Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was withdrawn, sources found, article expanded. --B (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Cowne

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

(Contested prod) This person was a reserve longsnapper/center for the Washington Redskins for a grand total of THREE GAMES during ONE SEASON twenty years ago. He is now a teacher and the assistant coach of a high school JV football team. There is no hope of ever having an article that is more than a stub about him - the only sources that exist are lists that list every single pro football player ever. The only thing this article has received since it was created was some pretty vicious vandalism. If we cannot create an article that is more than two sentences stating he exists (and we can't and never will be able to) then there is no need to have it. --B (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - He played in the NFL, therefore he is notable per WP:BIO. matt91486 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if you're concerned about recurring vandalism, perhaps try WP:Protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Please add the information you found about the details of his NFL career. It seems to be missing from the article. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This guy was in the NFL, played for the Redskins. Is notable. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is, it can't be expanded. It will never be more than a few sentences because there is nothing else to say. He played three games as an emergency center. If he were a skill position (WR, QB, RB, TE) or a defensive player, we might be able to add a paragraph summarizing statistics, but that isn't even available. --B (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Professional athletes who have played at least one game at their sport's highest level are generally considered notable. The vandalism is unfortunate, but it's no reason to delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, yes. But the general notability guideline specifies that a subject needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. But there is only trivial coverage in this case - all we know is that he is included in lists of all football players. WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event is key here - the fact that he existed, was a center, and his other general roster information should be included in an article about the 1987 Washington Redskins (which doesn't exist yet, but should). There is no good reason to have a separate article about individuals on whom there is no information available for writing an article. --B (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep would recommend going to WP:RFPP for persistent vandalism, since he made it to the NFL be it three games or not, passes WP:BIO setting a benchmark for how many games a professional national televised athlete must play in would be a matter of changing Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria notability guidelines which would have to be brought up there and agreed upon, which if it was I believe would be a mistake.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what purpose it serves to have an article that will never be expanded beyond a few sentences? That's the whole point behind the general notability guideline - if there is enough to write an article, we write it, if there isn't, we don't. --B (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see why you don't think it can be expanded. The details of what happened in his NFL career can be added, like the circumstances of why he was signed in the first place. As can highlights of his college career. This won't be that easy to find, newspapers from the early 80s aren't easy to find online, but if you check the DC papers from that time period, there will be a mention of transactions involving him. NFL players meet notability, period. Every one should, and inevitably (hopefully) will have an article on Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • He was the longsnapper for the Virginia Tech Hokies. In 1987, nobody cared about football at Tech. We were a pretty good basketball school that had been a fixture in the NCAAs under Charles Moir and actually knocked off #1 Memphis State in the 87-88 season under our new coach, but football was that thing you do while waiting for basketball season to start. The Roanoke Times sports editor, Bill Brill, hated Virginia Tech. Newspapers in other parts rarely acknowledged that Tech existed. I seriously doubt anyone was profiling our longsnapper. --B (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• I would prefer to keep the article and use protection, which hasn't even been tried yet, to deal with vandalism. It's also very presumptuous to say the only possible sources are lists compiling data about pro football players, or that there's nothing else to be said about him. He also apparently played, likely for four years, at a major university, and I'd expect at least some source material exists about his career there. For that matter, if he played for only three games in 1987, it sounds like he was one of the replacement players during the NFLPA strike that year. If so, why isn't this important fact mentioned in the article? (There was even a movie vaguely inspired by the Redskins replacement players, that has to be worth at least a "see also".) --Michael Snow (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If someone can find a reliable source saying that he was a replacement player during the strike, by all means add it. --B (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, here's a 1987 Redskins roster identifying him as one. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete). As for the WP:BIO concerns, while in the current wording, it meets WP:BIO, but fails the sourcing part that is needed for meeting the policy. The only sources found is that he exists and played three games 20 years ago. I checked the Washington Times archives, which only had one very, very trivial mention that he signed a contract in August along with a bunch of other players (which seems to me he wasn't a replacement player), as the strike was later on in the football season. Fails WP:N and WP:RS, and the sourcing part of WP:BIO. Secret ^account 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, if he signed a contract in August that probably just means he was in training camp with the team originally, but was cut before the season, then brought back again when the strike happened. A lot of the replacement players were guys like that who hadn't made it, so this was their only opportunity. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It was August 28 Secret ^account 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I find it misleading to say that the James Barker debate produced a consensus, let alone that any consensus from that could be applicable here. For one, you're talking about amateur athletes as opposed to professional athletes, which is a completely different situation. matt91486 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Create an article about the 1987 strike and include this guy's details there (the relevant content, that is), then redirect this. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A list of replacement players of the 1987 strike would be a good idea, as most of these athletes won't have the proper sourcing for an indiviual article. Secret ^account 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know how badly we need articles like this, but once we have them, we shouldn't delete them. It's a long-standing consensus that a short career in professional leagues justifies a Wikipedia article. There are plenty of entries in Category:American football long snappers. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That doesn't help the sourcing issue though. See WP:CCC, anyways most of the long snappers in that category played years and full articles can be created on them Secret ^account 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • We also have Category:1990 births, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1990 is notable. --B (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Shalom. Additionally, as people have stated here, having information on practically everything under the sun is what makes Wikipedia great; if the available information is only enough for a stub, that's fine. Cerebellum (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:EVERYTHING Secret ^account 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Contrarily, WP:NOEFFORT. Its being a stub shouldn't hurt it. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Sources - here, here, and here provide more evidence. The third source could perhaps be questioned, but it seems to be a newspaper columnists' beat report or whatnot, so I think it's sufficiently notable. matt91486 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, the Roanoke article already got put in. matt91486 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Roanoke article, that's an opinion, not a reliable source, as for the other two sources, it proves that the player exists and played and that's it. Secret ^account 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Roanoke article's content is opinion based, but it helps to verify his playing at Virginia Tech. As for proving the player exists, isn't that the point? I hardly think it hurts to leave the article as a stub when it so clearly meets the most basic requirements of WP:BIO and also clearly meets the additional requirements of who have competed in a fully professional league. Anyway, if you want a more reliable source, perhaps the Virginia Tech campus newspaper accounts might be helpful. If, as the account in the Roanoke article alleges, Cowne did carry out such a play, it would almost assuredly be mentioned in the game recap in the paper. Just because the source isn't easily available online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. matt91486 (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." most of the sources so far are trivial coverage, I also agree with B to email me those sources you found to see if it's enough. Secret ^account 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: A search of message boards has alleged that the "USA Today for October 2, 1987" has complete roster information for replacement players for the 1987 NFL strike. That source would obviously come in handy here. For interested parties, that note can be read here. Obviously, this isn't an official source, but it does give his roster number and say where the information can be found, should someone look for it. matt91486 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for commenting so many times in succession. I just decided to go through my University library to look up some stuff on online databases. Cowne is mentioned in a July 28, 1999 article in the Roanoke Times as well. But the more important thing is that Cowne was interviewed in a January 24, 1988 article feature on the Redskins strike replacements in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I'll see what I can do to incorporate these sources in the article as well. I'd give links, but I don't think the articles are visible without being logged into the network. The network is Access World News, if you search "John Cowne" in there, they'll show up pretty easily. matt91486 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, thank you for finding these. Do you have the ability to email the text to the articles to me from your library? (special:emailuser/B, obviously, don't post it on Wikipedia) If so, I'll help with the expansion. Thanks. --B (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never used the Wiki e-mail feature before, but I believe I sent the applicable excerpts your way. Let me know if it goes through or not, I copied and pasted the text so I can try resending it. matt91486 (talk) 22:47, 10 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible crisis in Western publishing

Possible crisis in Western publishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was nominated way back in the day at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Possible crisis in Western publishing. Anyway, it's a small esoteric article and seems like a pretty clear soapbox to me Wafulz (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be a soapbox as is, but it does look like critics have addressed these concerns. I would redirect to publishing (to preserve the history) and merge a sentence or two there (probably in the publishing as business section) that cites the sources provided. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:SYN. No redirect necessary - there is no way "possible crisis in western publishing" will be a search term for someone looking for info on publishing that they won't find by looking for publishing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything that can be verified into publishing as suggested. A redirect isn't necessary as the article title isn't really a reasonable search term. The article seems speculative and OR-y, but it seems reasonable that there might be at least one source on it that would warrant the information's mention in another article. One source isn't enough for a topic to have its own article, but it's enough for it to be verifiably mentioned in another. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into the main article on publishing, as it is a POV fork. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this is not encyclopedic as written and I question if the topic could ever lead to more than an essay. JJL (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to be merged. Everything faces a "possible crisis". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:22, 11 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 speedily deleted under WP:SD#G11. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S.A.F.E. (company)

S.A.F.E. (company) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

contested Prod. Spammish, created by a Single-purpose account (also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?), fails standards of notability at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). ip editor who contested prod also marked article as "b-class" on talk page, when its more like a stub. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this is spam and could fall to be speedied per WP:CSD#G11. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:56, 10 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. Neıl ☎ 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drew Doughty

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

Non-notable junior player who does not meet notability requirements per WP:N because he has not played professionally yet. Nor has he won any major individual awards or had any other honours that might indicate notability. Can be readded when and if he ever plays professionally. Djsasso (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. He played with the Canadian World Juniors, which is pretty remarkable and is currently a top prospect. Here's a Guelph Mercury article from 2006 about him. If there are more sources, I would say keep, but for now, delete and wait until he gets drafted this summer.-Wafulz (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I'm changing to keep after finding this national source.-Wafulz (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment No doubt that the national junior team is remarkable. But many players who have played on the team over the years are not noteworthy enough for an article yet. In fact one of the more dominant players on the same team as Doughty just was deleted through afd recently. Comes down to it not being the top amateur level of competition. Once he is drafted in the first round or plays pro or earns notability through an award or some such then I have no problem with him coming back. -Djsasso (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He is a top prospect for the 2008 draft. He is currently projected to go in the top three. I have added a couple of sources for this in the article. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Delete though he is a top ranked prospect, he is not the top ranked prospect. And as stated, he hasn't won any awards or played professionally. Being on the Canadian junior team isn't enough. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Was not aware he won best defenceman at the World Juniors. Still feel article should be deleted, but less so. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Note that Doughty was named the best defenceman in the World Juniors. Winning this over players such as Karl Alzner, Jonathon Blum, Ian Cole, Robert Sanguinetti, & Thomas Hickey is an incredible achievement. These players are all older and have already been drafted in the first round of the NHL Entry Draft. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Won a major award at a major international tournament, and is rated as a top-five pick at the 2008 NHL Entry Draft. This article will be recreated anyway in June when he is officially selected high in the first round, so I really don't see great reason to delete it now. Resolute 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Resolute. Patken4 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - He's a sure fire top 5 draft pick this summer. IrisKawling (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nothing is sure fire. Angelo Esposito was surefire #1 or #2 pick last year and he almost completely dropped out of the first round. -Djsasso (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Good point, but he still went in the first round, and his article's creation at about the same relative date as this one was justified. Had he went in the 3rd round or later, I'd say otherwise, but let's face it, the ISS and Central Scouting reports are very accurate these days, and it's highly unlikely that a player will fall from #2 to late stages of the draft in a 6 month period, and thus be unworthy of his own article. IrisKawling (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment No doubt but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and generally we only keep junior players who were drafted in the first round or won a major award. That being said I did not realize he was named best defenceman at the juniors so I would let it go based on that. -Djsasso (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete based on deletion of the Stefan Legein article. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a top prospect, projected to go in the top 5 in the NHL Entry draft. Not a comparision to Legein as Legein was a 2nd round draft pick. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:36, 14 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allan W Janssen

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

This writer doesn't seem to be notable per WP:BIO Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Absolutely not notable. No awards or major accomplishments. Google search shows up a couple sites, only one of which is a third party source that shows only one book that isn't widely known published by the writer. Timmeh^contribs 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete No sign that this figure meets notability guidelines. Only book, The Plain Truth About God is self-published. The creation of Allanjanssen (talk · contribs), whose most recent edits appear focussed on promoting Allan W Janssen on Wikipedia. Assume a conflict of interest.Victoriagirl (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with opinions above, non-notable and not verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The subject has identified himself as the creator of this article. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:15, 12 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of landfills in Hong Kong

List of landfills in Hong Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm just not sure this page is necessary. We do not have lists of landfills in any other locations (although we have categories for landfills, US landfills, and UK landfills) and none of the individual landfills here seem to be notable. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep that there are categories for landfills is an indicator that it's not considered a mundane topic-- nor should it be. For those who think that the topic is "boring" Lists of landfills should be thought of as "lists of places that house the tons and tons of garbage we dispose of every day". It doesn't all disappear into thin air. In the case of densely populated, tiny Hong Kong, the problem takes on special significance. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that it's mundane. What I am saying is that it seems strange that we should single out Hong Kong when we don't have such a list for any other location.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And also none of the items on this list appear to have any stand-alone notability, failing WP:LIST.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No one is making any claims that this is a boring topic, it's just not necessary. Perhaps if there were articles on each and every landfill in Hong Kong (which I think would be yet another issue), but the items on the list, as HisSpaceResearch notes, just go to short stub articles regarding the city or location of each one. I can't find how this violates WP:LIST, but it surely isn't notable. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. If we listed every landfill on the planet we could account for a lot of garbage, but to what purpose? A large apartment building houses a great number of people who collectively make an enormous impact on their community, but I don't think we'd want a list of every apartment building in Hong Kong (There isn't such a list is there?). Maybe notable landfills, such as the one in Centralia, Pennsylvania that caught fire and caused the town to be abandoned, would make an interesting resource.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful as list because the landfills are unlikely to have enough information for separate articles (and this has date and size information too). I don't know why there aren't similar lists for other places, but I think there should be; see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Compared to (say) apartment buildings, there aren't so many so as to make it unwieldy; many more people contribute to a landfill than live in an apartment building. It's a pity there's no reference but there's probably information that could be found in official documents. I don't see how it violates WP:LIST either, could you cite the part you're referring to? Rigadoun (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that it violates WP:LIST so there's nothing to cite. So far all the delete arguments have been based on notability. There are about 10,000 landfill sites in Canada, which would make for an enormous list, but would it be notable as a list? The number of landfills, the volume of garbage, the environmental impact, etc are all (arguably) notable and would make for an interesting entry, but I would still argue that the list in of itself is not notable. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

