Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 28

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

The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments for Drivers

Ten Commandments for Drivers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Assisting nominator with technical aspects; rationale for deletion to be added here. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

delete it- I am the nominator, and I am not surprised this is the 3rd time around. Simply put, the page does not appear to be either notable or even capable of being so. As the second nominator noted: "This list is a one-time press release, and probably fails the unofficial ten-year test of notability". That's really all it is, a one off press release. If we had a page for every insignificant press release the vatican made, we'd have thousands of such pages at least.JJJ999 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that the previous AfD was probably wrongly decided, it was 2-1 in favour of deletion, and only escapes through a ridiculously generous admin closure of no consensus.JJJ999 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2–1 does sound to me like a "no consensus". If it were 20–10, I might say otherwise. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not "2-1" literally, it was something like 10-5, I can't remember from memory.JJJ999 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lastly, the claim that there were millions of G-hits, is completely false. There are 580 or so, http://www.google.de/search?q=%22commandments+for+drivers%22+%2B+vatican&hl=de&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&start=580&sa=N and most are not even sources, they are literally myspaces and blogs of random religiously minded people, with remarks like "hey, did you read this, it is not a joke! they really said this!"JJJ999 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • note' FWIW, The 1st AfD was closed as a bad faith nom. DGG (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It got a lot of media coverage, and the article is very well-sourced. I'd say a papal edict (rather than a "press release") that gets significant media buzz is notable enough for Wikipedia. It shows (I think) that the Church is trying to make itself more relevant to the age we're living in. Could use some cleanup though. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article still bears the marks of last summer's media frenzy (when it was created), but the nominator's characterization of a teaching document to all the clergy and to lay pastoral workers as a "press release" suggests, on an assumption of good faith, a lack of awareness of what type of document this is. It will be cited in any future pastoral and theological considerations concerning road users and street people. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify things a little: the first AfD was disruptive; and the second was instituted when the article looked like this. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This looks like a pastoral letter, not a press release. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Man, it will be such bull if this survives. Everything the Pope says will become noteworthy. Didn't you vote delete last time DGG?JJJ999 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete - the only notability seems to be it was in the news. But why? Apparently more due to its cornyness than to its content. This is more like a meme than anything else and a trivial one at that. David D. (Talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as the references provided in Ten_Commandments_for_Drivers#References indicate sufficient coverage of this subject in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

~

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G12, blatant copyright infringement. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas O'Grady

Thomas O'Grady (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

O'Grady is the mayor of a small town, and is a candidate to be nominated for Ohio's 10th congressional district. Nothing spectacular yet. Also, this article reads like a political ad, in which the subject has "a strong history of community service", is "committed to government becoming more efficient", "has been tireless in his efforts to serve the residents of North Olmsted, and will continue to work to improve the conditions for all in Northeast Ohio", etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Crystal Rod (film)

The Crystal Rod (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE. There is no source as well that verifies its notability. So, it fails at verifiability as well. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I heard this user (who have created this article) doesn't take it easily when he finds any of his article gets tagged for AfD and likes to show his anger in the form of vandalism at respective user's page (who tagged). I would like to draw his attention to the fact that we are all here for the betterment of Wikipedia and we don't have any personal intention to attack you. You may notice that everyone voted for the deletion of your article which eventually proves that it really lacks at some WP policies. Hope you will be more tolerant in future and wishing you a nice Wikipedia journey. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FILM. Author might possibly have a WP:COI (Ty is a common nickname for Tyler, who is one of the characters). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete: There was a posting the other day of a novel by this title. Also unreferenced and posted by the author. Writing style, content, etc., indicate this is the same person. Bagheera (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is a vanity page for a production company that has yet to release anything. Notability and verifiability are non-existent. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete according to WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete: article fails to assert notability per WP:N, is not referenced per WP:V and qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7, specifically, non notable band. This was deleted twice before by speedy criteria. Keeper | 76 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dobby & The House Elves

Dobby & The House Elves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. It's a vanity article on some non-notable people. All the references are used from myspace. It's a clear case of violating WP:NOTE. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Squidgies

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

Delete as per non-notable activity related to catching fish! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It also violates WP:OR as it seems that it is a clear case of original research. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete or merge This could be a section in a larger article on fishing lures, if reliable sources could back it upBeeblbrox (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• All information put in the entry is publicly available. There is no original research presented. I would like to link it to various other relevant topics (e.g. fishing lures) but don't know how this is done (being a newbie, I often contribute with editorial changes where I can, but this is the first page I have made from scratch). You'll find all the external links are very relevant to fishing lures in general and especially the new ones coming out on the market which I think are a clear example of technology creep. I also note that Wikipedia does not have an entry for technology creep. User: DigsFish.
• Delete I'm sure the author has good intentions as evidenced by the above post. However, the subject seems to fail verifiability, as none of the sources look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: unverifiable original research. Mh29255 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added additional references from easily accessible sources on the web to show that the data included is indeed verifiable, and I reiterate there is no original research included. I guess I'll start looking at adding scientific references if it helps others to understanding the current issues relating to fishing lure development, technology creep and fisheries managementUser: DigsFish. —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm going to assume the best and say this isn't original research, in which case it fails WP:NOT#DIR. I can't see how this could possibly be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Redfarmer (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• merge I understand now the context - it would seem to me that it would be most appropriate to merge this topic somehow to the fishing lure definition. I note there is plenty of work to be done linking the various sections on fishing in the encyclopedia. This may be one of them - linking the fishing sections into the effects of fishing section in more areas to alert people of the need for humans to continually redefine the need to regulate their fishing activities. The effects of fishing section certainly needs some work. DigsFish (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". This does not preclude a neutral editor writing a neutral, third-party-sourced article on the subject. Sandstein (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blueprint for American Prosperity

Blueprint for American Prosperity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:OR -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• comment This does appear to be original research, written by someone maybe a little to close to the subject matter, however, we should give them a chance to provide some references to establish notability and factual accuracy instead of going right for the delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There seem to be sources about it; the Post-Gazette has one, and so does the this. There were a few more but they were unavailable on their host sites, unfortunately. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The information provided is accurate and by no means false. The citations used send the reader to credible sources. I am unclear as to why this would be deleted- can you explain the sentiment? The Blueprint Program was released to the public in November. If anything a Wiki contributor should have already created this page. Alexbrookings 11:55, 29 January 2008
  • Delete First paragraph is a copyvio of [1]. the rest certainly reads like a copyvio of other things on their site or published by them. The comment above seems to say they added it themselves after discovering that nobody with a lack of COI had added it for them--and, if you look in the contrib history, alexbrookings seems to have done just that. If it is notable, someone will write a proper article. DGG (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The accuracy of your information is not what is being questioned, it is the notability of the subject matter. All the references you provided are from the Brookings Institute itself, not from secondary sources as required by Wikipedia's notability guidlines. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical management company

Medical management company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertising Qaz (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per G11 -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this is advertising. Looks more like a violation of WP:NOT#DICT to me. Redfarmer (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • agreed, I must have been multitasking when I wrote that. Thanks for the correction. Qaz (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Redfarmer. NN concept, too. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This was one of several articles that were created to post links to commercial sites and related trade organizations. The others should also be reviewed for deletion or moved into more appropriate articles -- Hospital case management, Independent review organization, Medical case management, Hospital peer review, Independent review organization, Medical peer review, Independent medical examination and Specialty medical peer review. Flowanda | Talk 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both. Coredesat 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nondance Records

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

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

Non-notable label. Speedy denied due to apparently notable band Ether Switch but band isn't really notable either. Speedy on Ether Switch was denied only because it was the founder of Nondance Record. So the only claim either has to notability is that the other one is notable, but in reality neither is notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both as nom - Sbowers3 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both, the band fails WP:MUSIC in every way and the label that they founded fails WP:CORP in every way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete articles. Antics05 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both, WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both as per the reasoning above. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per comprehensive reasoning of Sbowers3. tomasz. 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Once again, I apologize. Clearly I misunderstood and I believe the artists misrepresented themselves to me. Is there any way I as the author can delete it myself? Antics05 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G2 by Malinaccier, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Five Clicks To Jesus

Five Clicks To Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I was going to CSD:G1 this, but I desided it wouldn't be fair for only 1 other person to see it first... ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Me and my friends have gotten drunk and made up games too, but I don't expect they deserve an encyclopedia entry any more than this one does. Even if it does "kick ass"...Beeblbrox (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, I really thought this one should be speedied G1 but an admin declined it saying it really exists. Who knew? In any case, it's not notable enough for an article, fails WP:N. No secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Gets 22 Google hits, and there is a comment on User_talk:Swatjester/archive8#Five_clicks_to_Jesus from March 2007, so not made up. I don't think it has sufficient notability (as yet) for an article though. Dlohcierekim 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(OOps, edit conflict already deleted) Dlohcierekim 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drew Peterson Keeper | 76 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stacy Ann Peterson

Stacy Ann Peterson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable and is only known for one event. There are a few sources, but it is only a news story of her disappearance. There is a tag saying that it is partially a duplicate of Drew Peterson, which is is, and also a merge tag there, but I find this unnecessary. Also only three pages have links here, two of which are only lists and the third the link above. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - I added the merge tag, to generate a bit of discussion first without forcing a timeframe on it, but judging by the first response, I'm perfectly content to go this route. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Information already at Drew Peterson page. Patken4 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Verges

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

I am not sure what is to be done with this article. It seems that this is about a painter who was once covered by the Baltimore Sun. Most of the "references" are either broken links, links to blogs, mirrors of that single story, or mysterious links (like a page about weather). All in all, and having googled him, he does not strike me as notable. Goochelaar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete in concurrence with nom. Almost sounds autobiographical. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• You should notify the author of the article, 70.198.25.98 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Also, here's a link to the AfC request and acceptance: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-07-12#Stephen Verges. Powers ^T 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In reviewing the original AFC submission, I think I know why I accepted it. It wasn't a high quality submission, to be sure, but AFC guidelines require only one reliable third-party source, and the Sun article certainly qualifies. I have no objections to deletion if the consensus is that the stricter Notability guidelines are not met. Powers ^T 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The awkward turtle

The awkward turtle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hand gesture, no sources to show any notability. Prod removed by anon, bringing to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - This is more something that should go on UrbanDictionary.com. The style that the article was currently written in doesn't really help (the sign is often used "between teenagers." ... come on!). - SuperOctave (talk)
• Delete - Looks dangerously like a thing made up one day. Goochelaar (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Weak keep - Perhaps my opinion was a bit rash. Definitely not a thing made up one day (or perhaps so, but everything must have been made up one day or another, even the word "cellar door"): there are several Ghits, mostly not-so-notable, YouTube videos and the like, but perhaps these could qualify as a source: [2] and [3], while here there is a column titled "Awkward turtle". Goochelaar (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly WP:NFT - only notability assertion is that it is popular with teenagers. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While I've heard of this, I don't believe notability can yet be established. -Verdatum (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

comment If someone could produce at least one reference to establish notability, keep. Otherwise it's a clear-cut case of original research.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If my memory serves me correctly, the gesture being described is actually the American Sign Language sign for the word "sea turtle" (not to be confused for the sign for the terrestrial turtle, which is completely different). I don't so much know about this gesture's notability aside from this, though I have seen it used in the context described. A quick Google search turns up this source which says: "During an uncomfortable silence, someone will mimic a turtle with his or her hands. They'll put their right hand fully on top of the back of the left, both hands pointed away, thumbs wiggling. And, with a straight face, they'll say, 'Awkward Turtle.'" Searching Google News for all dates turns up varying amounts of coverage, mostly from college newspapers, from around the country. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into type of gesture as "Awkward turtle." A lot can be removed, and because there's already a list of gestures, I think it belongs in that list. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's already there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This isn't an encyclopaedic topic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This gesture is about as common among young people as a high-five or finger snaps. While the mainstream media rarely covers emerging trends like this, it definitely is something that someone from the general population could witness or hear about and want to know more about-- hence, it's definitely encyclopedic. I agree that more sources should be added, however- perhaps a notable blog has mentioned the phenomenon. Also, what about the name? Wikipedia articles usually omit "the", right? Zatchmort (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deus Ex Machina (The Matrix)

