this article fits the speedy deletion criterions. --Angelo 22:35, 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.