His Space Research above wrote "And also none of the items on this list appear to have any stand-alone notability, failing WP:LIST," and I didn't understand what he meant by that. Rigadoun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk

_contribs 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A notable topic in my view, and useful for anyone studying the subject. Our lack of similar articles is not a reason for deletion; I would welcome the writing of more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note that a category would not serve the same purpose, because this incorporates other helpful information about the landfills in table form. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is a directory listing of non-notable landfills. As inappropriate as a list of non-notable apartment buildings, gas stations, or restaurants in Hong Kong. No references to show that the whole collection of landfills in Hong Kong is notable. If the ultimate disposal of refuse is a problem for Hong Kong, that (referenced) fact could be mentioned in the article on the place. A listing of locations does not convey that information. Another issue, if the article is ultimately kept: Lacking references, there is no assurance that the list has not had a few hoax landfills added, or that landfills have not been omitted. Facts in an article must be verifiable and not based on the personal knowledge of the editor, or on some source he did not see fit to cite. Edison (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, mostly. Landfills are generally not important individually, and cat's would serve the same purpose. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It is no more or less important than landfills in any other jurisdiction, but not very notable and definitely not sexy. I believe that this should be part of a larger article Waste management in Hong Kong. However, not much appears to be written about the subject of landfills in Hong Kong. Most tends to be frm government sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:05, 10 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, default to keep. Poorly written, but not an ad. The Transhumanist 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (non admin closure; endorsed by Kubigula (talk)).

[edit] IBM Rome Software Lab

IBM Rome Software Lab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination; contested CSD. Tagged as CSD for advertising. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep It is poorly written, by someone with too much marketing experience, but it isn't *that* overly ad-wise. It claims notability clearly within the article as the largest software lab. It needs verification by reliable sources, but if the claims are true, then it is notable. The spammy stuff (one or two lines is all) can be deleted easily. Pharmboy (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This laboratory has been covered enough by unrelated sources to show clear notability (Techrepublic, ZDNet, FastCompany, etc.) Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The lab may be mentioned in article about Tivoli, there's no need to cover every current and historic IBM organization. Notable exceptions, like the groups working on bleeding edge hardware technologies or the once massive lab in Boca Raton are not reason to duplicate IBM corporate structure over here. Having 500 people it may not be the "largest software development company in Italy", consulting companies and large manufacturers may have large centers (all depends how "software development" is defined). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Tivoli Software is a very important brand of the IBM Software Group, one of the major divisions of IBM and the IBM Software Laboratory in Rome is IBM’s largest Tivoli development location outside the USA. For sure, this lab represents one of the most important and largest software development laboratory in Italy (see for instance, EMEA Best Student Recognition Event, etc.).--Romelab (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless proper refs are placed in the article showing multiple independent evidence of notability. I was planning to vote keep but can only get 3-GHits, and 2 are from WikiPedia. Also I can't help wondering whether User:Romelab should declare an interest :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBeale (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for a really major company, the main divisions like this are notable. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 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. To address the nominator's concerns, Bearian has added citations to the article, establishing the subject's notability. The Transhumanist 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sirsy

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

Subject is not notable. Opening for notable bands does not equal notability, as local bands do this all the time. The only claim to notability appears to be criterion 10, which states that "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page." Additionally, the notability of Dorian Blues is a bit questionable. Jonwatson69 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I would disagree with the asessment that the band is non-notable. Appearing in and contributing three songs to the film Dorian Blues. National television appearances on both cable and broadcast television. Placing in a national music competition. I believe this more than meets the minimum requirements of notability. Griff (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is just not there; there are no independent sources. The article makes lots of claims, such as "Sirsy has also written theme music for and appeared in promotional spots for Time Warner Cable and the WB Network." However, it's not obvious that this is national or important coverage, and the very sentence itself is not cited to anything. The article also claims, "In the summer of 2007 Sirsy placed in the finals of a national competition." What national competition? If these things actually happened and are notable, I am sure that you can find the sources to back up all of these claims. As for Dorian Blues, I already pointed out the its questionable notability and criterion 10's recommendation that Sirsy redirect there. Jonwatson69 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to knock you down, I want to see the article up to snuff as I believe it deserves to be listed. I've added more details about the Last band Standing competition, including a screenshot of their entry page and the top five listing. As for redirecting to the information regarding Dorian Blues, I'm not sure what you mean. Should I change the dorian link to go directly to the IMDB page, which lists the band members in the credits. I'm asking you to do more than criticize, please guide me in making the article the best it can be. As I stated, I believe that the requirements have been met. help me put them forward in the best possible way. Griff (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the article to meet notability criteria, it needs to cite independent sources. Additionally, the article now claims that "in January 2008 Sirsy made their national broadcast television debut on the television program Fearless Music. The program aired in syndication on stations throughout the United States." However, Fearless Music states that "the show only air(s) in New York and a few other metropolitan areas." That certainly isn't national, and there is no citation to prove that they appeared on this show--in fact, Fearless Music's page of bands featured on the show doesn't even list Sirsy. I actually was able to find the link to their appearance; however, it is shorter than thirty minutes and appears on a regional program. This does not meet criterion 12, which requires that a band must have "been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."

Concerning the music competition, the image you added appears to violate copyright, and it looks like some online competition through which anyone could have submitted a video. Perhaps if the band had won, it would mean something, but this stretches the limits of notability.

In regard to criterion 10, if a band's only claim to notability is composing music for a notable film, their page should redirect to the film's page. Jonwatson69 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - very well-known in Albany, been on National tours, etc. I'll get some more cites and proof of notability. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, I promised back on October 26, 2007 to work on this, but I've been busy (my Mom's final illness, work, etc.) I'm working on it now. They really are the biggest pop rock band out of Upstate New York since the Goo Goo Dolls. Their claim to musical notability is National touring, if anything. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Fearless Tv is a syndicated show see, [1]. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They meet criteria 4, 7, 10, and 12 - National/International tours, music for TV/movies, major representative of a city's style, and 1/2 hour or longer syndicated TV show. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, From all mentioned they seem notable - lots of releases, have been on tv, etc...--Him and a dog 16:40, 15 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 Leaving aside the philanthropist/TV/celeb stuff, notability is certainly demonstrated as an author: she had 7 novels published in hardcover by Doubleday. DS (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genevieve Pou

Subject does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, but the article attempts to establish notability so it's not really speedy-able. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - if the claims about her can be sourced; well known philanthropist, television appearances, celebrity status, then this should meet notability standards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but so far, the sources provided (which I did come across a couple of these during a quickie search but didn't add, as I didn't see the point) don't really establish notability as per WP:BIO, or if they do to an extent, don't satisfy WP:RS. While the claims about her are certainly interesting, as she wrote crime/mystery novels for women during an era when the genre was both dominated by and targeted to men, I've found nothing that shows that there was any greater social/cultural significance or impact that came directly from her novels, or even if her novels sold all that well or if she's won an award. The latter I would think would have been mentioned in one of the obituary-type sources if she had. I'm not hellbent on getting this article deleted; I came across it through the AfD for her husband's article (Charles D. Pou), which was created by the same editor, but I honestly can't find the sources to back it up. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, the sources provide some grounds for notability, it's not a clear decision though. Does anyone know how well her books sold? Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP -- this is an author who was a major local presence in Atlanta and is honored by her alma mater, the University of Mississippi. This article should never, ever have even been considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having been honored by one's alma mater doesn't necessarily confer notability (plenty of people are honored by their schools but aren't notable enough for Wikipedia), though at least there is a reference for this point. However, I've found nothing that demonstrates her as a "major local presence," as you say. I'd be particularly impressed by sources confirming the statements about her philanthropy or any cultural influence she had locally or on a larger scale. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia contains articles for just about everyone who's ever put on a pair of shoes in the NFL without complaint, I can't understand your reasoning behind deleting this article. Either you're from another part of the country and don't care who was prominent elsewhere, or you're just an officious nit who is looking for something to do with his copious downtime. You have not at all provided a compelling argument for deletion of this article other than its linkage to a skimpy article, itself labelled as a stub. The only argument put forth for deleting it is that you don't think she was famous enough, as if your opinion was the only one that mattered.dkendr

My reasoning is not that she's "not famous enough" but that there do not appear to be reliable sources which back up the claims that would make her notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I should also remind you that you should remain civil in your discussions here and not take it personally if someone nominates an article you created for deletion. I am all for preserving information if it can be shown that there is a strong likelihood that sources exist to back up claims of notability that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. I have looked for evidence of this and have not yet found any that I feel fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines. If you or anyone else can produce some to my satisfaction, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the votes in this thread show that there is adequate proof for anyone else who has looked; I think you are clinging to your deletion nomination for purely egotistical reasons, and that your nomination of this article was improper in and of itself. Don't act like you're doing favors by not altering the record, either.

• Keep. Seems to have more than just local notability: the New York Times has reviewed at least three of her books. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These appear to be brief "blurb" reviews that occurred in a regular feature that reviewed several crime/mystery novels at a time, which really isn't significant enough coverage, and is still about the books more so than her (though that may be splitting hairs; I'm not really sure). I think we're getting somewhere, though, as I didn't find these while I was searching for references. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who appointed you guardian of Wikipedia purity? Since you are finding more evidence to keep, I think you need to back off your position. dkendr —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 11 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 Nakon 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shree TR Boarding School

Shree TR Boarding School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

PROD contested with comment, "take it to AfD", no elaboration on that. Middle school in Nepal, no assertion of notability, no indication of school district or equivalent Nepalese concept. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete with no prejudice against recreation, as there could be sources in Nepalese or in media not available on the internet. If context for notability becomes available during this AFD and I do not leave a follow-on comment, then please discount my !vote.JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, too new for notable alumni, does not meet my fairly lax standards. How large is it? What activities does it offer? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:44, 11 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. I'll move it first to Only You Can Save Mankind (movie) for future reference.Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only You Can Save Mankind The Movie

Only You Can Save Mankind The Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by originator. Low-budget movie, release date more than a year away. No assertion of notability of its preproduction. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunately - and I'm a bit of a fan of movies like this. It leaves me with the impression that this is either a student film or an amateur film for publication on Youtube or something. I kind of hope this does something, but at this time it doesn't meet our criteria. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Only You Can Save Mankind. Pburka (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. On closer inspection, this film does not seem notable enough to be merged. Pburka (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced article about a non-notable low-budget film. The article's lack of sources means it probably fails WP:V Ohconfucius (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Only YOU can delete Only You Can Save Mankind The Movie per everyone, non-notable, low-budget = very yes. ViperSnake151 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of notability determined by verifiable coverage from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:18, 11 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, since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lhikan

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are primary sources and forum posts.. Ridernyc (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional character with no notability outside of the Bionocle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable character, poor sourcing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Nicely put together article that is sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sourced? Where? Where are those reliable independent secondary sources? "bzpower.com" is a fan forum -- not acceptable as a reliable source. "biosector01.com" is a fan wiki -- not acceptable as a reliable source. "bioniclestory.com" is obviously not independent. So where are they, those independent secondary sources that show real-world notability? Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 04:34, 11 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Erven Jackson

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

Wikipedia is not a news source. Jonathan § 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Jonathan § 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Quick check for news or other press, 0 results. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the article fails the biographies of living persons as unsourced controversial information... borders on an Attack page. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:22, 10 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. Phoenix-wiki 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of films featuring May-December romances

List of films featuring May-December romances (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate list based around a dubious neologism. We don't even have an article for 'May-December romance', so it seems absurd to have a list of films that feature them; and without any clear criteria for what constitutes such a romance, any decision to add/remove a film to this list is ultimately arbitrary. In other words: this list is unverifiable, non-neutral and basically entirely original research. Terraxos (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment May-December romance redirects to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Obviously the naming of the article according to a neologism is poor and needs to change. I think the article could be imporved but I cannot see anyway this can ever have any solid criteria. Terms like social disapproval are weasely --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The last time this was put up for AfD, I added about thirty refs for the films, and that seemed to satisfy people. I'm a bit lazy to do that again, but MDRs in film and otherwise are discussed in a lot of scholarly articles, especially ones interetested in feminism. I don't have the energy to create a page all about it, or add another bunch of refs, so the best I can do in 30 seconds of google searching is point out this google news search which seems to point to the "neologism" being quite common. Also, it's actually a term that dates from at least the 1940's, and is probably a lot older, so our rules about neologisms don't really apply. I think I'd call it more of an old saw, if anyone is old enough to know that term for "saying." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept I was wrong to call it a 'neologism', but I still don't think it's an appropriate title for the page. If it is kept, it should be renamed to something neutral like List of films depicting a relationship with a significant age disparity - which shows what a silly topic for an article this really is, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and do not rename. Keep for the reasons of Peregrine Fisher. Do not rename because WP:NAME says an article should prefer what the greatest number of speakers would recognize. In film, these romances are known as "May-December" they are not known as "Films depicting a relationship with a significant age disparity". What is the supposed non-neutrality of "May-December" anyways? I'm really quite curious to hear that one. --JayHenry (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, sources are available, and the name is the customary one. It is not indiscriminate, since it is limited to major films which have a WP article. DGG (talk) 19:09, 10 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. John254 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Brown (creationist)