Deus Ex Machina (The Matrix) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is an in-universe plot repetition with very limited notability, and is already covered by the Matrix Revolutions movie articles plot section. The one unreferenced "fact" could easily be a part of the Development section of the Revolutions article, and there is no need for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I looked at this article, and I tried to figure out how to clean it up or trim it down to show more concretely that it is undeserving of an article, but it's so completely in-universe, it involves unverifiable fan speculation, it's almost entirely WP:PLOT, it fails WP:FICT for the establishment of notability. Even if this article could someday be recreated, I see nothing worth salvaging here. -Verdatum (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete the whole article is written "in-universe" and is fairly clear case of original research. I agree that the article on the movie covers everything here and does a better job of it Beeblbrox (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Not worth keeping. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to List of programs and machines in the Matrix series. Alientraveller (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Deus Ex Machina already has a section in that article, and it looks to be quite a bit better (in terms of WP:WAF) than anything and everything in this article. What is worth merging? -Verdatum (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Then it's a simple matter of a redirect. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • A redirect isn't worthwhile if no one would reasonably search "Deus Ex Machina (The Matrix)", but Yeah, I suppose on second thought I have no problem with it being a redirect. -Verdatum (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect; in-universe content mixed with speculation and void of real-world context doesn't make this encyclopedic. It is finished! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hotwiring

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

This article not only contains "how to" instructions (a violation of Wikipedia policy), but describes how to commit a serious crime. Simply editing the article and removing it would leave it in the archives for others to view. This article should be deleted and rewritten without these instructions. Hellno2 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete My experience is that there's always a dumbass out there who says "take the how-to part out and it'll be fine", but anyone who knows how to review an edit history will know how to hot wire a car too. In the case of giving a step by step on how to on how a child can build a bomb out of household materials, or commit a felony, a delete and start-over is the answer. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Valid encyclopedic topic. Catchpole (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment Trying to cut off a possible argument someone might make by calling them a dumbass is not very constructive behavior. That having been said, Delete and start over seems like the right course of action in this case.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing illegal about hotwiring a car; it is stealing a car that is illegal. Wikipedia is not censored; we don't omit information just because somebody might use it in the course of committing a crime. All that needs to be done here is edit the article to conform to WP:NOT#HOWTO. Jfire (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not the greatest article, but an obviously notable topic. Rewrites should only begin with deletions where there is no usable content in the article or its history. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:The reason why I nominated this for deletion is that I thought the information contained in here could be harmful to society. Sure, Wikipedia is not censored, but that just means that Wikipedia contains information that may be inappropriate for people under a certain age, such as nude images or profanity.

In this case, the issue is not about something that is inappropiate for children, but information that can be used to commit a felony. Had someone written on Wikipedia how to blow up a building using common household items, the feds would be raising hell to have the information removed, even from the archive, so it not be accessible to the public.

As for the argument that not all hotwiring is illegal: Breaking into one's own house is not illegal either. But most of the time, when breaking and entry occurs, it is a criminal act. So we would not want that information posted here. The same is true with hotwiring.Hellno2 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously an article on "How to make a fertilizer bomb" would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we don't mention it in the appropriate article. And the reason we mention it is that it's notable. It's the same case here; hotwiring is a notable concept, and so it derserves a place on wiki. If you feel there are inappropriately detailed instructions, be bold and fix it. As I said, articles don't get deleted when they're fixable and contain useful material. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable encycl. topic. And its absolutely legal to do this on your own car. It is also legal to do this if you are from the police and you have to use/remove the car, ... --helohe (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The problem here was not the topic, but the instructional content. Remove this, which I did, and the article's encyclopaedically valid. It could do with a tidy by someone who knows more about auto-mechanics, but ok. Any concerns about it being in the edit history are over-stated. The edit history is not indexed, you'd need to know it was there and go looking for it. I'm sure there are other far more instructional pages on the net indexed on google.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment and Question I don't know yet if I am in favor of keeping or deleting this article, and rewriting it, and the nom suggests. But there is a big question brought up by this whole debate: should an archive on Wikipedia ever be killed if there is anything controversial about it? This whole discussion is not really about this article in itself, but about the archiving of older versions of an article. One time, I found an article vandalized offensively with the N-word, and it bothered me that it could still be found in the archive after the vandalism was reverted. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Answer: Only oversights can selectively remove versions of an article from its history, and this is normally only invoked to hide information that could be used to indentify or contact an individual off-wiki. In all other cases, it is generally considered that the need for transparency rules. However, oversight may also be invoked in exceptional circumstances, such as Wikipedia is being dragged through the mud over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Articles like these are notable and not beyond saving. Although they walk a fine line to keep edit wars from happening (eg PIT maneuver, edit war free for over 6months ) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Wikipedia does not censor. Transfer the how-to to a wikibooks in auto-mechanics or something and expand this article to cover the topic in further detail. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There's nothing on here that one couldn't find using Google.

Vala M (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IAO131

IAO131 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be non-notable person. Only sources are blogs and self-published. Recreation of apparently speedy-deleted material. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete again (as I already tagged once), not notable, appears to be promotional/vanity. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks very non-notable and self-aggrandizing. Goochelaar (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with above comments. --Thiebes (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has similar significance as the pages of Lon DuQuette, Allen H. Greenfield, Richard Kaczynski, and Nema (occultist): they are all notable figures in the field of occultism; they are also all notable figures in the field of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy. Sections were removed that dealt less with area of expertise. His main contribution is a new Journal dedicated to an academic and non partisan stance of Modern Thelema - perhaps an article on this Journal would be more in store than one on its creator? Psionicpigeon (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the person is notable, demonstrate it by e.g. providing citations where his work has been reviewed in a major publication. Similarly, if the journal you refer to is notable then it should be easy to find citations of it in scholarly publications. If not, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Thiebes (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Already done once by myself due to the lack of any notability. Jmlk17 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete: article was speedily deleted yesterday; author recreated it and it is just as non-notable as before. Mh29255 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete shameless self-promotion with no reliable sources citedBeeblbrox (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SPAM. I agree with Goochelaar, nice work. Keeper | 76 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier capital fund

Glacier capital fund (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag removed by author. No assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. No sources at all. DarkAudit (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Even if they have $300m under management, that's pocket change. Dchall1 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Not even trying to assert notability. Goochelaar (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How Typical

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

Non-notable column that fails at WP:NOTE. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. Dchall1 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - no possible credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing here --T-rex 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• ""Delete"" doesn't come close to meeting notabilty guide, reads like self promotion Beeblbrox (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Column was written by Michael McManus and is described here by Mcmanusmo. Could there be a connection? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • reply - given that the same account created the article Michael McManus (writer/advocate), which was deleted as a speedy A7 nn bio, I'd say it's a safe bet. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11/Obvious Spam. CSD tag was improperly removed by author. Renesis (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Retail Brokers Network

National Retail Brokers Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy for spam removed. Still reads like an ad. No sources to show that this company is in fact notable. DarkAudit (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digitag

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Non notable neoglism. Prod removed by author without comment. I also declined a speedy of it having no context- it does have context, it just doesn't deserve an article. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I did a google search and didn't find any hits that used the term in this way, so thought it had no context to narrow down what it was talking about. Is this term used in a particular culture? Office? Forum? However, "non-notable neologism" is a much more convincing argument. KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NEO. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I also could not find any instance of this word being used in this way. Seems like original research to me.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted: non-notable band. DMacks (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vintage Rock Group

Vintage Rock Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination by a new user. On the talk page, they say:

Vintage_Rock_Group is non-notable.

1. Group has no singles on any charts in any country.
2. Group has no albums produced by major labels or producers.
3. Group has no members of notable former or current bands.
4. Group has no significant association with notable producers.
5. Group has no record of national or international tour.
6. Group has not toured with notable bands.
7. Group has no regular airplay in a major market.
8. Group has no gold records
9. Group has not won or been nominated for a major music award.
10. Group has not won or placed in a major music competition.
11. Group has no record of its work having been used in a major motion picture or television show.
12. Group has not been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

MediaMike (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike

Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. Already tagged by someone else. It's a band that does covers. that's it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with no argument made for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hadley Learning Community

Hadley Learning Community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy removed without comment. This page appears to be some schoolkid playing around on wikipedia. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Another editor has picked up the task since the original creation of the article. Will watch to see where it goes from here. DarkAudit (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: It is a school in Telford - Official website. It has won awards (now on page) and therefore meets the notability criteria at WP:SCL. I removed the speedy, but you went to AfD before I could finish wikifying the article. --JD554 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw Watching complete. Nothing to complain about now. Carry on, and thank you. DarkAudit (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics S.)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book; possibly the most obscure academic work ever published on the Buffyverse; queried notability on January 3 and nobody has made any case for it. Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• From a British perspective: possibly the most readily available academic work ever published on the Buffyverse. The "BFI TV Classics" bit means it's published by the British Film Institute, and is part of a series that is the media studies equivalent of a "Cliff's Notes" or a "Fontana History". --Paularblaster (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • reply - if that's the case, could you improve the article meaningfully? It's completely lacking in links to reviews, etc. (And what on earth does the S. mean at the end of the title?) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The "S." means "Series", but if this is kept I'd suggest moving it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics). Personally, I'd be more inclined to a merge/redirect to Buffy studies. I can't see that it's urgently required as a stand-alone article (any more than articles on each volume in the Cliffs Notes or Fontana History series - Penguin Classics would be another kettle of fish), but it's not something that I strongly feel should be deleted. My remarks above were simply to give a fuller picture of the status of the volume and series (i.e. a lot less obscure from my perspective than from yours). To answer your question, though: the only reviews I can find right now, and unfortunately without being able to access either, are Mark Sinker, in Sight & Sound 16:3 (2006), p. 94 (which I reckon is morally independent of the subject, even though it too is published by BFI); and Boyd Tonkin, in The Independent, December 23, 2005. I's not clear whether Alison Peirse, “The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction and Fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy”, Screen 48:1 (2007), pp. 137-140, is a review essay or just an essay that cites Billson (I can't access that text either). Loads tuns up on Billson's book on The Thing (for the BFI Modern Classics series), but that's been accumulating comment for close to ten years. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Add in this which indicates it's a horrible book, and I think you have enough reviews. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

query: is simply having been reviewed enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books)? I assumed it was more like: people have published essays and articles addressing the books themes or method; almost any academic book could easily have up to half a dozen reviews. [Editing to add:] there's an example of a run-of-the-mill academic text getting comparable review coverage here. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep per Hobit. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now, about that cake... Coredesat 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Hutchison

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

Probable hoax or wishful thinking. Version of article when prodded claims he won a "Young Scientist of the Year" award, which isn't referenced and can't be confirmed with a gsearch. Prod is now contested, award info removed, but search for this name + physics still doesn't come up with anything showing notability. Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The research facility is fictional, from Half Life. Either a hoax, of in-universe foolishness Mayalld (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, no references Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• The admin who deletes this article will receive cake. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and not verifiable. The Research facility in Half Life was Black Mesa, but this could be a combination of Black Mesa and Blue Shift (another game in the Half Life Universe). Irishjp (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the 'deletes' technically outnumber the 'keeps', the arguments towards keeping this particular article outweigh the deletes. Keeper | 76 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katran (Myst)

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within relevant articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Goochelaar (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable enough that I looked for (and did not find) this information while researching the backstory for Myst. Verifiable by the Riven game itself and the Myst novels. Katran would otherwise be the only main character in Myst without an article. The character is NOT "currently covered within relevant articles". TTN's solution is to redirect this page to a simple list of characters, which is recursive and non-informative. G. Thomas (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No real notability, not to mention the article fails WP:V. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Sesshomaru. ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Major characters in a really notable work are notable. Look for proper references. Many -- indeed most -- subjects are covered in some way in different aspects in WP. I wonder if success here will lead to deletion of the other notable characters, and then the article on the family, and then character in Myst. AGF, I hope that is not the intention. Itis only the combination of articles on the series that needs to establish notability--this is more correctly regarded as a subarticle, which does not need to do so, per current guidelines and also per every proposed version of WP:FICTIONDGG (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: per G. Thomas as he is correct that the article is verifiable through the books and Riven the game, and the character is not listed or otherwise covered substantially in other articles. PirateElf (Contact) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - failed WP:V. There's no sources given there. Even if there are, then I'd still opt for delete or redirect to Myst, per no real-world context information. Dekisugi (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of CEP vendors

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

Article fails WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Delete Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ronnotel (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  and further - the list has no reliable sourcing, it seems to be pure WP:OR. Ronnotel (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the author of this list, as suggested in the CEP talk page, and following the example of the ERP and RDBMS entries (which are equivalent).