Walt Brown (creationist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Some editors are concerned about the "long term" notability of subject. They assert that short term bursts of press coverage does not establish long term notability. Ra2007 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep I don't buy this idea that "long term" this person will be less notable. How could we possibly judge this in an objective way? The whole idea reeks of crystal ballism (yes, I know that's not the intended use of the policy, but its spirit certainly applies here). If we adopt the notion that at some point in the future a currently notable subject might somehow become non-notable, then we might as well delete every article on Wikipedia since this is true for all of them. I see no other reasonable grounds for deleting this article. Gwernol 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Notability is not Temporary - If something was once notable - it is always and forever notable. Notability seems to have been established in this case by the inclusion of significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - Fosnez (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep We did not try very hard to establish notability. I found a lot of material in just a few minutes.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should we speedy close? Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• After an hour? I have no opinion, but most of the sources in the article are extremely far from reliable. I would very much like to see some proper references. bikeable (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then help me find more. I think that creationist references for a creationist are not too bad. And also we have some from talk origins which is reliable. And we have some from NCSE which is reliable. And Christian Broadcasting Network. It is getting there. But help me find more.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• May I suggest that Speedy Keep (and a resulting speedy close) nominations, on the basis of citations that were almost all added within three hours of the start of the AfD (including a number made since it started) are, to say the least, premature. A number of them are patently unreliable or both include mention, and substantiate points, that are too insubstantial to warrant mention in an article. The remainder (almost exclusively) from the 'trenches' of the evolution/creation conflict, from whence it very easy to find mention of even such laughably featherweight creationists as Casey Luskin and Salvador Cordova. It is possible that the new citations will add up to notability, but it is not as yet clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Grudging keep this creationist is not even mentioned in Ronald Numbers' authoritative and comprehensive The Creationists (which gives a few pages of coverage each to numerous creationists too obscure to have warranted a wikipedia article), raising considerable doubt as to his notability. The substantiation of his notability that has been offered on his article to date amounts to a couple of unreliable creationist/dominionist sources and an unsubstantiated claim that, 14 years ago, his hydroplate hypothesis got a 5 minutes mention in a two hour special on Noah's Ark. I don't think mention by either CBN or NCSE estalbish his notability as (1) CBN isn't particularly reliable, and Christian news outlets frequently cite obscure creationist sources (e.g. this recent article's mention of the obscure Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation); (2) although reliable, the NCSE has a strong focus on the Evolution/Creationism issue, so could be expected to, at times, take issue with the claims of even obscure creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC
  • Comment: I see that a wave of citations have been added to the article since I last looked at it. However, I note that a number of them are of doubtful (and in the case of Babu G.Ranganathan, a notorious crank, laughably poor) reliability. I have yet to see one that is not likewise covered by my caveat to NCSE above, but will need to look into this more carefully. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This "wave" seems to include an incredible amount of cruft -- e.g. the fact that Brown managed to get himself onto a couple of website links lists (one of them of a creationist organisation) found its way into the article's lead. This is hardly "significant coverage", and is perhaps indicative of a hurried attempt to establish Brown's notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he is almost as notable as Kent Hovind I would say, at least without the jail sentence.--Filll (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree -- Hovind is much more colourful than Brown, so got a lot more mainstream media coverage, even before his legal difficulties. In any case, it is not about what either of us would "say" it is about what we can verify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

True. But a half dozen or more mentions in the NCSE journal, plus being appointed to a government committee, plus in a few Christian publications and some skeptic publications, plus being in some controversies and attacked by fellow creationists, all make for good material. He is notable.--Filll (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But how much of the above could you also put together for an obvious featherweight like Casey Luskin? The "government committee" was in fact a state board of education appointed review-committee, where each member of the board was allowed to pick a single member -- of very marginal notability therefore. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I must admit to finding it absurd that Brown's hermit-like unwillingness to engage with either evolution supporters or even other creationists, which is probably one of the primary reasons for his obscurity, is being used (often via quite fleeting and unsubstantive mentions of it and thus him) to bolster the number of citations to make him look notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: notability is not temporary, but I suspect much of the coverage of Brown is. As I have said, much of it is from the trenches of the evo-creo conflict, where it is today's battles that are of concern, not the historical record. Much of it therefore is likely to be replaced with content on tommorrow's battles. However wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I will leave that issue for tomorrow, and grudgingly ascribe Brown a marginal measure of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vindication! Goo2you (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No you pathetic and vainglorious little ...."soul", this is in no way "vindication" of your repeated([2][3][4]) removal of a legitimate notability template, and insertion of unreliable sources -- disruptive editing that necessitated this (as it turns out, otherwise unnecessary) AfD. It was not until Filll (and to a lesser extent Ra2007) added considerable reliable citations that this template should legitimately been removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise to the wikipedia community for the above personal attack, and retract it. That the editor in question saw fit to crow over me both here and on my talk page that the consensus on this AfD was in some way vindication of his prior disruptive and ineffectual defence of the article's notability made me more than a little irate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep According to google news there are many newspapers that mention him. See this search. Specific examples (which might make sense to add to the article) [5], [6] [7] (unfortunately require subscriptions). All of those three seem to be reliable sources talking about Brown's involvement with school boards trying to get them to teach creationism. They come from newspaper accounts and don't seem to have any serious reliability issues. And there are other examples as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice CBS News even quotes him. This guy is obscure, but not THAT obscure.--Filll (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, obviously and self-evidentially notable to almost all. Goo2you (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - sources used are tenuous and not the greatest, but there are so many mentions of him that I'd say he passes WP:N. WLU (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 12 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. With the exception of CyberGhostface, arguments to keep are all "But I like it!". Neıl ☎ 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoffman (Saw)

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

Delete - prod removed by anon without comment which, whatever, way to back up your opinion there sport. Anyway, article fails WP:NOT#PLOT as it is nothing but a rehashing of the plot of the works in which the character appears. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article simply needs some more info about the character from an outside source (interviews, etc), and it will be easy enough to obtain with the release of the Saw IV DVD, always loaded with commentaries and special features about the direction and creation of certain characters. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• DVD commentaries are not independent sources. Even if they were, assuming that there will be interviews and special features about this character can't support the existence of the article. There may be no information offered about this character for all we know. Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- just a rehashing of the plot -- and no reliable secondary sources means no real-world notability. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I'll preface this by saying that I really don't know much about Wikipedia's policies concerning what consitutes an appropriate article, but it seems like this article has merit based on the fact that Jigsaw's other apprentice, Amanda Young, also has an extensive entry. The Saw franchise has already been approved for fifth and sixth installments, and it is a reasonable assumption that this new protégé will play a large role in the new films. Therefore, if this article is deleted for whatever reason, another is simply going to pop up in nine months when Saw V is released, since it will contain far more material related to this character which could easily be used flesh out the article. And I guess I also need to say that this isn't a dummy account or anything. I've used Wikipedia for a while, and have always been interested in contributing to it. Seeing this article marked for deletion (one that i just browsed to and utilized) prompted me to become involved. --Fiduch (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC) — Fiduch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep He is vital for the story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.253.163 (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) — 212.62.253.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep: Agreed, he is vital for the story. --Rutherfordjigsaw (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Why delete it, when more to his story is to come. --Morton Christopher (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Agreed --Fantasy Entertainment (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• To everyone saying keep without actually addressing the objections to the article laid out in the nomination, did any of you maybe...wanna address the objections laid out in the nomination? Otto4711 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Memorable character in a notable franchise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no real world context. northing to assert notability outside of the franchise. No sources at all. Ridernyc (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although someone will undoubtably start swinging around the WP:CRYSTAL tag after I say this, Costas Mandylor (the actor whose played Hoffman) is set to appear with a much bigger role in the next two films, given that the ending of Saw IV set him up as the new main antagonist. Even as it is, he's already given a couple of interviews regarding the film, and it shouldn't be too hard to find critical commentary about his character and Costas's portrayal of him in reviews. If this was a minor character in a direct-to-video Asylum flick, I'd support its deletion. But given how popular the Saw franchise has become, and how important Costas Mandylor's character has become to the series, his article should be kept.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, found some interviews.[8][9][10][11][12]--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment nothing has changed to address the concerns raised by the nominator. Still non-notable, all the sources found are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Entirely plot summary with no secondary sources to indicate notability. It's doubtful acceptable sources independent of the subject exist to establish notability or to provide any sort of real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Rutherfordjigsaw and User:Morton Christopher have very similar user pages (nearly exact copies of each other with only one userbox being different) and they voted within three minutes of each other. I found this thread at WP:ANI from a few months ago, but nothing came of it. I doubt they are socks, but I believe that they might be meatpuppets and are votestacking. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep important character. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:51, 16 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 and Redirect to Hubble's law. Nakon 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hubble Constant

The Hubble Constant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Band has a few mentions mainly on gig guides and some reviews but no non trivial articles to suggest notability per WP:MUSIC. Article is not very well written and is mostly quotes from reviews. No real signs of it being improved. neonwhite user page talk 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hubble's law. The Hubble Constant is an important astrophysical and cosmological constant in first place.147.175.98.213 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per 147. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per anon. However, I have doubts if users are likely to add the "The" while searching for the Hubble Constant--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - keep or delete. Why would we re-direct a band's name to a scientific article, when someone might be looking for one or the other? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hubble Constant is an important concept in astrophysics. This band on the other hand is completely unimportant. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article needs clean-up, but it does cite multiple reviews in reliable sources; these seem sufficiently non-trivial to me. That qualifies them under WP:MUSIC criterion #1 and I do not feel that those above calling have sufficiently addressed why the reviews given are insufficient. The band has also toured extensively, so WP:MUSIC #4 may apply. They also have a number of releases on what might be considered a "more important indie label" under WP:MUSIC #5. So, not an easy case to consider and, as I said, clean-up required, but there appear to me to be several indicators or possible indicators of notability. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article, in fact, does not cite any sources whatsoever, if you know of any sources that aren't in the article then present them here or add them. The only article that would be of interest would be an article in metal hammer, however no evidence that this actually exists can be found. A handful of live reviews on local gig guides just isnt enough for notability. There has to be something to write in the article so it isnt a permanent stub. Claiming a band has toured is not a criteria for notability all bands tour, not all bands are notable. None of those indie labels have any history or importance, in fact i cannot find any evidence that Post Collapse Records actualy exists or existed. All current evidence points to this being a band with little more than local notability. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. A review in Metal Hammer is cited; under WP:AGF, it would seem reasonable to assume it exists, although a specific citation would be preferable. I accept the other reviews indicate little. Not all bands tour and a national tour is a criterion under WP:MUSIC. This act appear to be touring beyond a local area, but I accept that this is unclear and not sufficient supported by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The review in metal hammer is not cited in the article. Assuming good faith is a behavioural guideline on how to discuss in a civil manner it has absolutely nothing to do with citing sources. Please read that policy carefuly. All sources must be cited properly, we cannot assume they exist. We need to know whether the mention is more than the quote in the article, if it is merely a passing remark about a supporting act within the context of a larger review then it would only be a trivial mention. At the moment there is no evidence of a national tour reported in reliable secondary sources. --neonwhite user page talk 18:49, 16 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, defaults to keep. Nakon 21:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TelSell

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

Non-notable company/TV shopping channel - I think. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is apparently the QVC of Britain. The article is thinly and poorly written, but I think notability exists. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, you could be right. But it's a Dutch company. How do you know it's the "QVC of Britain"? Is that anything more than an opinion?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • • • It is opinion, in the sense that I didn't read that anywhere. However, a Google search, website browsing and a couple painful watches of some YouTube video certainly made it seem so. I was confused about the Dutch thing too, especially since their website isn't in English. Very puzzling indeed. You could convince me otherwise of this one, I suppose, based solely on how strange it is :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If it really were the QVC of Britain, there'd be more English-language coverage than there is. Using Google News Archive and restricting the source to BBC News, I get 16 articles with mentions of QVC somewhere in them. Whereas I get nothing for this subject. (The web page cited in the article isn't in fact a BBC News article, notice.) Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually the QVC of Britain is called..................... QVC. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, English language sources are thin but there may be more substantive material in Dutch. Parts of the Antilles website are in English, and they seem to have a UK office in Suffolk, but it does seem a bit dodgy. Obviously the EU has erased many barriers to such businesses existing. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• As Dhartung notes, there are a few news articles in Dutch that mention this company. But they either are trivia or aren't really about it. One is a bare report of a credit-card theft from the company, with no details. Most are actually about advertising for a product called Biostabil. A few others are actually about a television presenter called Martijn van den Bergh. The discussion of TelSell amounts to the fact that these people/things appeared on the channel. Finally, there are a few discussions of some works of art, parts of which are "TelSell-like", and some discussions of shopping channels "such as TelSell". There are a few mentions in books, but those are merely as examples of shopping channels, too. There are other TelSells on the World Wide Web which aren't in fact this company. I cannot find anything that actually documents this subject itself, in Dutch or English. The PNC is not satisfied. An annotated entry in List of Dutch television channels is all that the available sources appear to support. Merge to there. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'll look into sourcing tomorrow, it has been recently announced (this week) that TellSell is on the verge of bankrupcy, which ironicly might have generated some notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2622436/Telsell-klanten_dupe_roof.html?pageNumber=2
  • http://www.nrc.nl/economie/article887248.ece/Tel_Sell_failliet_verklaard
  • http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2970279/_TelSell_op_randje_van_faillissement__.html
• Those are two major Dutch newspapers (2 of the largest, and 1 of probably the most respected). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Switched to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - if it is the QVC of Britian, I haven't heard of it. Will ^(talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Will, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a good argument to use in deletion discussions. Just for future reference.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided (the BBC article doesn't really qualify). Terraxos (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Dutch cultural commentators Fokke & Sukke (http://foksuk.nl/) are referring to it in their cartoon of 10 January - and I didn't know what TelSell was, so I went directly to ... Wikipedia, where it was succinctly explained that TelSell is a TV program of home shopping. Why would anyone want to delete an article documenting a culturally significant (even if only a little significant) TV program? especially one that has ties to different European countries (based in NL, broadcast in UK)? I think the onus should be on those who want to purge what they consider excess information from Wikipedia to prove that it is excess, rather than the purgers proposing to delete information and having their way by default if no one objects. It's an *encyclopedia* - which means, among other things, that it's a repository for significant information no matter how banal or whatever the objection is here. Jeepers... Dveej (talk)
• Delete, I can't find anything from which to write an encyclopedic article. Hiding T 12:02, 14 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 (re)Redirect by Dennis The Tiger (non-admin close). —Travis^talk 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pistachios