Can you explain your policy suggestions? Isvana (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY not really applicable in this case. Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object-relational_database_management_systems - what is different about these? Isvana (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)— Isvana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - Do not Delete. List is valid. It does not violate WP:NOT#INTERNET as it is not acting as an internet guide for a website. It is a valid list of vendors of CEP technology. It is in line with existing lists, for example List of IT Service Management vendors and List of ERP vendors as pointed out earlier - for more lists, check out the Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry for example. It does not violateWP:NOT#REPOSITORY as it is a separate article, just like the other "list of" pages. It also helps to keep the encyclopedic nature and tone of the original CEP article. Bardcom (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- please link to where another list of CEP vendors exists? Otherwise surely this policy is invalid. Thankyou. Isvana (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12, I've noticed in the past that you tend to point out specific points in policy, but you don't explain why the points are relevant in particular cases. This can sometimes lead to situations where I'm not sure what your point is. I've argued against WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY being reasons to exclude this list. If you disagree, please give reasons why. Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• It's a little disingenuous to merely point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to ignore the point that other similar lists exist. The purpose of this guideline is to prevent people from pointing to perhaps one similar article as justification for another. In this case, your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not justified on the grounds I was pointing out that there are hundreds of vendor lists. Question - are you arguing against the *concept* of a List of CEP vendors, or against the *merit* of a List of CEP vendors? Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you both misunderstand.

1. Isvana stated ..."Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object-relational_database_management_systems - what is different about these?"
2. you stated... "It is in line with existing lists, for example List of IT Service Management vendors and List of ERP vendors as pointed out earlier - for more lists, check out the Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry for example."

This AFD is about List of CEP vendors, not any other article. Which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is an Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. A common argument used against the deletion of certain articles is that other articles similar to the one in question exist. The presence of similar articles does not validate the existence of List of CEP vendors. You arguments will carry more weight if they are couched in the notability guidelines --Hu12 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12, thank you for elaborating on your reasons for pointing out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not pointing to one or two other lists as justification for this list. The existence of the List of lists demonstrates that the practice is commonplace and acceptable. The reason for the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is to prevent someone pointing to one or two other similar articles. IMHO it is not applicable to use this argument when someone points out that there are several hundred similar articles.... Bardcom (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK. I've added a suggestion on Talk:List_of_CEP_vendors#Qualification_for_Inclusion--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that you point to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, when your own contributions to this debate could rightly be found guilty of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just a policy or guideline. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12, can you explain why you think List of CEP vendors contravenes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ? For sure, other technology lists of vendors don't justify this page, but you haven't justified removing it. Removing it would surely contravene WP:YESPOV - providing a full list of suppliers is a neutral way of defining suppliers, and the fact the suppliers exist are salient facts (see WP:ASF ).Isvana (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Complex Event Processing. It seems to me that there isn't anything special about this list that needs to be separated out into a separate article. I'm also concerned that this could be considered a linkfarm, which is why WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is being quoted. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Roninbk - excellent point; however (a) see the talk page on Complex Event Processing where this has been tried and failed in the past, and (b) the other computer technologies seem to follow this pattern of a separate page for listing appropriate vendors. I think most readers would be happy with either approach.Isvana (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think you'll find that including vendor links violates WP:EL and WP:NPOV Bardcom (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• ... although of course you could argue that excluding vendor names / refusing to recognise that vendors exist for this area violates WP:NPOV too (ie bias against vendors, implies only an academic topic, etc) - this page List of CEP vendors at least redresses this a little! Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. If you like, simply put in a statement to say that commercial software is available from a list of vendors. The external links to articles and the complexevents website will point them in the right direction. I don't understand the reluctance to mention the early academic projects as it's an important source of reference and background reading for anyone wanting to understand the underlying principals. Same reason for referencing David Luckham's book - it's too important a reference to exclude. The article exists to provide someone with a sane, reasonable, balanced, and neutral information on what CEP is. The academic projects are merely for those wishing to dive in at a deeper level to understand why it's notable. References to vendor websites fail this test - they are not educational, they are commercial. A list of CEP vendors is different, as a reader would only read this article in order to learn about vendors, products, specialization (if any), geography, etc. Bardcom (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bardcom: I was going to discuss your arguments but (a) that should go into the talk discussion on the CEP page and (b) I only disagree on one point (why is it not an indication of "bias" for it to be "fair" to name academic projects yet "not valid" to mention commercial projects or products - my argument is that whatever reason there is for listing academic projects probably exists for listing non-academic projects ... - but then apart from this reference list I can't necessarily see why any vendor should be mentioned, so the argument is probably moot anyway).Isvana (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• OTHERSTUFF. To use the argument properly, it is necessary to show either that the article being considered is worse than the other stuff, or that the other stuff cited is not representative of the general practice, and should probably be deleted also. But when there is a considerable number of other comparable articles of similar quality, then there are two possibilities: One, it is in fact the usual practice of WP to keep such articles -- which is of course a good reason to keep; or Two is is the practice to keep them, but the policy should be changed to not keep them--which is a suitable reason to keep this particular case and try to change the policy. DGG (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• It does not violate WP:NOT#INTERNET as it is not acting as an internet guide for a website. It is a valid list of vendors of CEP technology and provides a valuable information source of CEP vendors. It is in line with established practice of existing lists, many listed here Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry. Bardcom (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• #3 "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers"

List of CEP vendors exists to only to describe the services and products the Vendor offers^[4].--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not completely the full picture. The list primarily exists to provide a quick comparison of differences between vendors. At the moment, the only differentation is whether it's Open Source or not, but this will grow and become more descriptive over time. It does contain links, but the article would be equally valid without the links. We want to include the links as a qualification mechanism.... Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note the title of this page is "List of CEP Vendors" NOT "List of CEP Vendor websites". The inclusion of web sites / URLs is sendondary to the list. Any suggestion or argument to remove the URLs should be made in the talk page viz is not a valid reason for AfD (IMHO) Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It does not violateWP:NOT#REPOSITORY as it is a separate article, and is in line with established practice of existing lists. It states here WP:NOT#DIR that "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference". Bardcom (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• #1 "...Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."

List of CEP vendors exists as a repository of external links to vendors' products^[5].--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again this is not the purpose of the article. See point made above. Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry but a table of vendors is not the same as "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories". Here is a quick test (also mentioned in the article talk page): Remove the URLs (which are only there as references anyway). This is still a list of CEP vendors! Ergo, this is not an argument to remove this page (it *may* be an argument to alter it). Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contribution to this decision making process.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardcom (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2008

• Qu (as a Wiki novice) - should List of CEP vendors simply be re-labelled as List of CEP tools ? Is it the "vendor" part of the name that is objectionable to some people? Isvana (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, pointless list violating policy on wikipedia.JJJ999 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry - is that an argument to delete the links (or rather turn them into references), and rename as List of CEP Tools; or a delete the entire list because you don't see any point and such lists are widely available somewhere else (PS: would appreciate the link)?Isvana (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no independent sources establish notability of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bristo Camino

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

This is a non-notable fictional town, it's only existence in the film Hostage. The only source for info on the town is the movie itself. This specific location is not a notable part of the movie. The page should be removed per WP:Notability. - Gwynand (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect / weak keep. Name of town was integral to film, and appears to have in part influenced a couple of independant sources which may increase in scope (film was only released in 2005). Also notable that the name chosen is different to novel. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing but plot and speculation. No indication that the fictional town itself has any real-world notability. Pairadox (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there's almost no content in either this or the related Bristo Bay article. Hostage is, in the grand scheme of things, an utterly forgettable movie and it's not like Bristo Camino has become some sort of cult meme. It's a fictional town in a movie nobody will remember five years from now and there is apparently nothing to say about it except that a bunch of unknown youngsters playing small-time gigs in the UK found the name cool and named their band after it. Pichpich (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism, third article today by new user that is unverified and wishful thinking at best. . Keeper | 76 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Assembly Edition)

How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Assembly Edition) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax; no references provided, nor could any be found after a Google search. Same editor also created Blindness (U2 Album) and Annhilation tour, both of which were speedily deleted earlier for being patent nonsense. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - an obvious hoax, no sources online, and nothing on U2.com where the majority of this is supposed to have come from. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not a crystal ball. -- Renesis (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenophobia

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

Delete contested prod; has been copied to wiktionary and is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Next time, please use the criteria for speedy deletion RogueNinja_talk 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete not nly is this just a definition, I can't find any reliable sources to back it up Beeblbrox (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms isn't reliable? Not sure what to do about the article; what's the modus operandi for psych articles like these? Octane ^{[improve me]}

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Nowra, New South Wales. Coredesat 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nowra Christian School

Nowra Christian School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. No assertion of notability has been made, nor have any sources been provided that could support any claim of notability. Note: The school is already included in the article on Nowra, New South Wales Mattinbgn\^talk 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please keep I am the author of the article and member of school community. Trying to walk a line between providing helpful information while being factual and not turning it into an advertisement. (Help welcomed here!) Also learning how to edit wikipedia articles from scratch. I think the school is notable as a K-12 school using unique approach to HSC. Have also added more info about what makes school notible on philosophical basis. -- Ggannell\^talk
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to main article Nowra, New South Wales: school is not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. The article doesn't even claim that it is notable - it's a shame that school articles can't be speedy deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above - no assertion of notability; fails my (weak) standards. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's a K-12 school, so there will probably be information. It is simpler & better to keep & improve these articles than argue about them. DGG (talk)

• Comment If this "consensus" that schools are inherently notable came as a result of AfD discussions, then the only way to show that there is in fact no consensus is to continue to bring articles on schools that do not meet WP:N to AfD. It is a circular argument to insist that all schools are notable and should be kept for that reason and then use the fact that they are kept to support the concept of the inherent notability of schools. I still have not seen a decent argument for the proposition that schools are inherently notable and the meme of inherent notability has no backing other than the opinion of a group of editors. If sources can be found, then someone should demonstrate that fact by finding them. WP:V still applies to schools and we should insist on reliable independent sources for articles. If they are not provided, then the articles should be removed. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Nowra, New South Wales. Current discussions about WP:SCHOOLS is not clear if all secondary schools are notable or if schools are notable only if they meet WP:RS. Also some editors are not expecting the under discussion proposal to actually be used to support keeping schools. This article may also fail WP:COI per above comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nowra, New South Wales#Education. That way the content is preserved should WP:RS be found. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. I'd like to note that the frequently-cited WP:NOT#STATS is not, by itself, a reason to delete this article. The rule prohibits "long and sprawling lists of statistics" because they "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles", but allows "using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." No-one has argued that this article is unreadable or confusing, so WP:NOT#STATS would not seem to apply. Sandstein (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unencyclopedic content. This belongs on uncyclopedia, not here. Its been nominated several times before, the links are found on the talk page. Most of the keep votes use reasoning like "This is a fun page" or "Pages like this make me smile." These are not valid reasons to keep an article around. RogueNinja_talk 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep use of the word "fuck" in media is quite encyclopedic and generates press, controversy, and even litigation. And while this article perhaps is less "high brow" than most, it's certainly more so than all the various American Idol also-rans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep things. RogueNinja_talk 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is what I said on the talk page: "This article has useful information, but I don't think it's very good as a list, it is never going to be complete for two reasons: People have different views on what makes a film notable enough to be in the list; different sources have different numbers, so it's actually kind of pointless to have sources, but if we don't, it's OR. What I suggest doing is making an article called The word "fuck" in film which discusses the usage of the word in film and we can merge some of the info from this list." I stand by what I said, the list is not going to work but an article might. Nominator, to a certain degree I agree with you, but the word fuck is prominent in film, so either merge into Fuck, or create The word "fuck" in film.--The Dominator (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is well sourced, it does not draw any conclusions (and thus does not synthesize new information). It is merely a list which does not violate any Wikipedia policy, not more than other lists, like for example World's busiest airports by passenger traffic. This is exactly what makes Wikipedia different, as the number of topics we can cover is much larger than that of other encyclopedias. Also, this article has not been nominated "several times" before. It has been nominated six times before, of which four ended in keep and two ended in no consensus. I guess it was about time for a new nomination. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• It may not draw its own conclusions, but it certainly presents its own criteria: "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses." Unlike your example, which has a set ranking of 30 airports, the word "frequently" is unnecessarily flexible here. Why not list 200 films? Why not 50? Where is the criteria set? We, as editors, certainly should not profess to do that. In addition, the previous AFDs are not relevant here. Some articles eventually get deleted at their nth appearance at AFD; consensus can evolve over time, or better reasoning for deletion can be presented if it was not clear in previous attempts. See further rationale for deletion in my recommendation below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• So why does World's busiest airports by passenger traffic choose the 30 highest ranking airports? There is no other reason than the (in some eyes) offensive topic that this article is so often nominated for deletion. --195.169.224.219 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article wasn't nominated because it's offensive (Wikipedia is not censored), it was nominated because it is an incomplete list with trivial information that should be incorporated into encyclopedic text rather than a list.--The Dominator (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia would not work if incompleteness was an objection to the existence of articles. This article/list deserves time to mature, just like everything else. Keep.JamesLucas (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• That article chooses the 30 highest ranking airports because the sources its uses lists 30. This seems appropriate to me. Here, however, we're just picking out our own criteria. It's nothing to do with censorship -- I wholeheartedly support articles that cover vulgar content and only hope that they offer something encyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Article is well-sourced and verifiable (and amusing), but it seems to run afoul of WP:NOT#STATS. Would support merging the info to a more suitable page per Dominator. Kamek (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#STATS. This article is merely a compilation of statistics that hardly reflect the relevance of the word "fuck" used in films. The statistics is reflected even more strongly with the existence of the bar graphs. What is the criteria for inclusion? The article says, "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses." Why doesn't pornography count? Why is it 100? Why isn't it 200 or 50? In addition, there certainly are films that are known for excess profanity, but many of the ones on the list are just compiled because of their count, which may or may not have any relevance. Films like Goodfellas and the South Park film are films whose profanity has been noticed, but many others in the list don't have that relevance. This would qualify as an inappropriate directory per this: "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." The large, large majority of the films in this list are not famous because of the usage of this word, aside from a handful of examples. And that handful is not substantial enough to warrant a stand-alone list. Such films with excess profanity ought to be explored with prose commentary in an article like Profanity in film, tracing the history of vulgar language used in cinema. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per my last comment and Erik's. An article would certainly work much better than a list, and if there isn't enough info, we can always merge into Fuck.--The Dominator (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• You also mentioned merge above; are you favoring either action, or one over the other? Just asking for clarity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm for creating a new article using a small percentage of the info here, so closer to delete than merge, I guess.--The Dominator (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#STATS violation. I also feel that due to the need to create (arbitrary criteria, etc.) it is a WP:SYNTH (if not WP:OR) violation as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above. I remember Entertainment Weekly used to do counts like this on films like Glengarry Glen Ross (?), and it's kind of funny that people are watching a movie and tallying things like this. A "'fuck' count" indeed. Ironically, if this gets vandalized, it'll be something sweet, on the order of "The Sound of Music: zero" Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• "It is funny" is not a reason.--The Dominator (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Some people are taking this project too seriously. It appears that this has been debated numerous times in the past and the result was keep on each occasion. Nominating this again is attempting to game the system. Catchpole (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's your reason to keep?--The Dominator (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Please assume good faith about the AFD process and those involved with whom you disagree. AFDs are recurring because consensus can evolve. Also, I'm not sure why the article's failure to conform to policies and guidelines is a reason not to take this Wikipedia article seriously. Please feel free to elaborate on your recommendation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to insult anybody, but I doubt this article will ever be deleted, since so many people find it amusing, and without any reason, vote keep, as long as these people do that, this incomplete list that violates several policies will most likely stay.--The Dominator (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• The AFD process is not supposed to be a voting process, so a few substantial arguments on one side could outweigh a large number of insubstantial arguments on the other side. It's a matter of providing valid counterpoints to others' points. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—it's an encyclopedic list with a well-defined inclusion criterion. Spacepotato (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• The criteria for including a film has been determined by the editors to be non-pornographic and to be in the top 100. Why not pornographic? Why not the top 50 or the top 200? The topic of the article was created with subjectively decided criteria synthesizing various resources to give the impression of valid backing. There's no encyclopedic value established by any of the resources -- merely a mish-mash of figures presented in an indiscriminate and inappropriately statistical directory. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The reason for avoiding pornographic films is obvious.
2. Lists of superlatives must have cutoffs. The presence of such a cutoff does not make the list unencyclopedic. See List of highest mountains, List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns, List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America, List of major opera composers (a featured list), and so forth. Spacepotato (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. No, it's not. Why shouldn't a pornographic film count? Why are we going with films where one may say, "Oh, that's unusual"? For some films, this isn't the case, as with raunchy comedies.
2. Good point, but the examples you've provided are known for these topics. Like I've said in my recommendation to delete, many of these films are not known because of the number of f-words uttered. The entries fail to be topical, especially considering the resources are family-concern resources in which profanity is part of their breakdown of the film, as opposed to newspapers or magazines that may solely have coverage about excess profanity in films. There's no encyclopedic reason to provide a statistical analysis of films that have not been highlighted as ones that "most frequently use the word" 'fuck'". There is no real-world significance or relevance to many of these entries' number of f-words uttered; in nearly all the cases, the excess profanity are not what makes the film known (with exceptions like Goodfellas and South Park). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say why porno films aren't included is obvious, there are a few movies that are well known for swearing, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut holds a Guinness world record, but I don't see why most of the others are more notable than pornographic films.--The Dominator (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - notable subject - clear issue with censorship implications etc. Spacepotato sums it up well above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody has said anything about wanting to censor this article, so please assume good faith that there could be other reasons besides what you mistakenly perceive. In addition, what is the notable subject? There is no real-world context provided about this list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" -- the entries, most of which are not known for excess profanity, are compiled into a directory for statistical purposes. It fails to provide encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I meant censorship in the world with various film classifications etc. not wikipedia. Censorship and film ratings are highly controversial areas in cinema studies. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I understand what you mean now. But the list doesn't necessarily address a real-world understanding of the topic. There are multiple films ranging from the well-known to the lesser-known, so there's no specific insight given. I've suggested a prose article based on profanity in film as that would be a perfectly reasonable topic for Wikipedia, but here, it's just number-crunching. The number of f-words in most of these films have no bearing on its fame, whatever it may have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The word fuck is arguably the most interesting and controversial word in the English language and profanity in general is obviously notable. As I have suggested, a prose article seems to be the most reasonable compromise we can think of. It is very hard to assert what film is notable and what isn't. The list is obviously incomplete yet it ranks the films. The only useful information is what comes before the list, which is not that well written "use of profanity in film was always controversial" seems POV and very vague, when was the last time some critic flipped out because a film had a high "fuck" count. I suggest making an article that covers
• A) What different profanity is used in movies, including a sub-section on "fuck".
• B) The reception and criticisms of profanity in film
• C) A list of notable films that are known for its excessive swearing, for example, Scarface, Pulp Fiction, South Park, Glengarry Glenn Ross or Casino

I see no reason for a list. Ask yourselves, what does this article give to people who are researching the usage of "fuck" in film? A good chuckle maybe. A prose article would add information and it would be easier to find sources, I'm sure many people wrote essays on profanity in film, finding a direct count is more difficult though. Also the English-centered, the word "fuck" doesn't exist in other languages, and translations aren't usually accurate. Also in most languages there is not one word like "fuck" that caused controversy in media.--The Dominator (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Cas -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody have given a good reason to prefer the list over the Profanity in film article.--The Dominator (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the list format is completely separate from that. Feel free to make that article; no-one is stopping you. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But what is the point of the list? What meaningful content does it give a researcher?--The Dominator (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A list is an extremely convenient place to get an immediate idea of the number and type of films involved. The FPM is fascinating. Many articles have both prose and lsit forks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is hardly convenient because we have the chosen cut-off of 100 films. There's no true indication of the scale of films that "most frequently use the word 'fuck'". In addition, these films are hardly signified by the number of a certain word uttered. It still remains statistics compiled in a directory with no real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that there should be a separate project like Wiktionary or Wikiquote for stats, something like "Wikistats".--The Dominator (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Erik - yes, it does have real world context, of course it does - film is part of the real world, last time I checked. And there are many many lists on Wikipedia, and they are an accepted kind of content, so, if you want, vent your opinions about lists at an appropriate forum, rather than using it as an incentive to delete one list. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you and I are part of the real world, but we don't have our own articles. The films themselves are notable, the word fuck is notable, but a list of films using the f-word a lot is not notable because it's a mere compilation of indiscriminate statistics through editors' arbitrary criteria that do not offer the real-world context (as in sourced analysis) of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". I am arguing for this particular list topic, not all list topics in general, and I've explained clearly that this is a synthesis of two notable subjects -- film and profanity -- in a list form that fails to establish itself as notable. Review the sources used for the multitude of these entries; they don't specifically mention the frequency of the f-word used. Editors compiled the bits of information together to make it look like these rankings really do exist, when in reality they established them themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like we disagree there - profanity has been closely linked with film ratings systems and given how it has been discussed I would be surprised if someone hasn't quantified some sort of list somewhere and (shock! horror!) it may not be online. I know people who have worked in the field of censorship. In any case, I may go and find some more commentary on this myself, but as I have a life and volunteer work in and of itself has to come after a few other things, I have no idea wehn that will happen. I'll put it on my todo list if this article survives the AfD.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sourced, encylopedic article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's not encyclopedic. There's no core topic at hand. Look at the so-called sources -- they're not even part of a specific ranking, they're just family measurements that have been drawn together to give the false impression of ranking. And like I've said, most of these films are not known for the handful of f-words uttered aside from a few, making it an inappropriate directory. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that I am not proposing this deletion as not sourced, or not notable. Rather, as per WP:Deletion Policy I am saying it is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." RogueNinja_talk 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand, but I disagree. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Film as a medium of popular culture frequently uses provocating measures to attract attention or draw a character in a certain way. This is not different in other popular art forms and also for e.g. advertisement (like the fashion campaigns photographed by Oliviero Toscani). To have a special list about something like that can be quite useful, e.g. to demonstrate the use of language over time. I would have thought that 48 Hrs. is somewhere on that list, too. As for the number of 100 spoken uses: this particular limit is no real argument for or against the article itself. A new government normally receives a 100 day period from the press to settle and start working effectively. Only after that time you will find first comments about success or failure. --Einemnet (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having a list of phone number is useful, too. However, please read WP:NOT#DIR: "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Note the because -- the large majority of these entries do not fall in the so-called category of, "Wow, they sure do the f-word a lot." It's a synthesis of family measurements to provide an indiscriminate list for statistical analysis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get personal here but the way you respond to my arguments makes me think you first of all have a personal problem with the word "fuck". I know this term is provoking, and this debate is not about phone numbers. The article Fuck mentions film, but not phone numbers. --Einemnet (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word, but my argument has been based on the false presentation of this list. Films can be noted for their excess usage of the f-word (I only say 'f-word' for the sake of being amicable here), but please review the resources used to cite the majority of the films. They are family measurements, which do not comment on the unique aspect of the f-word being used. For instance, looking at Nil by Mouth, it has a sentence that says, "The film ranks among those featuring the most occurrences of the word 'fuck' in a fiction movie, with 428." Its reference is this: "At least 428 "f" words (with at least 3 used sexually, plus some similar slang terms)..." And that is all it says. It doesn't make the assertion that it ranks so highly among films with f-word usage. We took that number and synthesized it into this list. Perhaps a citation could be found reflecting that this particular film is known for excessive f-word usage, but many of the listed films rely on generic family measurements. It's certainly not a specifically published list of films that fall under this criteria. Hope you understand what I'm getting at. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keepish per Carlossuarez46 and others. Referenced, and is a notable phenomenon. User:Dorftrottel 13:42, January 29, 2008