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

Pretty obvious hoax. No references or external links. Google search (predictably) turns up nothing. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note The article started out as a redirect to Pistachio, but someone changed it to this story (and a lot of hard work!) on December 3, 2007. We can probably simply speedily redirect - I'm going to lunch, and unless someone has issues before I get back, I'll do as much. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect per Tanthalas39. Original redirect was created two years ago. —Travis^talk 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect. If possible, nuke for purposes of history elimination for a game that appears to have been made up in school one day. Already redirected, as per WP:BOLD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 9 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MysticSpiral

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

Author removed PROD tag without explanation, so here we are: Multiple searches turned up absolutely nothing to back up the claims in the article. This “band” does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. —Travis^talk 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This is not to be confused with the fictional band Mystik Spiral —Travis^talk 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nowadays, chances of selling millions of albums without getting Google hits are... well, quite low. I think this band was made up less than two hours ago. -- Pepve (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Can we get this under CSD 11? Taemyr (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t think so. I did tag it for {{db-band}}, but then the article was edited to include claims of notability. —Travis^talk 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as hoax - there's no way those claims about album sales are true. Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoax is not a speedy deletion criteria. In general it is felt that there should be general discussion before concluding that something is a hoax. Taemyr (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Sc straker (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If deletion is the outcome, we might want to make this a redirect to Mystik Spiral. -- Pepve (talk) 20:52, 11 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Delly

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

Author removed PROD tag without explanation, so here we are: A search turned up a few minor web hits, but nothing to back up the claims in the article. Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. —Travis^talk 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I poked IMDB with some of the mentioned movies, nothing turned up. I believe the claims to fame are false. (Note: I arrived here because an unrelated band's article (Flyleaf) was edited to say that Delly was part of them.) -- Pepve (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:25, 11 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. Nakon 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legend: legacy of the dragons

Legend: legacy of the dragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As a browser-based game this is conceivably a Speedy deletion under criteria A7 (web based content; does not assert importance) but as it has a fair edit history, decided to bring it to AfD instead. Article shows no notability or independent references (WP:V), google search for "Legend: legacy of the dragons" -forum -wiki has only 24 hits, so chances of meeting our notability threshold is low. Marasmusine (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 10 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 Nakon 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SVASE

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

Non-notable organization per WP:CORP Luke! (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 10 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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Rammstein Album

New Rammstein Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced speculation (even the title is extremely vague) about a possibly upcoming album. Unfortunately, WP:CRYSTAL isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, or I would have taken care of it myself. I think classifying it as spam is a bit of a stretch, so I'm posting it here instead. Kafziel ^Talk 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that their next album won't be entitled "New Rammstein Album," either. RJC ^Talk 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow. More singing, more growling. I wouldn't expect anything less from Rammstein, but unfortunately that's all we have, is vague talk about some of the possible content. Let's wait until Rammstein actually comes up with a name and at least a semi-concrete release date, 'k? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent Will ^(talk) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against recration but only if they change the name to "New Rammstein Album." --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I look forward to an article on Rammstein's "screaming/growling" once there is substantial information available - as the template notes, once it is "scheduled or expected". This doesn't appear to be the case yet, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, should have been speedied as the title gives it away. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• but there's still no relevant speedy criterion, unfortunately. tomasz. 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. fails the Forthcoming Album Article Test Triumvirate: no title, no tracks, no sources. tomasz. 11:55, 14 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 Nakon 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voya Nui

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

original research plot summary about non-notable locations in the Bionicle universe no real world context and only primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Unless notability is established through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:FICT. Terraxos (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doubtful that secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:52, 11 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. Nakon 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metru Nui

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

original research plot summary of a fictional location. No real world context and no sources other then primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless notability can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT. Terraxos (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep Has good information about bionicles that is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia.Swirlex (talk) 13:19, 12 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 Nakon 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artakha

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

original research plot summary from the bionlce universe. No real world context and the only sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless notability can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT. Terraxos (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep well put together and referenced article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability is shown. The sources on the article are poor at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:18, 14 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. Nakon 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meredith Emerson

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

NN murder victim, quotidian crime. We are unable to write a biography of Ms. Emerson, because there aren't multiple non-trivial reliable sources about her disinteresting life. The crime which is her death is 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)also not remarkable, although of course reported on by the media, as all murders are. WP:V and WP:N refer. Delete. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'uninteresting', not 'disinteresting'. The latter isn't even a word. Other than that, I agree with your stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be best (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. 'Disinteresting' is indeed a word, derived from 'disinterest'. Technically it shouldn't be used as synonymous with 'uninteresting' but in practice it increasingly is. tomasz. 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I could see your normative point. Thankfully, my liberal linguistics professors taught me that there is no one right way to speak (really?) and that it's counterproductive-bordering-on-racist to be normative about language. I didn't agree with them then, but I will now :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not racist to use the right word. 'Disinterest' means 'objective, unbiased'. 'Uninteresting' means 'boring, of no interest, no importance' etc. People mix up 'who's' and 'whose' all the time too, but that doesn't make it right. However, this is an uninteresting digression, and as a disinterested commentator, I will desist.Be best (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, in certain faculties of certain universities, they are keenly on alert for any manifestation of racism. You see, the notion of a 'standard' dialect is an inherently racist concept, as the 'standard' one is normally just set to the one spoken by the straight white men with money and in power. Didn't you know? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you really that insecure that you have to call anyone who corrects your language usage a racist? --Koreanjason (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Being a murder victim is not a claim to notability. Resolute 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Alright then, how about merging with an entry on the murderer or an entry on the murder(s) themselves which are pretty macabre? El Puello Diablo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, not a notable crime. Encyclopedias are not crime blotters. Dahmer yes, Berkowitz yes, jack the Ripper yes, Emerson no. That's Allstate's stand. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The story was front page news on CNN.com and most other news outlets. See any of those other sources to cross-reference or fill in the details. Moreover, her murderer is suspected of being a serial killer,[13] making the crime all the more notable. MaxVeers (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Another day, another grisly murder. Move on please, there's nothing notable here. WWGB (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP This is my biggest problem with Wikipedia, the alleged free encyclopedia. There are other murder victims on this reference Web site, so how come not her? Wikipedia would be doing the public and journalists a huge disservice if the death of Meredith Emerson was not written about. And let's not forget that major newspapers and networks have been following this story. - Newseditor76, 5:47 p.m. EST, Jan. 9, 2008.
  • Would you please express your argument in terms of policy or practice? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Might you all wish to see Jose Luis Aquino and Zaydra Pena who were both murder victims WHO BELONGED TO A SEMI-NOTABLE BAND but which the article was unfairly deleted and the idea was rejected at WP:DRV with but three votes to thecontrary of my well-explained reasoning? You might want to think about not deleting articles that DROVE FEAR INTO THE HEARTS OF MANY before keeping simple ones like this. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please do not misuse this deletion debate. It is not the place for you to contest previous deletions or object to core policies like WP:NOT. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I created the page because I found that the an entry for Meredith was on on MWWS page on wikipedia, but no article on her. It may be too early to say that if the article should be removed. If this article is being removed, then I think it would require review of other articles too, e.g. Chandra Levy - not sure how many of them still remember her.Chirag (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not even a good WP:POKEMON! Chandra was going out with a United States Congressman for crying out loud! She was a major political scandal. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - sad, but nothing remarkable. My rule of thumb for such cases would be if overseas news services would have picked it up, and I very much doubt they did. Thousands of people are murdered every year and only a few of them are more than a tragedy for the family and friends. Be best (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided (for example, that this has received wide coverage from many news organisations, which doesn't seem to be the case). Murder victims are not automatically notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sadly, the subject is a non-notable and one of thousands of people murdered each year. She is only known for one event: her death, thus fails WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the news, and it's not a memorial. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A few days ago, I would have voted to delete this article, but since it turns out that Gary Hilton might be a Serial Killer, I believe that perhaps the article should be left intact until further information comes to light on the Hilton Case. If she was a victim of a serial killer, then the article should be part of a bigger article which would be more appropriate. --Hourick (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, major newspapers and networks, both nationally and internationally have reported on this case. If Wikipedia is truly an information source for everyone, especially journalists, then it has the responsibility to have an article about Gary Hilton and his victim and other possible victims. And I'm sorry for not doing this in the normal fashion but I don't have the time right now to learn Wikipedia's methods. I have deadlines and all. I'll try this weekend. --Newseditor76 (talk) 9:27 a.m., EST, Jan. 10, 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Duplicate vote. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given by Ohconfucius. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Until all the facts are known, esp about Gary Michael Hilton, leave this article on Wiki. This killing might be one of many, in which this info on Emerson would be part of a bigger story/article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.34.34 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The topic is unencyclopedic now, and we should delete it based on what it is now. If it becomes encyclopedic in the future, we can recreate the article then. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. There's enough verifiable information to have a short article here, but Wikipedia is not the news. I wouldn't mind seeing how this one pans out, then we could consider it for deletion at a later date.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep* This entry should definately remain! This already has become a famous case and the history of such should be available to the public. If this article is deleted, then all entries in this forum regarding famous murder victims, such as The Black Dahlia, a famous story about a not so famous actress in the 40's should also be deleted. The only reason we should agree to remove this entry would be if her family so requested.GeorgiaGirl2 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • — GeorgiaGirl2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your general point, it's worth noting that the Black Dahlia is an unsolved case, and as such generates a different kind of interest/notability. MaxVeers (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- I find it disrespectful to her family and friends to have a wiki article describing her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.119.51 (talk • contribs)

Does that also apply to the thousands of other articles describing people's deaths? MaxVeers (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Hilton is now being formally charged with the murder of a second hiker, and there is a possibility of connecting him to several more.[14] I would say this is a compelling reason to consider the article notable. MaxVeers (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I find it ironic: If anything, it's Hilton who would probably be notable, as a serial killer, but doesn't appear to have a article, yet quite a few here appear to be arguing to keep this article based on Hilton's notability. Shome mishtake shurely ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was about to say the exact same thing. If anything, this article could be a redirect to Hilton's page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That could work. There's an ancient debate about whether murderers or their victims are more "deserving" of an article (e.g. the Virginia Tech massacre) but I don't personally see a problem with it. MaxVeers (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable case of murder/disappearance. Covered by many international publications. --Plantron (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Comment Plus, it also falls into line of the Category:Murdered pregnant women. Murder being the number one reason for deaths of Pregnant women in the U.S. 1,800 are killed every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I was thinking of a totally different case. --Hourick (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Possible victim of a serial killer. Later on may be merged with articles of serial killer and his other victims. --Koreanjason (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Gary Hilton is likely a longtime serial killer, and Meredith Emerson's murder was the notable exception in his string of Murders that brought an end to his killing. This is not "just another murder" as someone above has said. The victims were kidnapped (some out of their own homes) robbed, tortured, and robbed via ATM cards.. Later on may be merged with articles of serial killer and his other victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.70.73 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

— 72.147.70.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak Keep - If additional information regarding Gary Hilton develops she may become more notable. Would recommend waiting before deleting to see how the case develops. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:36, 15 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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007

Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This proposed bill has very little chance at becoming law, and lacks coverage in the media. The only reference is to the bill's sponsor's (Ron Paul) website, which doesn't establish the proposal's notability. I would suggest that the article could be recreated without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Congressional bills aren't necessarily notable. RJC ^Talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - No shred of evidence of notability; apparently just trying to add publicity for Ron Paul. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. More non-notable Ron Paul fancruft. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete --- less notable than other similar article that failed AfD. --- tqbf 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral on this one, but not necessarily on any other AFD by the same nominator. I have moved a couple sentences to Stem cell controversy#Congressional response, which appears the most appropriate resolution. Also note that crystal-ball arguments are not valid; Ron Paul Library is not Paul's site but a supporter's; and the article was created in 2005 long before Paul publicity or fancruft was any motive (the most likely motive is simple pro-life publicity). Please do not overstate your arguments, thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

comment So this article is really about a failed "Act of 2005" and was retitled? All the more argument to delete as pathetically non-notable. (And why are you invoking WP:CRYSTAL, John? It's irrelevant to the article in question, and nobody but you had brought it up. I'm confused...) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because? --- tqbf 05:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as Paulcruft unless evidence of coverage from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as a failed act, and a non-notable one at that. No bill has been proposed in the US Senate, so it has zero chance of being passed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:49, 11 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: Speedily deleted - no claim of notability, as far as I can see. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gustavo Esteban Halperin