• Nobody has once said that it's not referenced or not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is.--The Dominator (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Then improve it. References and notablility are the only real concerns. User:Dorftrottel 15:27, January 29, 2008

No! references, notability, NPOV, encyclopedic content are the four main things. Now that we're at it, it's not notable as a list, as a prose article sure, but the list gives no good content.--The Dominator (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is". No it is not "undoubtedly unencyclopedic". Some people here argue it is unencyclopedic, whereas others say it is encyclopedic and thus suitable for Wikipedia. That is exactly the discussion we are having. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how it is encyclopedic, an encyclopedia gives research information. I seriously doubt that anybody is going to research how many "fucks" there are in a film, they might research profanity in film, which is a useful topic, but number of "fucks" is just trivial statistics. This article is useless for research, only useful because it is a fun page, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for.--The Dominator (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

non-NPOV is not a reason to delete. If you think a prose article would be better, I'm all with you. Just move the content to an appropriate title and rewrite it. No need to delete the material. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, January 29, 2008

Please read this: WP:NOT#STATS.--The Dominator (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok... always interesting. As I said, I'm all with you if you were to rewrite it as prose. Maybe The word "fuck" in the media or The word "fuck" in popular culture would be plausibly circumscribed topics? User:Dorftrottel 16:28, January 29, 2008

I was thinking more like The word "Fuck" in film or Profanity in film.--The Dominator (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Both sound good to me. User:Dorftrottel 16:50, January 29, 2008

• Amending my original comment in light of Erik's very valid point, made below, that "there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are not predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word 'fuck'." As per my exchange with The Dominator directly above, a new article (or maybe initially new section in fuck) about the word as used in films could be well-referenced and worthwhile — but it should be proper prose, not a made-up ranking. User:Dorftrottel 20:08, January 30, 2008
  • The current list should be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 14:07, February 2, 2008

• Delete per well-reasoned arguments to do so. Having lists of things is indeed useful, but Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. The list entries, on the whole, are not notable for their association with the word "fuck" and this article is almost entirely (well-intentioned) synthesis on the part of its creators. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep With some of the other lists on wiki, this one should stay. I first came across this list looking for exactly what it contained. While I'm not using my example as a defense, it just goes to show that this is exactly the kind of information people look for on wiki. Take the example of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic. What this list conveys to users is just what it says. It doesn't presume to say which airport is best or has the longest waiting time or fewest flight delays or anything other than which airport has the most passenger traffic. Similarly, this list doesn't prove which movie is the best or worst or even filthiest, just most 'fuck'ed up. Seeing as 'fuck' is, arguably, the most controversial and commonly accepted as the worst word utterable in the English language, it deserves a list to let people know which movies use it to get a message across by containing the word much more than most other movies. While I agree that the number of 'fuck's in a movie does not define it, it's still no accident that these movies have such an abundance of the word. Writers know that it has an impact on an audience and can be greatly used to help character development. All that said, I will suggest that this list be enhanced to include trends such as directors/writers with most movies on the list and which movies have oscar nominations/awards.Chriscapitolo (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• World's busiest airports by passenger traffic copies directly from the existing rankings (which tops at 30) in its sources. Look beyond this particular article -- there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are not predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's why we have suggested a prose article, nobody ever said that the word fuck in film is not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic. Think of someone doing a research project, the number of "fucks" would be irrelevant, what would be relevant is, which movies caused controversy (ex. South Park), which actors are known for taking roles with alot of swearing (ex. Joe Pesci) or directors that make movies with alot of profanity (ex. Tarantino, Scorcese). A list doesn't help.--The Dominator (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to disagree that the actual word count is irrelevant. While I've never done any formal research on the subject, I find myself constantly referring back to this list to compare movies, etc. If I ever did do a research project (one which would acknowledge wiki as a veritable source), I believe I certainly would use this list. I realize I'm basing my argument on my own example, but I think I represent many others. However, if you must delete it, please at least keep the list somewhere else, which I think you want to. Erik, I think the reason we have never seen this list in any other source is that most sources wouldn't want to 'dirty' themselves with such a statistic, which I know wiki doesn't worry about. Maybe Maxim or Rolling Stone could pull off publishing a list like this, but few others would dare to.Chriscapitolo (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - this is ridiculous - this is encyclopedic content, just as much as Kitashinchi Station (thank you, Special:Random) is. Incidentally, this page is fun and makes my smile. Fuck. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to respond to the counterpoints provided by the other side, regarding WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOT#STATS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay then, I will provide a point by point counterargument of those. I am not, however, gonna argue over interpretation of these guidelines and policies in great detail. Many of the Wikipedia policies are open to multiple interpretations anyway (as is clear from the vigorous discussions here at AfD):
  • WP:NOT#IINFO: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 4 (Statistics). The first sentence of that section reads: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.". I disagree that this list is confusing as it is accompanied by a clear introductory text that explains what the articles is listing. Also the criteria for inclusions, while arbitrary, are cleary defined and mentioned.
  • WP:NOT#DIR: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 1 (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics ). In this case, I disagree that this is a loose association between the subjects, as, again, the association is clearly defined and, given that multiple websites are dedicated to statistics like this, are of significant cultural impact.
  • WP:NOT#STATS: Redirects to WP:NOT#IINFO point 4 and is therefore redundant. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What about WP:OR? User:Dorftrottel 21:00, January 30, 2008
• It makes me smile too, your reason for keep is what now?--The Dominator (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• How do you respond to the fact that most of these films are not made famous because of the fact they most frequently use the word "fuck"? Some of them are, but many on the list are drawn from the family measurements resources. In addition, the stats are "long and sprawling" because of the unnecessary "fucks per minute"-related columns that are irrelevant to this so-called list topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thats reason for cleanup, not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• No-brain keep Well-defined non-arbitrary inclusion criteria, topic whose notability is proven beyond reasonable doubt, scrupulously referenced. скоморохъ ^ѧ 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the criteria is arbitrary: This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses.' We the editors are establishing that criteria. In addition, the topic is not notable beyond reasonable doubt -- do not mistake the notability of films in general and the notability word the word fuck to assume that a list of films that frequently use the f-word is encyclopedic. It fails WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOT#STATS. Most of these films were not previously identified as films that ranked high for using the f-word, and editors here have personally established these so-called rankings, with these films having no relevance with each other. It's inane to assume that the number of f-words used in a film intrinsically connects them all into an encyclopedic list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the discussion before voting, it seems that the deleters are always relevant to the topic, while everybody who wishes to keep just comes in and does something like "Keep, obviously notable" without reading through the discussion. If you'd actually read the arguments, than you'd realize that nobody says the topic is not notable, we're saying that the way the information is presented is not notable. --The Dominator (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What we're trying to say, is that the information that this article has, has been made up. If I made an article called "List of films by alphabetic order of last name of first-billed actor" it could be true and referenced, but not encyclopedic.--The Dominator (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "We" understand what you are saying. "We" just don't agree and do consider this encyclopedic. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Then "you" are mistaken. User:Dorftrottel 08:07, January 31, 2008
      • No I am not mistaken, whoever wrote this article made it up, that's a fact, not an opinion. Show me a reliable source that has a list like this. Or show me a site that lists movies by the non-existent phrase "fucks per minute".--The Dominator (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I was talking to Reinoutr... Having looked for suitable sources to back it up, I do agree that the article topic is completely made up. User:Dorftrottel 14:06, February 2, 2008
• Delete per above discussions. I suppose we can wait for the rest of this series of articles with names like List of films that most frequently use the word "shag", List of films that most frequently use the word "the", List of films that most frequently use the word "sex" or List of films that most frequently use the word "Britney". Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Its entertaining and well sourced, Wiki isnt censored.Д narchistPig (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• For god's sake, did you even read the discussion?!?!? 1. Entertaining is not a reason Wikipedia is not for entertainment. 2. Nobody said it isn't well sourced, just unencyclopedic and 3. Who said anything about censorship? I was talking about creating an article called "The word "fuck" in film. Please read the discussion before posting.--The Dominator (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I'd like to rebut a number of arguments for deletion.

1. These films are not notable for their use of the word "fuck". There is no requirement that each item in a list of superlatives be notable because of the list's subject. All that is required is that the subject of the list be notable. For example, Moose Jaw is not especially large but is legitimately included in List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada; similarly, Dayton, Ohio is not famous for its size but is included in List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America.
2. This list is useless for research purposes. The list points the reader researching profanity in film towards unusually profane films. Also, the list gives evidence as to trends in profanity over time.
3. The rankings in the list are original research. The list does not give rankings.
4. The computation of "fuck"s per minute is original research. Trivial computations are not original research. (Even if they were, this would be a reason to delete the FPM column, not to delete the entire list.)
5. We should have an article on profanity in film. This has nothing to do with this list. Anyone is free to start the profanity in film article at any time.
6. The list is unencyclopedic. In the absence of supporting arguments, this is no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Spacepotato (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

6 is the general argument and the rest are arguments in support of it.

1. The list you mention is different because that actually ranks the cities. 2. These aren't "unusually profane films", these are just films that happen to use one profane word many times. 3. Nobody said it gives rankings, the way the info is put together is OR. 4. Well yeah, that is pure original research.--The Dominator (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Erik's notes. While the list certainly made me laugh, it is incompletely and is missing many films which are known for their use of the word because of the lack of available sourcing beyond IMDB due to their age (Harlem Nights anyone?). I think the idea of a prose article is a good one, though maybe expanded to the use of all profanity in film, which is a far better way to discuss the controversy, shock, etc it can induce. Collectonian (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- same as most lists of this sort, unencyclopaedic, and limitless.JJJ999 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Each entry being famous for having a lot of 'fuck's is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. The list is nowhere near 'limitness', JJJ999. I quote myself that "The lower bound of the list being arbitrary is irrelevant to this discussion, and applies to all top/most lists in general. The concern of the article is the most frequent uses, i.e. the top of the list, not the bottom, and the cut-off point is a consequence that is dealt with by consensus." It is not original research to restrict the article size for readability and to suit 'frequently' or whatever this article is named. Erik, if you want to make Profanity in film, then create it to complement this. These things can exist simultaneously, and Collectonian, while prose may be a 'better' way to go about it, that's not a reason to delete the list. Since we're not out to state the absolute truth, it's okay that the list is missing some films that you know should be on it. The list being incomplete is also a call for editing and research. WP:NOT#STATS means this article should not contain only statistics, so go ahead and add prose to it, which I've done a little. Steve and Orange Mike, there is no synthesis because no positions are pushed; the numbers are presented, nothing is concluded from them. Vegaswikian, if you can find sources for those words, then go ahead. The Dominator, if you want to use info here, that's a smerge, not delete, for GFDL reasons. –Pomte 09:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clint Catalyst

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

Delete author of a redlinked book ranked #186,742 at Amazon.com, and coeditor of another redlink book ranked #881,917 at Amazon.com; no indication that he is notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No independent sources to show that he meets WP:BIO. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I was the one who created the article, thinking he was Jefree Star. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I think consensus is clear. The result is delete. east.718 at 00:05, January 31, 2008

[edit] MoG (person)