Gustavo Esteban Halperin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable person. Speedy deletion tag was removed by author. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - retagged, and author warned. Jauerback (talk) 17:19, 9 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 Nakon 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles D. Pou

Charles D. Pou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable journalist. There are no related google hits for this name. There are no sources in the article for the assertion of him winning awards. Further, being married to a notable person, isn't in and of itself, notable. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Not true about Google -- you have to screen out the hits about unrelated people to find them, but they're there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Little or no hits on Google, and the Atlanta Journal has not given him any awards. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP article, which had been marked as a stub, has been revised and extended to include more detail and references; more to be added. Other reviewers are reminded that at the time of his retirement in 1970, the Internet in general and Google in specific had not been invented. If you sufficiently narrow your Google search, you will see that articles he wrote in the 1950s on the Georgia state flag and school desegregation debate are still cited by the state legislature. There is a lot of difficulty finding relevant articles on Google due to two prominent and unrelated people also named "Charles Pou" (one attorney, one a historian at the U. of Georgia). If you narrow searches to exclude those his contributions and achievements are much easier to find on Google. Also, his other contributions are not publicly searchable from the Atlanta Journal web site due to their age (pre-1985); likewise his obituary is no longer part of the "free" section of the archives.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nakon 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montevideo Players Society

Montevideo Players Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish notability through reliable sources. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Little or no importance, and not written in encyclopedia style. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete local acting groups are rarely-if-ever notable, and the article doesn't assert any notability in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:04, 9 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 Nakon 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chat Lingo

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

Notability of lemma not established. Indiscriminate accumulation of mostly unreferenced factoids. Essay-style article; nothing to merge to internet slang due to lack of encyclopedic value. -- Ddxc (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Ddxc (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this is really an essay, not an article (making it original research) and not one on an encyclopaedic topic at that. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball delete - no chance there's any way any of this article could ever be included in any encyclopedia. A snowball in hell has a much better chance. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:22, 10 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 merge to Lawyer. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate lawyer

Corporate lawyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessary sub-division. Cannot conceive of anything encyclopedic to add about corporate lawyers (and I am one myself!) that doesn't already appear in lawyer. I appreciate we have articles for personal injury lawyer and trademark attorney, but (whilst I am not mad keen on those two articles either), there is probably more to say about them than there is about corporate lawyers. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Could possibly be merged with Lawyer if already not there. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 17:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No need to delete. Either mark as stub or make a redirect to Corporate law. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Mark it as a stub. RJC ^Talk 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, on reflection, I think replacing with a redirect to lawyer would be more apt. I think it is already marked as a stub (which is something of an understatement), and I think a redirect to lawyer would probably be more appropriate than to corporate law. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - arguably a notable class of lawyer, but I wouldn't strongly object to a merge either. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, certainly not worth its own article. As a separate page it might even run the risk of becoming a peacock site for "hot shot" corporate lawyers to reference themselves—and knowing corporate law egos this is much more likely in the corporate field than in the trademark or personal injury scenarios! Dick G (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep widely used term and industry category. No problem about sourcing. DGG (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Corporate law and leave a redirect. I don't see this being more then a dict def or in someways a 'how to'. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Corporate law or lawyers, and redirect to those pages. I share Dick G's concern that this could easily turn into a peacock page. Bellwether ^B_C 19:35, 14 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, defaults to Keep Nakon 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of people by nationality

Lists of people by nationality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Using the same argument as the ones used to delete the List of Colombians, none of these lists make sense. A category can group all the articles without needing a page. Not to mention that listing everybody in the world doesn't make any sense. Joedoedoe (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this should be a category, not a list, as it has no purpose but to list other pages. Terraxos (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The subject is too wide and would risk creation of sizeable and unmanageable lists better handled by categories. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep these are lists of notable people with WP articles, and this will not include everyone in the world. Most such lists have not been deleted. It is a useful organizational device unless we delete them all--which I certainly hope will never happen. Its like a super-category, which should not be deleted until its empty. Lists of lists is an alternate classification scheme here to categories, and there it is still a valid way to do things, though not currently quite as popular. DGG (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep although rename. I thought this was going to be a list of names arranged by nationality. It's not; it's a list of those lists, which is perfectly acceptable according to WP:MOSLIST#Lists of lists (although the redlinks would have to be removed). That this could be categorized is not a convincing argument per WP:CLS, which states that "these methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other." Torc2 (talk) 22:21, 14 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, moved to alternate title. Nakon 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah bin Mohammad Al Hokail (banker)

Abdullah bin Mohammad Al Hokail (banker) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability of subject beyond current job position nor does it contain any references to bolster any claims to notability Ozgod (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as it stands it's hard tell what this person is notable for. A Google search doesn't reveal a whole lot, and I can't tell if his previous job functions/titles are of any importance, either. Unless it improves with some verifiable references, I'll go with Delete for now... Jauerback (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article definitely needs cleaning up, but after a bit more research (per Paularblaster's links) , I can see how he meets WP:BIO. Definitely needs some sources. Jauerback (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable for being executive chairman of a major corporation. Article should be moved either to Abdullah Mohammad Al-Hugail, to bring it into line with the bank's 2006 annual report, or Abdullah Mohammed Al-Hugail, which gives the G-hits. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Paularblaster. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Paularblaster, who has demonstrated the subject's notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:58, 12 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 as copyright violation and blatantly non-neutral. All of the text is in fact directly copied, word for word, from works written by Erich Feigl, whose published work is one of several points of view on this subject, and the accuracy of which is quite strongly disputed. Clearly that isn't a suitable way to write a neutral encyclopaedia, even if it weren't a copyright violation. The web site, noted below, is in fact also the work of Feigl, as it says right at the bottom. Karpuzpeynir (talk · contribs) has made no other article edits than to copy text written by Feigl here, too, and is even dumping Feigl onto talk pages. We don't need this. I've revoked the account's editing privileges, zapped all of the images, uploaded with no copyright or licencing information and indubitably copyright violations just as the prose is, and zapped the article.

Wikipedia:Copyright policy is non-negotiable, and editors who do not abide by it will lose their editing privileges, for the protection of the project. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is non-negotiable, too. They are both Foundation issues. I caution both Arsenic99 and Cliobella to familiarize themselves with this project's, and indeed all Wikimedia Foundation projects', fundamental, non-negotiable, policies.

Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Forgeries

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

This page appears to be a POV fork of the article Armenian genocide. It is little more than an attack page. The prod tag was removed. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Definitely seems very propaganda-like. Jauerback (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - extreme POV throughout. Reads like a propaganda essay, not an encyclopedia article. Unsalvageable.  Doc Sigma   ^{wait, what?}  17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Clear NPOV violation. Also, I can't think of a way to improve the article such that it would not violate NPOV or POVFORK. I would say that anything worthwhile would belong in Armenian genocide, if it could survive the editorial process there. RJC ^Talk 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged it as copy-vio. Copy-pasted from here and here. VartanM (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Copy-vio, propaganda.--Folantin (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - While the article does need extensive improvement it is important to note that there are indeed forgeries fabricated by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation party of the Armenian Diaspora that has invented quotes from Hitler, used pictures not relating to the Armenian genocide to evoke reader emotions, and forged Ottoman documents that had incorrect date codes as well as simple logical errors, one such example is the Talaat Pasha telegram that Armenians attribute as the 'smoking gun' to the Armenian genocide theory. However, it is written from Syria (a country of a large Armenian community) on the date that Talaat Pasha was in Istanbul, and the date was wrong and language was written crudely. It's important to note the difference of what proves a genocide and what doesn't otherwise anyone can fabricate a genocide after losing a war with forgeries. I would also like to add that the article is indeed a similar copy to another site, hence it should be REVISED extensively to fit Wikipedia standards and to not violate any possible copyright laws. I don't mind helping to improve it. Arsenic99 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The article definitely needs cleanup. The copyright violating issues can be resolved without changing the main idea, therefore they are no reason for deletion. The POV situation should be remedied by adding information and citing sources that deny the forgeries. The article does not classify as propaganda, it contains information about forgeries made by Armenians. These forgeries can also appear on the Armenian Genocide page as part of the debate. (Cliobella (talk) 22:39, 9 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small business research

Small business research (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

What is this even about? It's somewhat unclear. I found it at new page patrolling, but I have my doubts about its encyclopedic notability or worthiness of inclusion. If it is indeed notable it'll require a complete rewrite and reliable third party sources. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like someone is using wikipedia as a notepad. VartanM (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely not even close to being an article. Jmlk17 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with VartanM. Kyriakos (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I originally did put a G11 tag on it, but User:Pedro declined it which is why I brought it here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:53, 11 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 - The article has been expanded a little, and sources have now been addded to the article. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yuan Yida

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

Non-notable academic User A1 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

comment If the claims made in the article can be sourced then that should be sufficient to show notability. Taemyr (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I agree with the comment by Taemyr. The problem seems to be a lack of citation, not one of notability or some other criterion for deletion. RJC ^Talk 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep assuming that the information can be verified. DGG (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if information can be verified. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The English language source which has been added to the article checks out, so I'm assuming per WP:AGF that the Chinese ones do too. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 10 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 Nakon 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rowena Arrieta

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

Piano player who did win some minor awards as a youth in the 1970's [15] for being "young and promising", but now is a piano teacher. I really don't think that this person has enough of a claim to notability to be in the encyclopedia. CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete . I'm sure winning an award from the "National Music Competitions for Young Artists Foundation" looks great on her piano-teacher business card, it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Jauerback (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. VartanM (talk) 22:29, 9 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. Nakon 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fly Tortuga

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

References can't be found which afford this small charter operator notability inline with WP policy, fails WP:N Russavia (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Because I can't find any Reliable Sources or References either.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Per CSD-7, no indication of importance given. Taemyr (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:24, 9 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 Nakon 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Airways Aircraft Services

Ocean Airways Aircraft Services (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Can find no references which afford this company notability inline with WP policies, fails WP:N. Russavia (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Because I can't find any Reliable Sources or References either.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Per CSD-7, no indication of importance given. Taemyr (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DONT> I found an article that includes all DR airlines , also in prosses, and i found it website that is underconstrucction yet. [16] and [17]. Lateta (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:NOTE calls for nontrivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Oceanairways.com is not independent. The other needs a login so I can not really comment, although if it includes all airlines in DR it is unlikely to be giving non-trivial coverage. In addition the url looks like it leads to a user page, and if this is the case then it's not counted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Taemyr (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:24, 9 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 Nakon 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 2008 (UK)

DeleteToo early. Most of the contenet is hear say. Not good enough sources. Recreate page when more facts have been comfirmed. Hiltonhampton (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no problems with it. We known it is being planned and it is fair enough to have the article. Maybe trim to established referencable facts, but keep the article. Ben W Bell talk 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to a "Big Brother 2008" section in Big Brother 2007 (UK). The only verifiable info in this article is audition dates and places, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Brad (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as an officially announced and verified series on a major network, which will begin airing in only a few months. 23skidoo (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben W Bell. Why delete, so it can be re-created in few months (or less)? Do some research, there's probably more info out there. Jauerback (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because we'll have to create it in awile doesn't mean that we keep a bad article. Also for an event so far away the only dources that can really be used would be official press releases. Blogs or fansite won't do.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Big Brother USA 9 has a page so why doesn't Big Brother UK 9 have one.In23065 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Because that article describes how the US series has been brought forward to fill the gap left by a lack of scripted shows, using reliable sources. The UK article lists audition venues, "who knows where the house will be?" and "there might be chavs but then again there might not be". Brad (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Also BB9 USA starts three months ahead of BB9 UK therefore we know more about it.And a lot of the content is contains words like, "perhaps", "rumored", "uncomfirmed" ect.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Big Brother 9 US follows the guidelines as per WP:BIGBRO. Quote from the project page "Articles for a series of Big Brother should not be created until there are promos on television. This, and only this, should be taken as a sign that Big Brother will be happening, and is good enough a reason to create an article. Anything else, unless it can be confirmed by some high up-there television executive guy, is not enough reason to create a series' article, and is most likely speculation." There have been commercials airing for Big Brother 9 on CBS. Also the main show will return on February 12, 2008 and the companion show Big Brother: After Dark. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notable television program. Everyking (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - far too early, there's nothing to say about it yet except speculation. This can always be recreated later when there is actual significant information available. Terraxos (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Might as well keep but ensure that everything is referenced and mere rumours/wishful thinking/inventions from forums are eliminated. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - still too early for the page. If it wasn't for the fact of the Writer's strike we would be saying the same thing about Big Brother 9 US because if it wasn't for the writer's strike the season wouldn't have been pushed up from the summer to air in the winter/spring. The BB9 UK page should be created sometime in late April or early May since the season was already confirmed when it was announced that Celebrity Big Brother wouldn't return in 2008. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's going to happen, and the article's going to end up being recreated anyway, and there's enough verifiable information for a stub at least right now, which will only grow with time. There's no reason to delete this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just becuase it's going to be recreated doesn't mean that we should leep a bad article. There is virtually no info what so ever.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. BB9 is notable and people are discussing it. 82.150.99.2 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not yet its not--Hiltonhampton (talk) 17:56, 16 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 Gezira Sporting Club Nakon 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gezira Sports Club

Gezira Sports Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article has the wrong name (see: Gezira Sporting Club), plus the article does not follow Wikipedia's standards

• Rename Not a reason for deletion, suggest renaming--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, Location given and sports practiced is different from those in Gezira Sporting Club. Is this the same club? Taemyr (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is incomplete, it does not discuss anything related to the club, expect some teams accomplishments, and again it is not the clubs right name it is called Gezira Sporting Club not Gezira Sports Club. Yes it is the same club, only mistranslated. It is the same location but written in a different way, Gezira is the neighborhood name, while Zamalek is the province name.Abdallah (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect and Merge with Gezira Sporting Club. Seems a likely misnomer. Taemyr (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Strong Delete The information in this article is of no importance what-so-ever. Trust me, if what is in Gezira Sports Club was of any importance, it would be in Gezira Sporting Club. But since the information in the article are unimportant I suggest it to be removed. A elalaily (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:30, 9 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 - original creator of the article endorses deletion, and it fails WP:PROF. KrakatoaKatie 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stevan Pilipović

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

contested CSD. Corresponding membership of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is strong evidence that this scientist is notable Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - notable Serbian mathematician. His work is significant and well known (200 peer reviewed papers is a very high number) and clearly regarded as an important figure by other scientists (corresponding membership of the SASA, restricted to the top scientists in Serbia) Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why did you !vote "Keep" after starting the AfD? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Based on a discussion on my talk page, I think that Mostlyharmless either believes that AfD is a place to contest a speedy or they are nominating the article for me. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • • Theres no way this belongs in speedy, and PROD is for things that aren't contested. I refuse to get involved in a one on one argument over the notability of a particular page, and want community feedback on the notability of the article. On the basis of those considerations, AfD (which is also often AfKeep) seems like the best place to list the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Why not prod it? That way the creator(s), would have 5 days to show notability and if they failed, the article would be deleted all the same. AfD seems a bit early right now. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• But isn't prod for uncontroversial deletions? This clearly isn't such an article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• The speedy was inappropriate in any case as the article asserted notability (full professor, corresponding member of national academy of sciences - yes, I know, the Serbian one). It would have made more sense to start with a prod. Very often, people start an article with a stub and then build from there on. I don't think I have seen new article fully-hatched pop-up from nowhere at creation, yet. --Crusio (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think Crusio's question is more, so why not just contest the speedy, and then not put it up for AfD. An AfD isn't a necessary part of contesting the speedy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• this article was put up for speedy deletion the same minute it was created, which was earlier today... and other oddities. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly, someone was watching the recent changes and checked this one, and nominated it for speedy deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• That was me. I do admit that a speedy probably wasn't necessary in this case. NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete very weak keep - fails WP:PROF, and the speedy tag was clearly placed appropriately and in good faith. The article made no assertion of notability - being a professor, having a field of study, etc. are not assertions of notability. I believe that it still makes no reasonable assertion of notability, and more importantly, it falls well below WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Being a corresponding member of a national Academy of Sciences is an assertion of notability and one that merits serious consideration. Mind you, I haven't made up my mind about this AfD yet, I may still vote for delete, but I have not yet seen any good arguments and I'm inclined to wait and give the creator a chance to improve the article. --Crusio (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really consider that alone to be notability. Third party sources would be nice, but of course I realize that academics tend to be the authors of the publications that make them notable. I still think the article fails WP:PROF, and that its subject is not really notable ... but there are marginal, though not necessarily adequate, reasons to keep at this point. I've changed my !vote to a very weak keep, but would like to see more evidence of notability put into the article if possible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've changed my vote back. I know I keep flip-flopping, but I should have trusted my gut on this one. Pmanderson has now pointed out that this is (in part) a copy-paste job from his CV. I'm also going to stick with my assessment that being a CM of an NAS is not enough for notability, not automatically. While it might seem germane to say "what about CMs of the US NAS?" but honestly, they'll establish their own notability elsewhere - corresponding members of prominent NASs are not notable because USA is "better" than Serbia or something, but because prominent NASs tend to have notable members. I do not count Serbia among them, and I think the non-notability of this person verifies that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment S. Pilipovic has 96 publications in the Web of Science, cited a total of 179 times. In my field (neuroscience), that would not be much at all, but in mathematics this may be different (I do know citation rates are much lower there). Google Scholar gives higher citation counts, with 50, 27, 26, etc. --Crusio (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment which National academies do we accept as being certainly notable, and which not? I know what I think in certain cases, but how are we to justify the decision, given the need for a world-wide perspective? DGG (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

query Is that not a little like asking which national governments we consider notable? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. We already make distinctions between membership in particular organizations and others. For example, being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame confers notability. Being inducted into the hall of fame for the bowling alley down the street from me does not. And yet they are both halls of fame. As I said, this article need not answer the question "which NASs do we consider as notable enough that their members inherit notabilty?" NASs that imbue notability generally have members that are already notable (and likewise for the not notable case). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep it's a good many articles, but the 4 most cited has been cited only 14, 8, 8, 7, times. I thinks that's only borderline notability.DGG (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Based mainly on the membership in the National Academy. The number of publications is good, but they are not cited much (this may be field dependent, but I have no real idea about what is a notable citation rate in mathematics). Some more info on the subject's notability would be very welcome. DGG, you are certainly correct that it wold be good to have some idea about which National Academies are automatically notable. The extremes are evident: the US Academy confers immediate notability on any member, but an academy of a small country without even a single university (if they even have an academy in that case), would not. In between is where it gets problematic. --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He has an amazing amount of publications. I'm not an analyst, can't judge the quality of the papers, though. But anyway, few people have that much publications. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The sheer number of publications is enormous for most fields of mathematics. Since I cannot judge their value, as I am working in a different field of mathematics, I would not normally vote at all. But since some non-mathematicians do not seem worried in the slightest about such minor points of competence there must be a counter-weight. See also Wikipedia:PROF#Caveats: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. Typical numbers of publications vary greatly by field. Paul Erdös had 1500 publications, Saharon Shelah has about half that amount. These are extreme exceptions. Mathematical Reviews returns 113 articles for Stevan Pilipović. At the other end there are many recent Fields medalists with less than 10 publications on Mathematical Reviews. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed my vote because the original creator voted for deletion. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - hanging on a hair of notability doesn't cut it for me. Jauerback (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mostlyharmless.

Weak keep per Terraxos. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Hans Adler. Based purely on the number of publications, I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Besides, of all the things Wikipedia's detractors may say, no one's going to argue that we have too many articles on academics. Zagalejo^^^ 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your interest. It seems my entry is interesting even for a non mathematical audience.Itointegral (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak (added) Delete We should not include every corresponding member of every National Academy of Sciences in the world; and this article is a CV (in fact, large parts of it, including the ungrammatical book titles, are cut and pasted from his CV). What has he done? If we cannot make that clear, why have the article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This was written before the section on his notability existed; but that section is unsourced and labelled autobiography. I join the flip-flop brigade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Like Cheeser1 I am flip-flopping, all evidence of notability rely is borderline. Many articles, but hardly ever cited. My previous "keep" vote was based on the mebership of the Serbian NAS, but Cheeser1 has convinced me: members of the US NAS all have plenty of other sources establishing notability, the Serbian NAS is apparently easier to get into. --Crusio (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Hans Adler.Weak delete per Cheeser. Like others, I'm swinging on this one. I'm no longer as convinced he's a notable mathematician. Notable Serbian mathematician, definitely, but not sure what his standing is outside Serbia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm not too sure on this one either, and wouldn't really object if it were deleted; but his number of papers published suggests (marginal) notability. We really need someone to do a more in-depth investigation to determine notability here. Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established by citations to extensive publication list. Spacepotato (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest deletion of this article. Itointegral (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly support destructive acts involving the article in question.

Itointegral (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have no problem with deleting the article (though I !voted weak keep above), but I did restore the accomplishments/notability section forthe time being. I thought it was important that if the article is deleted it is done by editors who have read the claims of notability and discarded them. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Meanwhile the author agrees on the fact that the article does not meet the notability criterias. This is supported by the fact, that only for 2 serbian members

of the acedemy wikipedia pages are created, both of them being stubs (the rest which have wikipedia entries seem to be foreign members throughout). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.195.165 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who Saved the Electric Car?

Who_Saved_the_Electric_Car? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Original research: This article appears to be an original essay by the author. Bagheera (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - odd essay, no real subject, and seems as if it is possibly advertising something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Basically spews sources (including an instruction to google search). WP:OR all the way. Doc Strange (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic essay. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Original research, soapbox, advertising, and poorly written. Definitely not encyclopedic content. Timmeh^contribs 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form. There's a redlink here from Who Killed the Electric Car? (apparently there is supposed to be a sequel to that film by this title), but this isn't about that. If there's significant information about the planned film by this title, it can come here later. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This editorialized stub is pure original research. Majoreditor (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Clear delete -- essay, original research. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not clear what it is at all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, see above. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Although the fourth 'reference' made me burst out laughing this is WP:OR and cannot stay. Having looked at the creator's username and some of the vaunted Google links I have come to the conclusion this is WP:SPAM. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:46, 12 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 Nakon 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borwick proposals

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

Delete NN outcome of a NN conference, unreferenced, and article admits that there is no reliable source Mayalld (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless an assertion of notability is made. Terraxos (talk) 03:57, 10 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazir Jahangir

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

Self written artist article that has a blatant conflict of interest, no independent third party sources to help it meet WP:BIO guidelines. Should probably be a speedy under A7 but he lists some publications he wrote so brought here for consensus. The creator also keeps removing the AFD tag and keeps placing his personal email address on the page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be a copy violation from here.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete under WP:N. Author makes no assertion of notability. He can put all his musings, which is pretty much the whole article, on his user page if he wants. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Someone should direct the author to MySpace, where he can soapbox on his own website. Jauerback (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I don't know what this is, but it clearly isn't a Wikipedia article. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I originally gave this a PROD as original research - I didn't think it qualified for speedy A7 as it isn't "about a real person, organization (band, club, company), or web content". But it should go, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:COI. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 10 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha spells

List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha spells (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced, classification of spells involves heavy original research, also seems to of interest to an extremely small group of people VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, completely unnecessary and excessive WP:PLOT detail with little to no context and no establishment of notability. As per nom, classification of spells seem OR. I can't see what encyclopedic value this list has or how it enhances the Nanoha articles at all. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Characters' pages have more details about spells (and sources). Zerokitsune (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious delete for all the reasons given by the nominator. Nothing worth keeping here. Terraxos (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Terrible article, numerous policies broken. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The list is trivia and contains no context about the individual spells or as a group. --Farix (Talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:16, 14 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 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Barbarians (film)

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

No assertion of notability. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. While I expect it was a rubbish movie, unfortunately that's not a criterion for deletion. Apparently it took nearly $500,000 at the box office [18], making it not the least popular film of all time. It's sufficiently notable. The article needs to be developed, not deleted. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless some assertion of notability is made. 'It exists' isn't sufficient grounds for it to have an article. Terraxos (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a famous film in the film geek community. I don't really know enough to find more notability requirements, but I do know it is often categorized with The Goonies and such as quintessential kids' films from the 1980s. This needs development but I wouldn't delete it given its Imdb info and box office take. But, I dont know that much about this. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep to be on the safe side. Verifiable and sufficiently notable -- it seems to have its fans. --Lockley (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:HEY, lots more can be written about it. It is notable as is made 1/2 million at box office, was popular in 1987, it's sort of a cult film these day (never taken to DVD). It was also released in at least three languages (english, german, and italian) and has made it to the internet (in addition to Imdb) on at least one major review site herewhich is a lot more than many second tier 1980's movies can say. Just because it isn't a super famous movie doesn't make it entirely non-notable.Earthdirt (talk) 16:19, 13 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. Canley (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Flux Insurance

Adrian Flux Insurance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Even though there are some assertions of notability the article fails WP:CORP. Delete TheRingess (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - seems to (just about) pass WP:RS to me. It's clearly minor, but perhaps still notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Whilst the article may be of minority interest, it clearly passes the criteria of WP:CORP for establishing notability. For example, one of the references cited is a substantial profile of the company by a major UK regional newspaper directly comparable with the example given of Hewlett Packard notability established via Palo Alto Gazette article. Drjwilson (talk) 10:49, 15 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Robson

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

All references are unreliable sources; google doesn't have anything except self-published sites. I don't think the person is at all notable... besides the delusions of grandeur that seem to manifest in the writing. -- Mentifisto 13:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless coverage from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Mentifisto, he has expressed my position well. tomasz. 13:10, 14 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Freshen Up" toilet attendants

"Freshen Up" toilet attendants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources, no references, not notable, could be merged with Bathroom attendant, cruft Quoth nevermore (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• According to the article's talk page, the article is based upon Urban Dictionary and talking in person to "a real 'freshen up guy' at a local pub". The article is unreliably sourced and original research. Anything verifiable that needs to be said about toilet attendants can be used to expand toilet attendant, which isn't exactly overfull with verifiable content. This is a ludicrous title for a redirect. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable/original research. Terraxos (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Headwes (talk) 04:38, 16 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. Canley (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Wetten