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

This is a vanity page with major WP:COI concerns. Had I discovered it first, I would have speedied it, however the speedy tag was removed in good faith. It was subsequently readded whence I discovered it in CAT:CSD, but generally a speedy tag shouldn't be applied twice, so here it is. This article should be deleted as a non-notable bio of a living person. Keeper | 76 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is a joke, right? Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. DarkAudit (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably speedily, as per nom. I added the second speedy tag, unaware it had already been added. Qwghlm (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly a vanity site --Jamiew (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - should have been a speedy all along. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Definite Keep - Do you think this is a joke? MoG was one of the most serious gamers in the country for the past half decade. You should treat him with much more respect.Mogowner (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mogowner (and I'm sure your username is just a coincidence, MoG wouldn't write an article about himself, would he? </sarcasm>). See my message on your talkpage. Keeper | 76 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I am not MoG - just a big fan of his. MoG has had more tournament winnings than about 3 others Smash tournament players in the US. He certainly is a notable figure. I don't see how his field of expertise, gaming, makes him irrelevant in an encyclopedia.Mogowner (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you're not MoG, you just own him? Keeper | 76 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. No coverage in reliable sources found. Barno (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Considering that pro gamers can make 5 or 6 figures a year if they're good enough, this is only above "just zis guy, y'know", and just as non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As a fellow Smash gamer I can say without a doubt that MoG has one of the best work ethics in all of Smash Brothers. The gaming community and I respect him as one of the elites among Smash Brothers, and it would be a shame to see his page deleted. Gregor04 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this. Keeper | 76 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You may think what you wish, but deleting this page will dishearten all of MoG's fans.Gregor04 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I still say delete. Keeper | 76 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources cited. No data about any alleged tournament history. jonathon (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete zero notability and almost certainly a vanity/WP:COI case (see creator's username). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Google search shows a few pages of unrelated things: a music-based community website, some companies, museums of glass, the Morgan Owners Group (I didn't check whether it's the horse breed or the three-wheeled British car), and so forth before we get to online people, and the first few are apparently about other topics such as Asian matters, "momblog", and so on. Even among supposedly real humans, Maureen O'Gara (tech quasi-journalist) hits far higher for having her published errors discussed on Groklaw than this kid scores. Average winnings $50 per tournament? My grandma does better at Bingo. Searching deeper than this morning, I still find no evidence of meeting the verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. Barno (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "He found his perfect match in the ice cream catering business,[4] where he makes as much as $10 USD an hour, including tips." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (third nomination). JuJube (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awase Kenpo Kai

Awase Kenpo Kai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability RogueNinja_talk 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, my Googling is throwing up only personal sites- nothing that looks like a reliable source. Nothing in the Google News archives or on Google Scholar. None of the cited sources or other external links in the article seem to be reliable. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete NN advert, sources are mainly primary or generally not reliable. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidene of notability. JJL (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Zoltan Øbelisk

Dr. Zoltan Øbelisk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete sourced to youtube, seems to fail WP:BAND or WP:BIO. was blanked by anon, I restored it to go through process here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7. No real assertion of notability. MySpace and a couple of youTube videos are not reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:MUSIC: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. He should probably be judged under WP:WEB not WP:BAND, but whichever, he meets none of the criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dragon American Karate

Red Dragon American Karate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Its been tagged at not notable for over a year, and it is indeed, not notable RogueNinja_talk 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: per WP:SPAM. There are five unique Google hits, including this article and mirrors, for the term. There are 85 for the soi-disant founder of this style. [6]  RGTraynor  21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Spam, almost a speedy. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not even an rabid inclusionist could support this article<g>. jmcw (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nn, ad. JJL (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic prophecies (views: BUPC)

Messianic prophecies (views: BUPC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is not referenced and appears to be largely the views of one individual. The "BUPC" is a small sect of perhaps no more than 100 individuals and the inclusion of this article in no way passes WP:NPOV#Undue weight, in the sense that this was originally part of the page Messiah. The only real reference representative of the views of this group is www.entrybytroops.org, which itself has no publishing information, or even authorship (J.T. Lamb is a pen name). As the pertinent information on this page is already mentioned on the BUPC page, I suggest deleting or redirecting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge whatever isn't already included in Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant to that article. Otherwise, this seems like a POV fork, as Cuñado indicates. ObtuseAngle (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as violating WP:NPOV - one of our core policies. I do not see how it can be fixed. Start over. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AMOK!

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

I originally just put some tags on the page, but after some research, I realized that this martial art is certainly not notable, and possibly even a hoax RogueNinja_talk 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems spammy at best, it sounds like they're basically fusing some techniques and giving it a name. Nothing special about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete in our country, nag-aamok (Running amok) is simply somebody that is very angry. Kidding aside, I doubt that a martial art like this exists or is notable. Joint manipulation is the realm of silat, weapon fighting that of modern arnis and grappling or wrestling that of dumog and buno.---Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, then edit. I don't think it's a hoax, as there is such a thing as Philippine knife fighting. The article, however, seems to me like a school such as "Tapondo" (a type of combat aikido originated from the Philippines) rather than a unique martial arts system. Starczamora (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment knife fighting is under arnis.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, advert or just NN, possibly any combination of the above, the bit on physics is making me lean towards hoax but is could be just very bad promo text. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep legitimate system that has rising interest; many seminars being held on it worldwide (search for "Tom Sotis" AMOK). Has an article in Masters of the Blade [7]. JJL (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• When I do the search you mentioned I come up with: Websites run by his organzation, message boards, and places he sells things, but nothing that satisfies WP:V RogueNinja_talk 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The search verifies that he and his org. are international and active, does it not? I was using that only to verify that there is active interest in AMOK! as evidenced by seminars. The book verifies its existence and being selected for inclusion in the book is an indication of some measure of notability. JJL (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- per JL argument vis masters of the blade, there is some evidence it's notable, and lack of apparent English sources for now should not prevent it from continuing, I suspect more sources can be adduced with time. also, the creator of the page, who has been around since 2004 it seems, while having a very infrequent posting tally, appears more like a single subject contributor, not a hoaxer. What sort of hoaxer has so few posts in 4 years, consistently posting an average of 1 per month for a handful of articles?JJJ999 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Needs some secondary sources. as the article stands now, delete. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Reads like spam, the links point (with some difficulty) to websites all but independent. It looks like a minor fighting technique somebody is trying to advertise, and this is not the place to do that. Goochelaar (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beckermonds

:Beckermonds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Article was new a while ago and left it alone advising the author that it should be expanded upon to show WP:N. No additions of Notability have been added since and the article was Prod. Prod removed by author without explanation, Reverted and removed again by User:UsaSatsui with the statement "This appears to be describing a geographical location, which are generally considered notable (unless you can show it doesn't exist)." [8].

Delete I don't think that an article with "This town is here between here and here is notable" WP:N requires that there be something more then this. Otherwise, the location of my house will become notable. See Munster, Ontario for an example of what I'm talking about. There's only like 1000 people in the town and if you blink while your driving, you'll miss it... but the article has something that makes it notable. Pmedema (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography--Pmedema (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, unless once again, you can show it's a hoax (the article doesn't really have any proof this place exists). According to the common outcomes page, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size". And for the record, 1,000 people is a good-sized town. I've been through much smaller towns than that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• • comment Munster, Ontario was being used as a GOOD example of an article which shows notability.--Pmedema (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I know. But just being a village is enough. And you were implying 1,000 people is small. It's not that small.  :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Towns/villages/settlements are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, settlements are inherently notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Thorpe (soccer)

James Thorpe (soccer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Yet another player who fails WP:BIO because he has never played in a fully professional league. Delete per ample precedent, including this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep yes he hasn't played in a game yet, but was drafted in the MLS and was named Division 2 Player of the Year Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although he may not be the "Jim Thorpe" of soccer, this player does have notability beyond his famous name, in that he's won some "player of the year" recognition on the Division II level. Mandsford (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think being player of the year in a minor league make someone notable. We don't allow player of the year from Football Conference teams an article, even though they play in a mostly pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment That's not true, most players in Football Conference and, in fact, a large proportion in the Conference North and South have pages. BigKennyK (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but it is true. The only players in the Conference who have articles are those who have previously played in the Football League. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Significant achievements at an amateur level (championships, player of the year) do fall under the secondary criteria for athlete notability. Although what a player being drafted means in respect to Wikipedia notability has not been specifically defined (AFAIK), common sense should dictate that it falls under the same criteria. BigKennyK (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you have misunderstood the criteria. When it says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", it refers to sports where there is no professional level rather than the amateur level of professional sports. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I disagree with that interpretation. The existence of a professional league in a sport should not automatically de-notabilize someone just because they had only participated at the amateur level. There are an awful lot of Olympic figure skaters, Olympic soccer players, etc who have not turned pro (although, pro options exist). In the past, many sports prohibited participation in the Olympics if you had turned pro... Are you claiming that they are not notable, if they did not go on to play professionally later? Neier (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • • Anyway, the USL Premier Development League is actually the highest level of amateur football in the USA. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but you are talking about playing at international level. This guy has not done that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Olympics holds its own notability criteria. This guy hasn't played in the Olympics and has not played at the highest amateur level at a sport which has huge pro options anyway. Simply fails WP:BIO by a long way. If he turns pro and plays a game, recreate it. Peanut4 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Now that I have deleted the copyvio from here, there is not a single word of text left. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant - we don't vote on the current content of articles, but rather whether or not the article could ever reach an encyclopedic status. ugen64 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why I made it a comment, not a vote. However, no content means no claim of notability, and that is grounds for deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, that doesn't remotely resemble Wikipedia policy. We're voting on whether the subject of the article fits the notability standards, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual substance of the article. BigKennyK (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment is of limited truth:

a) this is a discussion, not a vote;

b) Any article about a person must contain a legitimate claim to notability. If the article has no text, that might be said to be missing. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly recreate, as the orginal article was a copyvio, even though it was removed, it's still in the history, and there are no versions that can be used. Also I doubt a Developmental League player is notable. Secret ^account 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Has achieved nothing. Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless he makes an appearance for a team in a fully professional league. Robotforaday (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete has not played in a fully professional league, when he does do so, recreate it. There has to be a cut-off point, and having played in a professional league is where the cut off point lies. King of the NorthEast 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - without prejudice, per no pro appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as soon as he crosses the white line, he's notable. Until then, he's a wannabe and not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Whilst only considered by a few editors the consensus and argument showed a clear call to delete. --VS ^talk 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sukhdev Singh Jalwerha

Sukhdev Singh Jalwerha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prodded article, prod was "not notbale in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people) . Google results are just Wikipedia mirrors. Also seems to be a relative of the article creator.". I am disputing the prod because I think this person may have some notability if sources can back up the article's claims, so I feel it should have an AFD. This is a procedural nom (for the moment). UsaSatsui (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been succintly presented by UsaSatsui the article will be notable as per wiki standards only if the claims that are made are backed by third party reliable sources. Moreover the article seems to have lot of very personal information which should idealy be removed. LegalEagle (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete because there are no reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The article is almost certainly written by a relative (probably son) of Sukhdev Singh Jalwerha (the user name is Sunnybondsinghjalwehra and he is from Belgium). Of course, you can keep the article if somebody finds reliable sources like newspapers or journals for claims like "first Sikh in the world to get a political stay as a refugee" and "first turbaned Sikh in Belgium" after winning a major court case. These claims are currently unsupported and there are no reliable sources. Things like leading a protest of 70 people and opening an International Council of Khalistan Branch in Belgium is no indication of notability. I can open an International Branch of Jesusland in Peru today. I can organize a group of 70 intelligent design supporters and protest against teaching of evolution in schools. Who cares? There are no reliable sources for even this. WTF is "Jathedaar of Belgium" appointed by "President Dr. Aulakh"? Khalistan doesn't even exist and therefore "President Dr. Aulakh" and Jathedaars appointed by him are of no significance. And need I mention that even among Khalistan supporters, "President Dr. Aulakh" is recognized as the leader of Khalistani movement by just one small faction. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Neuhaus

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

Seem to fail WP:BIO. A failed legislative candidate. No evidence of "significant press coverage" of his career as school board trustee. Sounds like an upstanding citizen who had an unexpected death, sad but unencyclopedic. Bellhalla (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While there are a fair share of independent news agencies that covered him, I can not assert with absolute certainty that it satisfies WP:BIO. It might be considered a close call. The man lead a robust military career, became an entrepreneur, and in later years; a politician. One of his sons is also an established actor, which has attained notability from the NY Times, IMDB, TV.com, TBS, and others.^[1][2][3][4]   — C M B J   22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the references you provided seem to show that Ingo Neuhaus, may be notable. Unfortunately, those don't seem to be valid reasons for keeping the Jim Neuhaus article. (See WP:NOTINHERITED) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Some minor accomplishments but see WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

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

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

The result was conditional temporary keep for now, and if this does not get translated, please relist this article to the AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Büyük Kaçğun

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

The article is all in Turkish and it have a copyright message at the beggining. I think it is enough to delete it. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The copyright message says it is GNU, if it is not copied from semewhere else then there is no problem with this.

• Delete What is this, anyway? DarkAudit (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It appears to be an article on Ottoman history; it might be worth including in translation, if anyone wants to take it on. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• transwiki then maybe translate.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and relist (or prod) if not translated within two weeks. That is the standard procedure for non-English articles. Why should this one be treated any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per limited consensus and precedent. Keeper | 76 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J. E. Sherrill

J. E. Sherrill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Only one reference listed pertains directly to subject and, as an obituary, seems not to consist of "significant press coverage" of his mayoralty of Bovina, Texas Bellhalla (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO for public officials. No significant non-local coverage to warrant inclusion. DarkAudit (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, ample precedent for small town mayors. Noble Sponge (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J. C. Trevino, Jr.

J. C. Trevino, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. References listed are all obituaries, and don't seem to show "significant press coverage" of his membership on the Laredo Community College board of trustees. Mr. Treviño sounds like he was a nice man and respectable citizen, but not encyclopedic. Bellhalla (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a memorial. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Roach

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

No Texas state legislator by that name (Several with last name of "Roach"; none from Houston or named "Joe" or "Joseph"). No Congressman/U.S. Senators of that name. (One senator, one representative with last name "Roach"; neither from Texas or named "Joe" or "Joseph"). Article mayhave started out as vandalism. Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, likely hoax, no context, no nothin'. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:HOAX. It was created by anon ip back in 2005. Nothing since then. Redfarmer (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:HOAX would not surprise me. Either way, no information on a Joe Roach as a congresscritter, and no information in the article. Just says that's what he was - that's it. Where's the beef? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beau Musika

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

This one's been recreated about five times after being speedied so I'm bringing it hear. Non-notable actor who has only had minor and uncredited roles. Fails WP:BIO. Also fails WP:AUTO as it is written by the subject. Redfarmer (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Aw, Red, his birthday is tomorrow!!! Or maybe it isn't. This 14 year old doesn't turn up on imdb.com, nor is there a mention of him in summaries for Neighbours (or even another character with the name "Cooper") or Home and Again, which are long running Aussie soap operas, and his most recent roles are listed as uncredited. Not verifiable; if this is for real, then apologies to the kid, but even actors with recurring roles aren't necessarily entitled to their own article. Bravo to you for your accomplishments as a child actor, but you've got your whole future ahead of you. Happy birthday. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like something his mom or dad would post. Not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I deleted it once, and was surprised to find it listed here, but I'll play. Fails WP:BIO and judging by the creator's name, is probably a case of WP:COI as well. A dash of a WP:SALT might be useful later, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete and salt BIO, COI, AUTO, N, etc. RogueNinja_talk 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Keep. --VS ^talk 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Booth Revival Machine

Bill Booth Revival Machine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Band not seemingly meeting WP:BAND, seems almost like no notability asserted but bringing here as anon declined prod without comment. Google very quiet. tomasz. 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BAND. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's not very much on Google (being that the band is almost 40 years old), but to a niche community - The Salvation Army, they were an important cornerstone of music. As mentioned in their article, many of their songs made it into the every say SA repertoire. I really think this article could grow over time. Why not just give it a chance? It's already had one major contribution. Hobmcd (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now and the article probably needs a major rewrite in order to keep up with our WP:MOS. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PrefixNE

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

Delete advertising for NN company Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- I believe the two reviews in the external links section establish notability per our guideline. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again,

I'm the creator of the Article. Fairly new to Wikipedia, I must say that I'm a bit confused with all of this, but I still know, this Article is not an hidden advertisment.

This is a well known product, with hundreds of users world-wide. you can Google it, and you will find hundreds of reviews and talks in forums about this. I barely wrote anything about the product, non the less, any hidden or revealed advertising.

I'd be happy if you can mention specifically, what is wrong with my post, I'm more then comfortable with changing or editing it so it will be as objective as possible.

Thank you,

- Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan1982 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2008

• Very weak keep. Reviews do prove notability (barely), but the article needs to be written so a not to be a simple feature list and screen shots. This would fail WP:SPAM were it not for the reviews. A package used by "hundreds worldwide" (as stated above) may have a hard time being notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. The title Princess (film), according to the disambiguation page at Princess (disambiguation) says this is supposed to be about a Danish film. Since this particular film being considered is not crated yet, the delete opinions carry more weight. Once the "new" ABC Family film is created/verifiable, the disam page needs to be fixed when this page is recreated (and I can only assume it will be). Keeper | 76 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess (film)

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

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Television movie which has not aired and little is known about. Says plot is currently unknown. Recreate when more is known. Redfarmer (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation when (and only when) more is known. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs sourcing. The article says ABC Family is already airing promotions for the film. That disqualifies it from WP:CRYSTAL consideration. Can be rescued if someone posts a link to an ABC website or something promoting it. 23skidoo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely nothing on the ABC Family web site under the movies section. If ABC Family was promoting it, this should be one place they'd promote it. There is a listing on IMDB for the film but it's categorized as being in production and has no more information than the article. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, the article is crystalballery. Says it's under production, but it's under wraps and there's no known plot. Not even a release date. Per Realkyhick, no prejudice to recreation - but it needs to be verifiable first. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite, the link from the disambig page refers to the 2006 Danish anti-pornography animation/live action movie which probably deserves an entry NOT the ABC movie - here's it's page on IMBD:[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavie78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps delete then rewrite woudl be appropriate? How notable is that film you mention, Cavie? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite There is simply nothing here so it's of no value to anyone. If adequate references and information can be provided then it should stay. As it is now it's a waste of space. Georgiamonet (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhaela Reid

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

Fails WP:BIO, however probably doesn't meet criteria for a WP:CSD#A7. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't meet CSD A7, but it doesn't pass the notability guidelines. The source given doesn't seem to indicate notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It was already attempted to be deleted, but it was declined by W.marsh. The person contains claims of importance (published by notable papers and magazines) and was also interviewed by many notable organizations, including NPR (see external links in the main article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoon-Fan (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, fails WP:BIO. Media coverage (at least as represented in the article) is minimal at best; note the NPR piece is about an exhibit of Bush cartoons, not a feature on Reid. Precious Roy (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, with reservations. Sounds like an interesting individual who might be notable in the near future. For now, though, WP:BIO is not satisfied. Truthanado (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Two interviews in reliable sources, plus the cite from PrideSource referenced in the article satisfies WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Interviews in major news sources indicate sufficient notability. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, January 29, 2008
• Keep per SatyrTN and Dorftrottel. Aleta (Sing) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both. I've userfied BlinkingBlimey's new text, so that he can recreate the article with it. Sandstein (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Four Types of Pleasure

The Four Types of Pleasure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Who's Driving The Boat? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod (by me) and prod2 (by User:DGG) removed after expiration by anon IP without comment. Concerns were "Non-notable neologism", "neologism at best, fits into "made up in school one day". Encourage a snowball close on this. Jfire (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Obvious non-notable neologism. It does look like it was made up in school in one day. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge with Lionel Tiger (but delete Who's Driving The Boat?). While this page bears all the hallmarks of a classroom spoof a bit of Googling suggests that it is worth further investigation. A straight-forward Google search returns only six hits. A Google Scholar search for "four types of pleasure" returns 10 hits and Google Books returns 8 hits. Not that many, but a quick glance suggests that the work of Lionel Tiger does have some impact on interface design and usability. Whether this was known by the original editors or not is open to debate, but I think the term, given it's application in fields outside of anthropology, is worth keeping in some way. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that someone has used the phrase "the four types of pleasure" in a scholarly way, but I don't see any evidence that the content of the article in any way reports on such use. In fact, your links reinforce just the opposite -- that it's just something made up one day, nothing worth merging. Compare "physio-pleasure, socio-pleasure, psycho-pleasure, and ideo-pleasure" with "Arbitrary Categorization, Correcting People When They're Wrong, Solid/Liquid Interaction, and Who's Driving The Boat?" Jfire (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. (I was just about to delete these as an expired prod when the prod tags were removed, and I then failed to recall the title to bring them here myself.) The current articles seem intended as a joke. If a notable term does actually exist with another meaning then someone else can start a fresh article on that. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - An article on an inside joke between members of a Mock Trial team? Kafka Liz (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, made up in school. A slow day in the computer lab, it appears. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've taken a few minutes and re-written the article to refer to Tiger's actual four types. It needs some references to actual impact to establish notability, but unfortunately I ran out of time. However, hopefully this is a start that someone else can expand on. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort Blimey, but I think it would have been better to wait until this AfD was closed and then recreate the article. Rewriting it to refer to a different subject entirely while the AfD is in progress muddies the waters and makes it confusing for any newcomers to the AfD. Plus, it's not really clear that what you have is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia -- it's a question that needs to be debated on its own, and now it risks becoming rolled up in this AfD. If other editors agree with me, I would suggest you consider reverting. Jfire (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be wiser to purge the joke content, then start a new article with the real material, otherwise it is too easy for the jokers to revert it unnoticed back to their version in future. Perhaps BlinkingBlimey could userify the new content until the AfD is decided? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userify and Delete per Jfire. Lara❤Love 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Govende

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

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism; no evidence this had any use outside a small group of internet users. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Jfire (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ghits were mostly this article, nothing at all to establish notabilityBeeblbrox (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't understand you. Is "Ghits were mostly this article" supposed to mean something in English?