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

Subject of possible COI editing / vandalism at Wondrous Oblivion article, subject clearly has a IMDB listing but seemingly for exceptionally minor roles. Child performer, may become a star, but listing here to see if there's consensus that star status is WP:CRYSTAL or if there is genuine notability. Dweller (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Currently unsure, leaning to delete. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete too minor me for me. Plus a single IMDB reference isn't really enough to convince me of notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (Negative): An IMDb biography/filmography is not a reliable source ... subject fails WP:BIO without any Attribution ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable person. Terraxos (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:21, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry

Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is a direct copy of Yankees-Mets rivalry. I don't think it meets a CSD crtieria, so I'm bringing it to AfD. CastAStone/^/(talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)(concern addressed)
This Article is about a non-notable baseball rivalry that has existed for less than a year--CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: The content is completely irrelevant, bearing no relationship to the article subject (aside from the fact that both pairs of teams are rivals). Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Keep: My previous argument no longer applies: the article now does cover the subject. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy Move to creator's sandbox for development; article was just created today and looks like a possible stub that is being modeled on Yanks-Mets. Creator is an established editor who should be given the benefit of the doubt.--12 Noon ^2¢ 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In light of the complete overhaul of the article, my comments no longer apply. It seems to be a simple notability issue now, of which, regrettably, is not in an area I feel knowledgeable enough to comment.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy per 12 noon, or redirect to Yankees-Mets rivalry. We'll have to see whether this subject deserves an article or not, but let's at least give it the chance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• There has been significant editing of this article since the last comment 6 days ago so it needs more eyes on it before a decision is taken. --Bduke (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep seems to work now. It could use some more sources but it looks like it will get there.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per above and 12 Noon. Rtac _{contributions} 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Seeing as these teams have been playing each other for less than a year, it seems premature to call this a rivalry. The only rivalry that could possibly exist is one manufactured by corporate advertising, and that does not suffice for notability. RJC ^Talk 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per RJC above. A deep rivalry can't have arisen after just one season; and it's crystal-ballery to assume one will develop in the future. Therefore, delete. Terraxos (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete one game doesn't equal a rivalry, I doubt sources will show up for a while Secret ^account 18:23, 10 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 and cleanup. Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asian pride

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

It's been almost nine months since the first nomination and the issues still haven't been resolved. Though the subject itself would appear to be notable (hopefully someone, someday, will rewrite or re-create the article using reliable sources), as it now stands, this article is still nothing more than an original, personal essay. - ∅ (∅), 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• One issue has. The article no longer relies upon a single web page as its source. The problem now is that editors are conflating at least three distinct things:
  • Asian pride — the rejection of U.S. and European influence by Asian countries, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia in a 1994 National Geographic for example
  • Asian Pride — a part of the EPIC programme run by the University of California at Los Angeles in the mid-1970s, that evolved into Multicultural Pride and that still influences UCLA and its environs today
  • Asian pride — a group pride political movement amongst Asian Americans that has existed since the 1960s, as discussed here by the Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, for example
• Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If you acknowledge that it is notable, then the article should be kept. You can always stub it back down. Nine months isn't a long time at all; I added 2 of the 3 current sources during the last AfD, and do plan on adding more, though it hasn't been a priority with all the AfDs that crop up. –Pomte 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't find anything in WP:SOAP that says it's a criterion for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is part of WP:NOT which is policy and is often cited in AFD discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Pomte. There is some definate soapy goodness here, but doesn't look like anything that cannot be fixed. -Verdatum (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable encyclopaedic topic. The article is in need of cleanup and improvement, but still merits inclusion. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 10 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 and redirect to Call of Duty 4. If anyone wants the table for a CoD Wiki (which I'm sure exists or will exist), drop by my talk page.-Wafulz (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call of duty 4 multiplayer ranks

Call of duty 4 multiplayer ranks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

My PROD rationale: Wikipedia is not the place for in-game statistics; it is WP:NOT#indiscriminate information.

Prod removed by an anonymous user with the reason: Wikipedia does not state that in game statistics cannot be included. It is your opinion that in game statistics do not belong on Wikipedia, not a rule. Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - We need a CSD for this. User:Krator (t c) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE --Breno ^talk 10:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per all above, and agree with Krator. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, because unsourced and is simply a statistics list without context or any indication of why this is of any use to anyone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete based on everything already said. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Wikipedia is not a game guide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. PROD rationale was entirely correct. Pagrashtak 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per previous reasons. -Mastrchf91- 22:17, 9 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. Canley (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telecential

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

Delete and redirect to Virgin Media. Damnit! I was getting excited because I had pressed "random article" without finding a delete worthy article almost countless times (it normally only takes 5-6 times). All info can be incorporated into Virgin Media, no need to have a sep. article Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Don't worry mate, you can still be excited - This one's not worthy of deletion either! While I am not an expert in the subject, it appears to have been a large(ish) cable company in the UK, and while it has been purchased now, when it was independant, it was notable. Therefore it is notable now and valid for inclusion. Once you get past the press releases, there are some decent Google News articles about it, and i'm checking some other sources now. I will flag the article for rescue and see if it can be brought up to standard. Fosnez (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've added some sources, bearing in mind that they company was merged in the early 1990's it is harder than I thought to find sources I can varify - there are a lot of "do you remember telecential" style forum posts... Anyway, I will leave it for rescue and see if anyone else can find sources, but I believe it is notable. Fosnez (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Virgin Media is a bloated article as is, no need to push more content into it. NTL should probably be spun out from it, and merging there might then be an option. Taemyr (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 9 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Run Rincewind Run!

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

Delete NN fanfilm. Fails to meet notability requirements of WP:NF. Previous PROD was contested on the grounds that Terry Pratchett appears in it. However, his was not a sufficiently major role to make the film notable per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability - this film was aparently only shown at a convention and wasn't broadcast. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep. Wikipedia is not paper; the fact that the film wasn't broadcast doesn't alter its notability for the purposes of wikipedia, IMO. Pratchett appearing in the film, even briefly, surely makes it notable. Robinh (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment as detailed above, WP:NF defines notability for films, and is explicit that notability is only inherited from a participant if he/she played a major role in the production. Pratchett's role was as a cameo. Whilst the film may (in your opinion), surely be notable, Wikipedia policy says otherwise. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Even if Pratchett was in it, it still fails WP:NF. No reliable sources could be found pertaining to the film, and furthermore, it was only a minor film shown at a convention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This film has a section in "An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett", thus meeting wikipedia's requirements of notability. Agent Pleochroic (talk) 1:16, 10 January 2008— Agent Pleochroic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment WP:NF seems to disagree with you Mayalld (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete An 18 minute film made at a cost of $300 and shown at a fan convention grossly fails the Wikipedia standards for film notability. Edison (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Given that there is a source regarding this film, that makes the information about Pratchett's role in the film worthy of inclusion in the article of Terry Pratchett. However, as I'm unfamiliar with the film and mostly unfamiliar with Pratchett's work (I know of it), I can't say either way whether the film warrants its own article. I lean toward "probably not," but for now, having given my two cents, I'll abstain. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fan film, doesn't pass notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seemingly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:57, 11 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. Appears to already have been transwikied. Pastordavid (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tempus (Charmed)

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

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Sometimes I wish Charmed was as notable as fans make it out to be ^_^; JuJube (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to http://charmed.wikia.com/wiki/Tempus - the article here is an in-depth, although unfortunately in-universe article about a character who only appeared in three episodes. -Malkinann (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki, no question that this sort of thing doesn't belong on Wikipedia.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of Charmed characters or similar. Catchpole (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki per Malkinann, then delete. Collectonian (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:21, 10 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wu Cheng Yi

Wu Cheng Yi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, minor fictional character in various MediaCorp TV series, created as a part of a plot by sockpuppet ColourWolf to spread false information and compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. 90+% of the contents formerly present on this page were fake/made up. No new information have since been added. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless references can be provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, even if sources can be provided, this is a character in a TV show and thus pretty non-notable anyway. Terraxos (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unnotable character that fails WP:FICTION. Would say redirect, but article doesn't actually say what show(s) the character is in.Collectonian (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:24, 10 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thread port

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

Hoax; I can't find any corroboration of this definition. And only slightly amusing. Jfire (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete per nom, also no references Chris! _ct 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The term "thread port" does not refer to buttons only, so this article is misleading.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless references can be provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:38, 10 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 List of characters in Nanoha (to preserve history of already merged contents). Fram (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alicia Testarossa

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

Unreferenced, seems like the article cannot be expanded to more than a permanent stub. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - into List of characters in Nanoha per WP:FICT. Doesn't appear to be individually notable on its own. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect I almost said merge or delete, but from the time the article was created, and the time the list was created, the content from this article was made first, then added to the list. Because of this, we require the article's history, thus merge/redirect. But yeah, very unlikely that an article about this specific character would be necessary. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of characters in Nanoha. The current content of the article is already on the list. I also get the feeling that other Nanoha, character articles are due for a merge since almost all of them are merely plot summaries. --Farix (Talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT into List of characters in Nanoha. Character does not seem (on an admittedly limited search -- but given how little I see her discussed, I didn't expect to find much) to have acheived independent notability to the standards of WP:FICT. As Ned Scott points out, it needs to be merge to preserve the edit history, even if all the content is already at the target. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into List of characters in Nanoha per Quasirandom. Minor character, appears in two episodes (I think) in the all trilogy. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as content is already in character list and per WP:FICT, and character is unnotable within the series, much less apart from it. Collectonian (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Google returns < 200 hits with nothing even close to a reliable secondary source. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, as series itself makes a usable primary source. It wouldn't be the first character list without freely available secondary sources; apply rules uniformly. Anaholic (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge isn't necessary as the description of this minor character in List_of_characters_in_Nanoha#Others is sufficient. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:07, 16 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 that, although the current content is not brilliant prose and probably has WP:OR issues, there is no consensus to delete the article. Sandstein (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Peace

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

'Islamic Peace' is an OR term. There are no reliable sources using this term. This is as valid as having an article titled Islamic violence. Any useful content should be merged on other pages. Didnt want to bite the newcomer who made the article but unfortunately, the term does not exist and so the page will have to be merged somewhere else.Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I sugggest the article is renamed, along the lines of Peace in Islamic thought or Peace and Islamic thought, (or something less cumbersome). Islamic perspectives on peace, and critical research on those perspectives, deserves an article in this encyclopedia. With a slight change of focus, this article could do just that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Or the title could be "Islam and the concept of peace" (which I feel would be better) but I'm not supporting that either. The article is largely OR and its similiar to making Muhammad and Pedophilia because like this case, there are many people who've associated the two terms. So this is just original research. Collecting a few fragments about these two words being mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph doesnt justify an article. Thats the main point. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• one humble question to mr.User:Matt57 wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary as you are saying frequently of not existing the term[?] can you conferm that the titles of the wikipedia articles are terms or words. there are thousands of articles which are explaining the events and difinitions with appropriate simplified words. Zikrullah (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as "Islamic peace". No reliable source mentions this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The only problem I see with the article is its title, which is a neologism. The content, however, is suitable for an encyclopedia article under a different title. My preference would be for Peace in Islamic Thought. RJC ^Talk 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Peace in Islamic thought I agry with this title.122.161.29.239 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POVFORK from Religion of Peace. 66.29.115.69 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If anything Religion of Peace is an unimportant neologism that should be reworked under this article... but, it's too long and so should remain separate. gren グレン 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: sir, this article is an introduction to the concept of peace in islam. it is not a political or disputed subject but a basic belief within islam which is also the core of religious belief about the fate of humanity in this world in all the religion semetic or dharmic. i can mention many things related to it from the scriptures like holy bible and gita also. the Kingdom of God or wasudhaiw kutumbkam(global family in hindu philosophy) are very classical concepts of global peace in almost every culture which is often related with the end of the time or judgement day. So there is no question about the importance of the topic. every critical idea to improve it is awaited eagerly! bless you bless theism! do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs)
• Delete, though I want to see some feedback from other Muslims in this discussion. Per the nom, this appears to be pretty much original research with some hints of islamic evangelism. This is fine and well and all, but how important the content is is subjective, and is not a criteria for inclusion here on Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ask, and I shall receive. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the author and the Muslim community as a whole, and change my !vote to a keep, as they are working on the article. Good call, Lenticel, I should barnstar you for that. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I already asked WP:ISLAM to take a look as Dennis requested. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to Peace in Islam or something similar. The current title isn't appropriate, and much of the content is either non-neutral or original research, but fundamentally this seems to me like an acceptable topic for an encyclopaedia article. It will need plenty of rewriting/cleanup, of course. Terraxos (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• the article subject is not related only to miletary or war but also to socialogical and eschatological aspects.Zikrullah (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge anything relevant into Islamic military jurisprudence where it is both a more neutral title, and opposing scholarly viewpoints can be discussed under a far more neutral title. Deletion is also a good idea.Yahel Guhan 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• As taking sincere consideration of above views i want to ask to edit the article precisely as to make it encyclopedic and neutral! PLEASE NOTICE! there may be some content to be included in the article .whatever is inappropriate , i want to remove it. sourcing is also to be done. but meanwhile please give me time and do not delete anything as i myself now going to delete if any thing creates problem with standards so please talk before editing! thanks and blessings! Zikrullah (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to "Peace in Islam". Its a notable topic. The new user who created it has already dug up some reliable references.Bless sins (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Bless sins. Noor Aalam (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Islam and peace, or similar, and make more neutral in point of view (See WP:NPOV). The article has two problems. One is that it currently reads something like an essay and expounds a single point of view, although that is potentially correctable. The second problem is that the title does not convey what the article is intended to be about, and the term is non-neutral (The Latin phrases "Pax Brittanica", "Pax Americana" etc. imply a victorious peace dominated by the named party. This connotation carries somewhat into the English translations (American peace, British peace). It does not appear to be what was intended. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Would also agree to rename to Peace in Islam per User:Bless Sins. --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per Shirahadasha. I agree that Islamic peace or Pax Islam still doesn't exist.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lenticel said "I'm OK with either "Peace in Islam" or "Islam and peace" (one of them might be a redirect to the other). Both seem to be valid titles." This comment was made on my talk page,[19] where the user expressly allowed me to refer to it in the AfD.Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Global peace in Islam /Islamic Global Peace are better than peace in islam i think, as the the foundational concept in the teachings of islam / islamic theology is about Prevailing the peace all over the world and to every person of any race.The same idea is mentioned in bible and hindu philosophy as kingdom of God [as God wish it] and wasudhaiw kutumbakam[global family]. I will write an article on wasudhaiw kutumbakam and i need some help from my elder brothers.the article islamic peace may be renamed most appropriate and i am still editing it near the standards. Zikrullah (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) blessings!
• Delete Blatant violation of WP:OR.--CltFn (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article has been moved to Peace in Islamic Thought. I think it's time to close this AfD, as the main issue (neologism) has been resolved. If the article cannot be improved to avoid OR issues after repeated attempts, then it might be relisted. But the page is less than half a month old, and there are ongoing efforts to resolve the OR issue. It would be inappropriate to delete the article for a problem which people are working to resolve, and no argument has been given thus far for why an article of this sort cannot possibly avoid OR issues. RJC ^Talk 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to "Peace in Islamic philosophy" or something similar. The topic certainly appears to be notable, as a search of Google Books illustrates. Although the article needs cleaning up, there's clearly no shortage of potential sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now, per above comment by User:RJC. Feer 10:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, there definitely is an article within this title. I'm a little worried about some of the sources used and scope issues... because this will be a very hard issue to cover since I don't think it's always explicitly written about in classical texts... but, I would keep and trim down some of this. gren グレン 12:13, 15 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.