• Delete as violating WP:OR, WP:NEO, and WP:V. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed the article wasn't properly tagged as nominated for deletion; it now is. Jfire (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as an ongoing, notable phenomenon. There are thousands of hits for "govende" on Google.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Keep. --VS ^talk 07:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rayshawn Askew

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, signed in the All American Football League, which isn't playing yet, lack of Reliable sourcing as well, prod removed, Delete Secret ^account 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Punt. (In other words, delete.) The AAFL hasn't even started playing yet, doesn't inherit notability from his brother, shall I go on? Penalized five yards for illegal procedure. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He holds the record for most all-time professional touchdowns. That makes him notable I believe. I'm going to add a few references to the article. X96lee15 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was red card. Coredesat 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reiner Hasan

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

This appears to be a hoax, but I'm no expert on Italian football. It was created last October. The page name is Reiner Hasan; the article is about Domenico Lammardo. There are a few google hits, mainly in Italian. It was drawn to my attention by Towerman86. Tyrenius (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I've never heard about Domenico Lammardo here in Italy; the few google hits are about a lawyer called Domenici Lammardo or copies of Wikipedia pages. TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparent hoax. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Red card. Hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kasimir Berger

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

As the article says "occasional child actor", fails WP:BIO JD554 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Lots of "occaional" actors out there. I think one just served my lunch the other day. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete falls short of notability requirements. RMHED (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The article no longer says "occasional child actor", but from the limited filmography that is clearly the case. --JD554 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Albaitis

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

{{notability}} added and removed a couple of times. Would fail WP:BIO at the moment. Montchav (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This started as a listing for an artist with no real notability cited. Then it was turned into a huge SPAM piece by an editor with the same name as the subject[10]. I did a cleanup and then an anonymous IP removed a Notability tag and "sanitized" (blanked) the talk page[11]. So looks like allot of COI here. A Google search[12] shows the subject mass markets prints in a strong nich market (firefighter and 9/11 art) but no major permanent collection, monument, or significant critical note cited. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete seems to fail notability. --Stormbay (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amy George

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

no claim of notability since March 2007 - AFD'd as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable local TV personality. Also appears to be an autobiography, judging by this slip: "She covered one of the biggest stories of my career, Hurricane Opal after just six weeks on the job." Jfire (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be a non notable biography. The "my" comment may also be telling us something. --Stormbay (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Babbitt Fairchild

Arthur Babbitt Fairchild (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The subject's father was notable while the subject does not reach that level. He is non notable in my opinion. --Stormbay (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Stormbay. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Travellingcari (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Box.net

Box.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, advertising ~Ambrosia- ^talk 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Mmmmm, freshly cooked spam! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Appears to pass the letter of WP:WEB per its WebWare 100 award, but the article pales in comparison to the other one-click hosting sites with their own articles (see FileFront, RapidShare, and YouSendIt). Kamek (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If we were to keep articles like meebo, Xdrive_(website)#Xdrive and omnidrive, box.net is clearly credible enough. I've been using it for 2 years, and very compelling arguments were made in its first Afd: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Box.net. Notably, compared to these on Alexa, its traffic is very close to meebo's and greatly surpasses the others, and is credible enough to earn the webware award from CNet. Gigabyte (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) — Gigabyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong keep. In terms of traffic, Box.net exceeds or matches (and is growing) formerly large sites such as Xdrive and Yousendit Alexa Rankings Box has had significant press recently given the announcement of their OpenBox platform and 6 million B round of funding. Box Press page

Notable Press Mentions:

Fortune The death of the desktop

AOL Money and Finance Is Microsoft threatened by Box.net? Should Google buy it?

PCWorld Store it on the web

ZDNet Buh-bye hard drive: Box.net's online storage now directly accessible by multiple Web apps

Wall Street Journal: 1 , 2, 3

Information Week Box.net Opens Online Storage Platform To Web Services

Red Herring Box.net Gets $6M, Awaits Google's Move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.153.246 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • ...so fix it. Get rid of the pricing structure and make it sound more like an article and less like a price list. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If the article is obviously "so-fix-it"-able, we have no reason to delete it now, right? AfD isn't Cleanup® and obiously there's a big difference between "no sources available" and "no sources presently in the article (but available)". Former is a case for AfD, latter is a matter of cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my comment above. Seems to be more than marginally notable and is covered elsewhere. Possible merge material though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fr. Sauter Ltd.

Fr. Sauter Ltd. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007 Montchav (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I was looking for sources for this article a couple of days ago, and couldn't find anything substantial. PirateMink 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G.707

G.707 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007, plus numerus other tags Montchav (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Synchronous optical networking. Addhoc (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galeria Kazimierz

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

no claim of notability since March 2007 Montchav (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - A Google News search shows this was the subject of numerous secondary stories by the Gazeta Wyborcza [13]. A Polish translator would help with the improvement of this article. --Oakshade (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Chetblong^{T C} 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganbaron

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

no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need understanding of Japanese to expand the reason for AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I was under the impression that television shows on major networks were considered notable by default. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article appears notable and the category contains many related articles. --Stormbay (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garouden

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

no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need more understanding of Japanese to expand the AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Has been adapted as an anime, a film, and at least two video games, and so meets the notability requirements of WP:BK #3. The article is, however, stubby enough not to mention this -- a translation of the high notes from the Japanese Wikipedia article seems to be in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also, per style guidelines, it should be rewritten to put the novels first, then the derivative works (manga and film) afterwards. I'm not yet clear on whether the anime was based from the novels directly, or from the manga. The film is directly from the novels (it predates the manga). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the lead per the above, which means the assertion of notability per WP:BK 3 is now made, which means the deletion rationale is now invalid. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This subject appears to be as notable as the many others of this type. --Stormbay (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep if Quasirandom is correct, although I'd argue a successful manga series doesn't need all the other parts of a franchise to be notable. --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 30 January 2008 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gasser v Stinson

Gasser v Stinson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007. Other than that, I'm neutral Montchav (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V as an unreported case, no citations, possibly WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• In the US an unreported case is expressly intended by the courts to not be cited and therefore to be unlikely to be notable. I don't know what the Canadian courts' intend with unreported cases, though. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geneva School, Winter Park

Geneva School, Winter Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007. 425 students is pretty small by school standards Montchav (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ORG -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keeo. --VS ^talk 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genius Inter College, Bistupur

Genius Inter College, Bistupur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007 - previously PRODed, AFD'd as standard. I remain neutral though Montchav (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Any accredited post-secondary education institution is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. From what I can find on Google, this poorly written article is about an upper secondary school established in 2004. Some mentions found in the Calcutta Telegraph [14] [15]. School's website is defunct. Not much to go on. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While I personally believe in deleting this type of article unless there are proper sources, I think you will find that the opinion expressed by Oakshade above will prevail. --Stormbay (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glee Club (comedy club)

Glee Club (comedy club) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007 - AFDing as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• What "protocol" do you speak of? --Oakshade (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see reason to delete this. Valid and generally sourced stub. Being a comedy club chain and shows being broadcast on ITV is a claim to notability. The Birmingham Post wrote extensively about it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy

Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007-adding here as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article rambles and doesn't make a point about importance. --Stormbay (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - a VERY prestigious research institute of Columbia University. Frequently studies from this institute are reported by major outlets like The New York Times [16], The Washington Post [17], The Guardian [18], BBC News [19] and National Public Radio [20]. Just by being a research institute at Columbia is an assertion of notability. I hope this AfD ends soon because this is one that is embarrassing to Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. In its current form, the article absolutely asserts notability - the tag really should have been removed months ago. The hits listed by Oakshade above do reflect a notable institution, inasmuch as people who work there are repeatedly referred to as experts in their field. Similarly, if you run the name through Google Scholar there are almost three hundred hits, almost all of which are for scholarly articles written by people who are employed there. This article originally was created by a SPA, and subsequently lost most of its content as a copyright vio. Still, while the article needs improvement, the notability of this organization is very clear. Xymmax (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Absolute Keep the article isn't currently in the best state but I intend to work on it and have so tagged it. I think Montchav is doing the same as I am in tackling the backlog as we keep bumping into one another. I ask any admin who may come by to close please hold this through the weekend pending my work on it as I believe I can improve it to an article worth keeping. Travellingcari (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interbrand

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

no claim of notability since March 2007-Omnicom merge possible Montchav (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball keep - it's sourced and obviously notable, one of the most important and prominent branding companies in the world, operates worldwide and does work for a good number of the world's biggest companies. The notability is right here in the lead: "a full-service branding consultancy with 40 offices in 25 countries. Interbrand has an extensive list of clients, with large corporations spanning many industries..." A quick news search shows quite a few stories even in the past few weeks in reliable sources.Wikidemo (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Wikidemo, as there appear to be sufficient sources to document widespread notability. The claim of notability could be more explicit, but the facts presented make the notability fairly clear to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irlandsfronten

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

no claim of notability since March 2007. 2 previous proddings Montchav (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. The Irlandsfronten appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I duplicate an argument made on the talk page earlier: "Regarding notablity, yes this was a small organization. Nevertheless, I think there are some issues worth noting. One, that an international network of pro-IRA organizations were built up throughout Western Europe in the 1970s. This group maintained links with Sinn Fein and arranged visits there. Nowadays, SV, to which the members of the organization belonged, is a government party in Norway and I don't think it is irrelevant to include information about this group. Moreover it had 10 years of history and a continuation through the United Ireland Committee. --Soman 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)"

Moreover, I don't see the source problem. It does have only one source, but on the other hand it is highly authorative. --Soman (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I cannot make any substantial improvements of the article at this point. It is a common problem on articles on orgs that lapsed before the advent of www, that very little material is available online. If one has access to Norwegian print sources, this could be handled though. [21] doesn't any info as such, but indicates that there might be interest material on the feuds between the two pro-Irish republican groups in Norway during the 1970s. --Soman (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep — Valid stub agreed, and the topic seems politically interesting. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, a valid stub is exactly what they are, most of them. This one has adequate official sources for notability.DGG (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kalaimamani

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

no claim of notability on the article itself since March , previously propsed4dletion2007 Montchav (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The importance of these awards does not reach an encyclopedic level. They are non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If it's notable enough for The Hindu and the Times of India then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Plenty more sources at Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep well, a valid stub is exactly what they are, most of them. This one has good sources for notability.DGG (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Foods, Inc.

Kelly Foods, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no claim of notability since March 2007. Previously proposed4deletion Montchav (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The company does not appear to have a notability that is encyclopedic. --Stormbay (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment they were the subject of a couple of lawsuits but I don't know that is encyclopedic for a company that no longer exists so I lean toward delete. Travellingcari (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Glowinski

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

no claim of notability since March 2007-just fails WP:BIO, AFDing per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. Kent Glowinski appears non notable at this time. --Stormbay (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject "Kent Glowinski" is a notable figure in Federal Canadian Politics, the Canadian Legal System, the media, and the Canadian literature community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordonlamontagne (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the accomplishments and references add up to notability, even though he has not held elective office. --Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• He has received media attention for various things over the years, in particular his political activism while he was a teenager. I've started adding references; there's enough there to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. A bunch of minor media mentions does not add up to notability. Vagary (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would agree if these were trivial mentions, but they are not. Many of the articles are about Glowinski and only him. Furthermore, the articles by Mclintock and by Rowlands are full-length profiles of him. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Keep. --VS ^talk 08:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Les Légions Noires

Les Légions Noires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I firmly believe that Les Legions Noires existed and that a small number of bands released records. However, the vast majority of this article constitutes original research as it is unsourced, and is quite possibly unsourceable. I have tried to improve the article, but in the absence of sources I do not see how we can keep it. Obviously fanzines and Internet forums do not count in this instance. Equally, there is no point voting to keep this article if nothing is, or can be done to improve it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This has articles in French and Dutch, and the bands dealt with have released material on four apparently noteworthy labels. The subject has inherent notability; that said, the article is in dire need of a good cleanup, and has been for some time. The fanny parts and wild speculation should be circular-filed. Chubbles (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly the articles on the French and Dutch sites consist of what I had whittled down this article to before you reverted my changes... the only bits which can be sourced, i.e. an introductory paragraph followed by a list of bands. Regardless, appearance of Wikipedia pages does not establish notability. Releases on noteworthy labels might do, but not if the labels are 'noteworthy' for releasing LLN records. That would be circular logic. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a subject has an article in another language is not in and of itself sufficient to establish notability; however, it is usually an indication that a subject has received international attention and is probably encyclopedic. We have an entire project dedicated to writing articles that have entries in other languages (here). Beyond that, WP:MUSIC notes that bands who release enough material on notable labels may generally be considered notable themselves; it's a good benchmark for a group's popularity. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be prepared to keep the article if all of the unsourced statements are removed, which is what I had edited the article down to - a statement that these individuals exist, that they are French and that they released a small number of records (I believe it is about five across the thirty odd bands said to be involved) on notable named labels. Everything else is unsourced and/or unsourceable and hence cannot be considered encyclopedic. This is in fact what the French and Dutch pages appear to have. I am still in search of reliable sources but they do not appear to exist. There is a further problem incidentally... the text is near identical to the text on this Myspace site: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=282534767. I don't know which came first, the Myspace bio or the Wikipedia entry. The creator of the article has claimed that they have plaigarised him, but we only have his word for that. The Myspace site also has a French translation of the article, though this does not appear to be present in the French Wikipedia article. I am not sure what to make of this or how to proceed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The text of this article predates the creation of that myspace page. Chubbles (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll attempt a rewrite, but I am going to remove the unsourced rumoured material. Anyone else out there reading this who wants to help, feel free ;-). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)