[edit] Martianmister

The result was delete. The user in question has very little edits to begin with, so to userfy content that is a copy of other content would be a GFDL violation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Avatar episode page accidentaly put onto creater's self-named page Piemanmoo (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd move it to the episode's proper name, except that it's a duplicate of that article (per this diff), in a version immediately prior to that episode being turned into a redirect to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes (per this diff). I'm mute on the redirect issue, as it is somewhat contentious - but, creating an improperly named duplicate of the old version of an episode's article is not the way to disagree with the decision. If the user intended to userfy this version, perhaps as part of an effort to merge the information, then this can easily be moved to accomodate that intent. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy - I'm fairly certain that was the creator's intention here (though it would be a good idea to check). The article here can be deleted once the content has been moved to user space. Terraxos (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy with explanation on user talk page as a WP:AGF that it was a mistake by an inexperienced editor. Collectonian (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:11, 10 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. Fram (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compaq Presario S6700NX

Compaq Presario S6700NX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Compaq Presario 6410 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Compaq Presario 9500 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Although the line of computers is definitely notable as well as the producers. The individual series of computers is not notable. Marlith ^T/C 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Template:AfD footer (multiple) for multiple deletions on the same basis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect all to Compaq Presario article. While there might want to consider removing the long lists of WP:REDLINKs to avoid these non-notable articles popping up again. These comments also apply to AFDs Compaq Presario 6410 and Compaq Presario 9500. --Breno ^talk 10:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, redirect to Compaq Presario. Biscuittin (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bundling AFD debates Compaq Presario 6410 and Compaq Presario 9500 to keep discussion together. --Breno ^talk 10:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I concur with the nomination on the same grounds as the nominator. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup the article and put {{wikify}} --Kibsamol23 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)— Kibsamol23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment "Cleaning up" a stub or linking the term in it to other articles does not create references, which are required to show notability per WP:NEdison (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No indications that these particular models of computer are notable. Wikipedia is not a catalog or directory in which every model of product ever sold by every vendor is automatically entitled to an article without substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable publications. Edison (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Compaq Presario, as this computer is non- notable and is unencyclopedic. 76.102.106.18 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Compaq Presario, as per reasons listed above. nf utvol (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Compaq Presario, since that's where more information should be. Twerbrou (talk) 10:27, 17 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 — Caknuck (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mika Edwards

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

Fails WP:BIO. Please read the article and references carefully. The "award" that she wasn't given to her, it was given to the whole entire newspaper staff. In addition, this "award" was given by the New York Times to a newspaper owned by the New York Times - hardly a notable award. The references only link to articles that she has written. Every journalist has articles somewhere on the web. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Eminently non-notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- This article was {{prod}}ed on 21 December 2007 -- on the grounds that it was a "hoax".
  • After spending thirty seconds doing a web search I could see the article clearly wasn't a "hoax".
  • As an experiment, I found some references, and added them, so the article wasn't unreferenced.
  • My conclusions were: (1) that the original article about her definitely not a hoax, and the quality-control patroller who {{prod}}ed it as a "hoax" was alarmingly hasty and really owes it to the rest of us to show more caution in future; (2) the noteworthiness of the young journalist in question remains marginal.
  • Nominator didn't mention in the nomination that Edwards appeared twice on Court TV WRT her coverage of a serial killer. Court TV is a USA-wide network isn't it? I don't get Court TV where I live. I can't form a reliable idea of how noteworthy those appearances would have been.
  • I am not prepared to defend this article, but I don't think I owe any apology for making the effort to expand its references. If the article is deleted I won't regard those efforts as wasted as I pasted the references I found into related articles that were poorly referenced.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Librarianofages docboat (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:27, 10 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, but I guess the current redirect will do as long as it's not reverted. Sandstein (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epirotic

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

POV fork of Tosk Albanian, designed to promote irredentist nationalist ideologies regarding an Albanian claim to Epirus. Entirely unreferenced as to its central claim that "Epirotic" is a common designation of Albanian language varieties and that Albanian speakers are "the"(!) natives of Epirus. The external link is to a 17th-century document and lacks discussion in reliable secondary sources; all the rest about Arvanitika, Arbereshe etc. is already treated elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Inherently POV, and I don't think that could be solved. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete seems somewhat redundant. Marlith ^T/C 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. No reliable references and POV.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator: On second thoughts, it might also be a solution to simply redirect the page to Epirus. That way, we don't have POV problems, and the redirect target will make it clear that there are both Greek- and Albanian-related concepts that this adjective might apply to. Should have thought of it earlier. In this sense, you might consider this nomination retracted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, whatever. Assuming that the huge multitudes of previous delete voters won't really mind, I'll just IAR and redirect the thing now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 13 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.   jj137 ^♠ 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Missions

List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Missions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC) brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Not a game guide. Stormin' Foreman (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Stormin' Foreman. In theory, this could probably be verified by FAQs and walkthroughs and whatnot, but it still wouldn't be appropriate here. Maxamegalon2000 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. This would be like having an article for a list of chapters in a book. TJ Spyke 06:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT reads more like a plot summary than a game guide. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not even remotely complete. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Stormin' Foreman, and VivioFateFan. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As per nom, and above reasons. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:59, 10 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.   jj137 ^♠ 02:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infinitus wolf

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

A non-notable character some nobody on the internet made up. Image is an altered copyvio of a Dragon Ball character. I can't believe this has been around for half a year. Closedmouth (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and possibly G1. Nakon 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A7 isn't for fictional characters, else I would have done that myself. It is pretty nonsensical though. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You can probably call it non-notable web content, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, it looks like a character someone made for a fanmade DBZ story. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete since 99.99999% of fanfiction is "published" online, it's almost always covered by the "non-notable web content" facet of A7. Oh, and the fact that it contains a copyvio image (with the author lying about being the copyright holder) is all the more reason to want it gone, quickly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is non-notable, the article is unreferenced, and is also orphaned. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:03, 10 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. Canley (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bells (Blackadder)

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

This article still fails WP:N by not incorporating non-trivial real world information as described in WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE. For some reason, a mention of tea and a very trivial reference by a member of the British Parliament saved it in the last AfD, but neither of those is enough to even assert notability. The part about the tea can always be merged if necessary. TTN (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because of the real world information in the article, pointed out by the nominator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Can you please point out how those meet the criteria of significant coverage? TTN (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No real world notability is asserted. This does not deserve an individual article per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per RANorton. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: 1. Notable episode of a notable series, and to my knowledge Wikipedia has not yet banned individual episode articles, otherwise there are hundreds of articles on episodes that will need to go to AFD and 2. A previous AFD resulted in a Keep decision on Nov. 29 2007, not even 6 weeks ago and I will not support the creation of precedent that articles may be repeatedly nominated until someone gets the desired result. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments on previous nomination. I also strongly agree with the above regarding a second nomination in 6 weeks. TTN keeps saying that Wikipedia policy backs him, but then when a AfD concludes keep, just because he disagrees he nominates it again. There is indeed a dangerous precedent here. --UpDown (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Repeated nominations of articles until the 'right' answer is forthcoming are tiresome. Nick mallory (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the nom. Meets the "real world" notability (a ref I myself added on the last AFD nom). Why nominate this episode and not all the other Blackadder episodes? In a worst case scenerio, this should be redirected to List of Blackadder episodes, but it's notable enough to survive the AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Interestingly, the episode as listed as a reference in this textbook, as seen in an Amazon.com preview. However, I can't actually view the page on which the episode is discussed. Zagalejo^^^ 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per all above and my comments at the previous AFD. I see no reason for this to be nominated so soon again after the previous failed AFD. Haven't you got something better to do, TTN? I very rarely comment on contributors, but to be honest I'm getting quite bored with this editor's actions on this encyclopedia; his poor nominations, ceaseless clinging to a disputed guideline which appears to have very little ground level support (WP:EPISODE) and failure to listen to the opinions of other contributors. Bob talk 10:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article violates WP:NOT#PLOT because it is almost entirely a plot summary. What little real-world context can be incorporated into the main article. I looked at the mention of this episode in the government document, however it is very trivial and isn't used to support any statements about the episode. --Farix (Talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to List of Blackadder episodes, fails WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE with no real world notability and nothing but plot summary. Episode already has a summary on the List of Blackadder episodes and the plot "summary" given in the article is not suitable for merging. Collectonian (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: WP:FICT does not apply -- this is a real episode of demonstratable existance, not a fictive object. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  It is an episode of a fictional sitcom. Yes, FICT does apply. Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Not all episodes of every TV series rate an article, but I feel this one does. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment What makes Blackadder episodes special next to episodes of any other television series? I see lots of reasons according to policy and guidelines as to why this article should not exist, but no policy or guideline based reason as to why it should be kept. So far, all of the keep comments have been to either disparadge the nominator or are the equivelent of WP:ILIKEIT. And policy based arguements always trumps WP:ILIKEIT. But there has been no proof presented as to how this episode, or any other Blackadder episode article, passes any of the notability criteria. Notability requires objective evidence, but so far, no such evidence has been presented. --Farix (Talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  "Cunning: The Blackadder Programme Guide By Chris Howarth, Steve Lyons" ISBN 0753504472

  "Blackadder: The Whole Damn Dynasty, 1485-1917 By Richard Curtis, Rowan Atkinson, Ben Elton" ISBN 0140296085 Callmederek (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki info and Delete as presently given - notability requires "significant coverage" and the factoid about the episode being given away with tea is not "significant". That said, I would think that there is some better source for real world notability about the episode's development through commentary or the like (the set's on DVD, though I can't recall if it has such); if such can be found, reinstate article with it. --MASEM 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Might consider deletion upon the 5th or 6th nomination, should it get that far. R. Baley (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to add: If people are concerned about their content being deleted, they need to comment at AfD's, but then go to the applicable policy (-cies) which are used to promote the deletion of their articles. In this case, at least comment (per the nom text) at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I do have to say that most of the people voting keep would probably not be voting keep if I wasn't the nominator or if this wasn't Blackadder/a British television show. If this were about an episode of Friends given away with a pack of hot dogs, and a congressman referenced it in something to do with obesity, I doubt many would be voting keep. TTN (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You might like to read the following - Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Catchpole (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and whack TTN with multiple trouts for being so disruptive. Tim! (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Here is a very good example of my last comment. This user both hates me, and has a very strong bias towards British television shows. I doubt he would even consider commenting on my silly example up above. TTN (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  You are "disruptive" for nominating the same article twice within two months.--UpDown (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  I am not sure why TTN is trying to inflame this with talk of "hate", maybe an octopus is needed as a the trout is not working? Tim! (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  One month is an ample amount of time to improve an article. Seeing as there was absolutely no push to even edit the article (two edits since the close of the last nomination by an anon), I fail to see how it is disruptive. TTN (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  There is no deadline etc etc. Tim! (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  It is also fine "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." TTN (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Getting rid of it, or even redirecting it, makes it harder, if not impossible for anyone to edit it to improve it. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Seeing as it's going to take a push from an experienced editor to establish notability, I'm pretty sure they'll be able to handle it if they find actual sources. TTN (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons given by Richard Arthur Norton and Tim! Callmederek (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (or merge into an episode list) - no proper evidence of real-world notability. I don't always agree with TTN, but it seems to me he's entirely right on this one. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article contains no significant Notability arguments. I note that the only edits since the close of the previous AfD were to add more tags and templates, and a partial transcript. That's hardly the sort of improvement that should help an article. I note that a large number of the arguments here constitute 'I like it' or 'i don't like TTN' reasons. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)